Climate and Energy: The Case for Realism – The Climate Realism Show #105

On episode 105 of The Climate Realism Show, we talk to E. Calvin Beisner, co-editor (along with David Legates) of the new book “Climate and Energy: The Case For Realism.” The book combines outstanding climate science, physics, economics, environmental science, political science, ethics, and theology to present a well-reasoned understanding of human-induced climate change and how to respond to it. The authors of the chapters in this book, all experts in their respective fields, conclude for a wide range of issues related to climate and energy, that “attempted cures for climate change are generally worse than the disease—especially for the poor.”

Beisner will join host Jim Lakely, and The Heartland Institute’s usual climate crew of H. Sterling Burnett and Linnea Lueken, to talk about this book and also the Crazy Climate News of the Week. Join us LIVE at 1 p.m. ET (12 p.m. CT) for the kind of climate realism you can’t find anywhere else, and join the chat to get your questions answered, too.

Get the book and more information on the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation here:

https://cornwallalliance.org/

Episode Transcript

Joe Biden (00:04):
And that's what climate change is about. It is
literally not figuratively aclear and present danger.

Greta Thunberg (00:10):
We are in the beginning of a mass extinction.

Jim Lakely (00:13):
The ability of c 02 to do the heavy work of creating
a climate catastrophe is almostnil at this point.

H. Sterling Burnett (00:20):
The price of oil has been artificially
elevated to the point ofinsanity. That's not how you
power a modern industrialsystem.

Andy Singer (00:28):
The ultimate goal of this renewable energy, you
know, plan is to reach the exactsame point that we're at now.

H. Sterling Burnett (00:36):
You know who's trying that? Germany. 7
straight days of no wind forGermany. Their factories are
shutting down.

Linnea Lueken (00:44):
They really do act like weather didn't happen
prior to, like, 1910. Today isFriday.

Jim Lakely (00:55):
That's right, Greta. It is Friday, and welcome to the
Climate Realism Show number 105by the Heartland Institute. This
is your weekly hour long dose ofcounterprogramming to the
climate alarmism that justdominates our media and our
culture. My name is Jim Lakeley.I'm the vice president of the
Heartland Institute, and I amyour host today, our usual host.

(01:16):
Anthony Watts is on assignmentthis week. He's checking out the
official temperature stations ofthe United States and exposing
how they are set up tointentionally give false
readings that are hotter thanreality. And I'm sure that
Anthony will have much to reporton that trip on this show next
week. With us today is our usualcrew, minus Anthony, of course,

(01:37):
h Stirling Burnett. He's thedirector of the Arthur b
Robinson Center on Climate andEnvironmental Policy at the
Heartland Institute.
And as always, Linnea Lukin, aresearch fellow for climate and
energy policy at Heartland. Andalso with us today is a very
special guest, doctor e CalvinBeisner. He's the president,
founder, and national spokesmanfor the Cornwall Alliance For

(01:58):
the Stewardship of Creation. Calis a longtime friend of everyone
here at Heartland. He's afrequent speaker at Heartland's
international conferences onclimate change, and he is also
the co editor of an importantnew book that we'll discuss
today titled Climate and Energy,the case for realism.
Welcome to the show, everybody.

Cal Beisner (02:18):
Appreciate it.

Jim Lakely (02:20):
Alright. Well, before we get started, let me
ask everyone watching andlistening if they could help us
out. Please hit that likebutton, share this show on
social media, and hit thatsubscribe button if you have not
subscribed to Heartland'schannels yet. That is vital to
make sure that this program andthe topics we cover break
through the algorithms that areset up to suppress content just

(02:41):
like this. And if you'relistening to this as a podcast
only, please leave us a 5 starreview wherever you're listening
to it.
And, also, leave some commentsin that review that really helps
this show stand out in a verycrowded podcast world. So now
without further ado, I'd like usto get into one of the most fun
features of the Climate RealismShow, and that is the climate

(03:04):
the crazy climate news of theweek. These are stories that
Heartland folks have come acrossand shared, internally on our
Slack channels because, well,they are crazy. And believe me,
we could fill the entire hour ofthis show with nothing but the
crazy crazy climate news, but,we do have other topics to
cover. So, let's get rolling.

(03:25):
Our first item is a story from,NBC News in the Bay Area. And it
says cloud brightening. 1st inthe nation tech, or 1st in
nation tech, aims to cool ourwarming planet. That sounds like
nothing could go wrong there.Scientists are apparently
testing a controversial idea inthe Bay Area for cooling our

(03:47):
warming planet.
In Alameda in Alameda,California, the group is using
the 1st technology in thecountry to test ways to brighten
clouds in an effort to cool theglobe, and the project's being
held on the USS Hornet.Terrific. The Navy's involved.
Philadelphia Experiment, anyone?Alright.
Jessica Mergerado, who is one ofthe scientists from the

(04:09):
University of Washington'sMarine Cloud Brightening Project
in the Bay Area, said Alamedaprovides the perfect cloud
conditions over the Bay, and thegoal is to mimic the effects of
pollution in a cleaner way byusing saltwater to brighten
clouds, which scientists hopewill then

Cal Beisner (04:26):
Oh, boy.

Jim Lakely (04:26):
Pull sunlight back into space to help, cool the
Earth. Guys, I know that every,every cloud has a silver lining,
but this might be taking it alittle too literally. Yeah?

Cal Beisner (04:36):
Well, granted the ship's name, you can't you can't
expect any kind of a a stingassociated with this, can you?

H. Sterling Burnett (04:48):
You know, I I I remember the you know, I
remember a time not that longago when environmentalists
constantly said we shouldn't bemessing with nature. We should
not, you know, admit let naturetake its course. Blah blah blah.
And yet here, we are activelyintervening in nature to bring

(05:09):
about what? Cooling, by the way,which has been shown, which is
known throughout history tocause more death and destruction
and crop failures and all sortsof other bad things, but we want
it cool.
And so what we're gonna do iswe're gonna shoot pollution up
into the air. Now they say, oh,well, it's not the kind of
pollution we used to do,factories do. I guess it's

(05:32):
different if you're doing itfrom a navy vessel. It's
saltwater. Well, you know, doesdo does saltwater not carry
pollutants that we regulate?
I suspect it does. I suspectthat you got microplastics being
shot up into the atmospherebecause they're in the ocean,
you know, maybe mercury.

Jim Lakely (05:56):
This

H. Sterling Burnett (05:58):
is just another idiotic attempt to, for
the government to spend moremoney to claim their controlling
the climate. And I I suspect notonly that that it will fail, but
if it doesn't fail and andfailure actually would be the
best option here, because ifthey succeed, the world would

(06:21):
become a darker, place, a placewhere crops are less likely to
grow, the world will get colder,and maybe that would ring in the
next ice age. I don't know.

Cal Beisner (06:34):
You know, you hate to treat something like this
with the kind of respect thatwould stand behind an actual
substantive critique because,really, it's just so silly. But
if you think about the the scaleof this, we're shooting
saltwater up into the air fromone ship on one location of

(06:56):
oceans that constitute 70% ofthe Earth's surface,

H. Sterling Burnett (07:00):
and

Cal Beisner (07:01):
we think that this is going to contribute any
significant effect to globalaverage temperature. I can
imagine that a little cloudseeding or cloud brightening
might make a little tiny bit ofdifference in one little
geographic spot. But the ideathat it's gonna affect the world
as a whole is pretty absurd,unless, of course, we're going

(07:24):
to change the Bidenadministration policy and decide
that we're gonna go for, say, a20,000 ship navy and do this all
over the the oceans of theentire world, then maybe we
could make a difference. I'm notsure how that would affect the
budget.

Jim Lakely (07:42):
Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I mean, one of the things I
think about is, you know, theirony is that a lot of these
climate models that have beenpredicting climate catastrophe
for the last 30 years and havenot really ever been accurate,
One of their weaknesses is thatthey do not take into effect
because it can't predict theeffect of clouds and how what
cloud cover will be and

Cal Beisner (07:59):
and all

H. Sterling Burnett (08:00):
of that.

Jim Lakely (08:00):
And but now we're going to be fooling with mother
nature. Wasn't there a a aslogan for a was it for parquet
in the 19 seventies? Don't foolwith mother nature. And here we
are thinking that we canactually control the weather
like it's like, we're some kindof, I guess, benevolent James
Bond villain or something thatwe can affect the weather.
Linnea, this seems, this wouldaffect your generation the most.

(08:23):
Right? Because we're gonna ruinthe planet this way, so you
should probably weigh in.

Linnea Lueken (08:27):
Well, I'm I'm happy, that Calvin brought up
that this is a very, like,limited experiment, and it
really probably can't I don'tknow how much it's going to
prove, and it has the sameissues. Like, these these kinds
of ideas all have the same kindof issues that I have with the,
like, chemtrails theory stuff.And that is that the atmosphere

(08:50):
is so colossal with such highenergy content. And and it's it
really is difficult to describejust how much, you know, like,
air volume our atmosphere has,that in order to change it, you
would have to put so much ofthis junk into the air that I
mean, who knows what the whatthe side effects would be of

(09:13):
something like this. And thenI'm not gonna say that I think
that all scientists who are intogeoengineering are, like, you
know up to no good or something.
But this stuff just throws gason the flames of conspiracies
and or conspiracy theories thatare not particularly well
founded, and it's it's just it'svery annoying.

H. Sterling Burnett (09:35):
Before we before we leave this, let me say
2 more things. So there was agreat comment over, from one of
our listeners aboutdesalination. I'm hearing
stories in Hawaii and Mexicothat there's not enough water.
The world was 70 percent ocean.We know how to desalinate.
In fact, in Israel and SouthAfrica, they have big

(09:56):
desalination plants to make surethey have enough fresh water
because not everyone has hugeaquifers. So maybe a better use
of the navies. I mean, I'm notsure it's the role of navy, but
maybe a better use use of thegovernment's, funding for
saltwater stuff is to get bigdesalination plants going so we
don't run out of water everyyear in California, and they

(10:20):
have to ration water. The otherthing, what really, you know, I
don't know if it disturbs mebecause I just think it's so
unrealistic, but let's say theyreally did start ejecting the
saltwater into the atmosphere ona massive, massive scale. Does
anybody else have concerns thatwhen it falls back to the earth,

(10:40):
you know, if the salt falls backto the earth, it will it will
make vast portions of the earth,you know, bad for plants?
I don't know. But salty groundhas not been known historically
as a great place to grow cropsor trees or anything else.

Linnea Lueken (10:57):
I don't think sorry, Sterling. I'd only push
back on that a little bitbecause of the sheer volume that
it would take. I mean, we'retalking I can't even begin to
estimate what kind of what kindof amount of salt it would take
to, like, salt the earthwherever they're doing this. I
mean, that would beunbelievable. I don't think I

(11:19):
mean, that's like dropping anuke on the ocean in every
corner of the globe kind ofstuff.
I don't

Cal Beisner (11:25):
Yeah. Yeah.

Jim Lakely (11:27):
Well, I was just you know, when when you start
talking about salt and, youknow, you know, they say raise
the raise the building and saltthe earth so nothing goes there
again, you know, in a biblicalsense. So, you know, we
shouldn't really be messing withthis sort of stuff. Alright.
Let's move on to the next onehere, which is also pretty funny
and crazy headline from, FoxNews. US Senate candidate goes
viral for blaming New Yorkearthquake on climate change and

(11:51):
then deletes the post.
Green Party member of the USSenate, candidate, and she has
no, chance of being elected.Although, you know, she wouldn't
in her stupidity, she would notbe, alone in the United States
Senate, unfortunately. NewJersey's Christina Amira Khalil
went viral after posting atheory to social media that the
earthquake that rocked New Yorkand New Jersey on Friday, a week

(12:13):
ago, was caused by climatechange. Prominent social media
users mocked the post, whichalso received an x community
note, fact check, providing thereal reason for the event, which
I think might have something todo with tectonic plates, but I'm
not a geologist, so what do Iknow? Khalil took so much
criticism for the post that sheended up deleting it and

(12:34):
switching her account toprotected mode so that the
public couldn't view her postany longer.
I think that's probably a publicservice. So following that 4.8
magnitude earthquake that wasfelt by New York, New Jersey,
and other north northeast UnitedStates, Khalil posted on x,
quote, I experienced my firstearthquake in New Jersey. We
never get earthquakes. Theclimate crisis is real. The

(12:55):
weirdest experience ever.
Well, I'll give her points forsaying that was the weirdest
experience ever. And by that, Imean reading that tweet.

Cal Beisner (13:05):
Cal, why don't why don't

Jim Lakely (13:06):
you start off here weighing in on this nonsense?

Cal Beisner (13:08):
You know, it it reminds me of the the senator
who asked a an an an admiralwhen we were planning to move
some marines onto, Guam. Well,admiral, have you figured out
how much the change in weight onthe island, will affect it? Is,
you know, is there a risk of theisland capsizing?

Sheila Jackson Lee (13:32):
I mean

Jim Lakely (13:33):
That's right. Yeah. That was that was, Hank Johnson.
That was Hank Johnson.

Cal Beisner (13:36):
Yeah. This is probably, an illustration of why
Bill Buckley said he'd be gladto be, governed by the first 200
people in the Boston phone bookinstead of by elected officials.

H. Sterling Burnett (13:49):
By the elites. Yeah.

Cal Beisner (13:50):
Yeah. The elites. This this kind of idiocy is just
really difficult to to get yourmind around. I mean, what what
happened to basic education? Imean, you would have thought
that this would have been takencare of around about 4th or 5th
grade.

H. Sterling Burnett (14:11):
Well, I'm told, you know, sadly sadly,
this green candidate was not theonly one to link the earthquake
and even the solar eclipse, toclimate change. Sunny Halston, I
under as I understand it, she'sa fairly educated person,
educated, American, you know,university education. Now I

(14:37):
think she's a lawyer bytraining. She was on The View.
She's on a a cohost of The View.
They chose her to cohost TheView. She's she was chosen for
this. And, she says she goes, ohmy gosh. The eclipse, the
earthquakes, locusts. It makesyou believe in climate change.

(14:58):
And, you know, even even herother cohost said, hold it. Hold
it. Don't be stupid. You'reembarrassed. You know, they
basically said, you'reembarrassing us on the air
because all of these things havenatural causes that we know
about these causes, and and yet,you know, you hear people say

(15:20):
that, and someone's gonna say,oh, she's right.
Oh, that other that politiciansaid it too. It must be true.

Cal Beisner (15:26):
And I never thought of that.

H. Sterling Burnett (15:28):
Yeah. And then you'll get all this stuff
out there, and, it's hard toknow what to say other than some
certain people should not begiven a platform, especially not
on science, and I think we'regonna come to another one.

Jim Lakely (15:45):
Yeah. We are. We we are. I mean, I think when Whoopi
Goldberg is the voice of reason,you're in bad faith. That's all
I gotta say about that.

H. Sterling Burnett (15:53):
That's right. That's right.

Jim Lakely (15:54):
So yeah. I mean and so speaking of, morons in
positions of power and influencein our culture and government,
and speaking of somebody who,Sterling Burnett has good
education credentials, thiswoman, got a bachelor's degree
from Yale University. She got a,believe her legal her law degree

(16:17):
from the University of Virginia.And, she gave a speech inspiring
the youth, in a high school inher district in Houston, Texas

H. Sterling Burnett (16:27):
Yeah.

Jim Lakely (16:27):
As they gathered to watch the eclipse. And so she
thought she would take thisopportunity to explain to the
children what was about tohappen and how it was going to
be so momentous. And, actually,she also shared some very unique
views about the composition ofthe moon itself. Andy, if you
wanna hit that, SJL eclipsevideo.

Sheila Jackson Lee (16:49):
And the sun went in a direction and then the
earth. Now those provide uniquelight and energy so that you
have the energy of the moon atnight, and sometimes you've
heard the word full moon.Sometimes you need to take the
opportunity just to come out andsee a full moon is that complete

(17:10):
rounded circle, which is made upmostly of gases. Oh, jeez. And
that's why the push the questionis why and how could we as
humans live on the moon?
The gas is such that we could dothat. The sun is a mighty
powerful heat. It is almostimpossible to go near the sun.

(17:34):
The moon is not manageable. Whatyou will see today will be the
closest distance that the moonhas ever been in the last 20
years, which means that's whythey will shut the light down
because they will be close tothe earth, which is an amazing
experience and what we aresupposed to experience, and I'm

(17:57):
hoping we can, completedarkness.
That everything will be shutout. Oh, wow. That we don't have
any animals around here to beable to, maybe we'll hear some
dogs barking at what how theyare impacted. But you will be
able to tell because there'll becomplete darkness. This is very
serious.

(18:18):
So what you're here for is tosee the complete darkness. When
I blow the whistle, we're allgoing out on the field. And
doctor Simmons, I didn't go toofar away from the scientific
explanation. Is that correct,hopefully?

H. Sterling Burnett (18:30):
Oh my god. Oh my god.

Sheila Jackson Lee (18:32):
But the real impact I want you to have is how
you are controlled by somethingoutside of your human
experience. That the solarsystem is bigger than us, though
there are, solar systems, andthere are systems that are
smaller than the earth. Still,we're in a solar system, and we

(18:55):
depend on the earth, the moon,and the sun. That is our
existence. That is what creates,the, our our desire for
creativity, our music.
What? Our weather, our rain, oursnow, our cold.

Linnea Lueken (19:14):
It just gets better and better.

Sheila Jackson Lee (19:15):
It's just

H. Sterling Burnett (19:16):
it's painful.

Sheila Jackson Lee (19:18):
And so She is. I was

Jim Lakely (19:19):
gonna say that it's painful.

H. Sterling Burnett (19:21):
She comes from my state.

Sheila Jackson Lee (19:22):
Solar system working in And

H. Sterling Burnett (19:25):
she keeps getting reelected.

Sheila Jackson Lee (19:26):
You are the science anchor of H ISP and the
science

Cal Beisner (19:31):
Where is remedial education when we need it?

Sheila Jackson Lee (19:33):
Some of you are going into engineering. This
is what engineering is, to seehow our systems work.

H. Sterling Burnett (19:39):
Yeah. Please come over and shut her
up.

Sheila Jackson Lee (19:41):
Energy. Highway without energy. Highway
without, the tools needed forthe earth to be warmed, the
earth to be cold, the earth tosurvive, and human beings to
live on the earth. We have yetto know whether you can live on
the moon. But I don't know aboutyou.
I wanna be first in line to knowhow to live and to be able to

(20:01):
survive on the moon. That'sanother planet which you're
gonna see shortly.

H. Sterling Burnett (20:07):
You know? Wow. Yeah.

Sheila Jackson Lee (20:09):
It's hard I love it.

H. Sterling Burnett (20:11):
It is hard to know.

Sheila Jackson Lee (20:15):
Jim, you're muted.

H. Sterling Burnett (20:16):
Jim, you're muted there, buddy.

Jim Lakely (20:18):
Oh, okay. Yeah. I had to mute myself because I'm
coughing, getting over a coldwhile laughing so much. I wasn't
actually going to play theentire thing because we played
the whole thing on the In TheTank show, yesterday on our
stopping socials and TV channel.But she's just on a roll, and
she's going it made me think ofthe remember the gong show?
I I should've had a gong soundeffect. Effect. She should've
been gonged off the stage withthat performance. It is hard to

(20:39):
know.

H. Sterling Burnett (20:40):
It is hard to know. It it

Jim Lakely (20:42):
they I cut out in that video. The admin an
administrator came up and said,you know, we have future
astronauts and engineers righthere in our crowd. And I'm like,
I thought, gosh. I hope not,because they're not being
educated well enough to be anastronaut or, god forbid, an
engineer. I don't wanna go overany of those bridges.
But, you know, yeah, we don'thave an IQ test in, in congress,
but, that's just this is kind ofwhat we're up against. I think

(21:05):
this is important because thisshow is about actual science
education. And we are up againsteven members of Congress who
don't even know the very basicsof 8th grade, earth science in
in and they're and then incharge. In fact, the last I'll
I'll leave it to you guys. Butthe last thing is very important
to note.
Sheila Jackson Lee was once thechairwoman of the subcommittee,

(21:28):
on on space and NASA. She was incharge Oh. Of overseeing the
space program in the UnitedStates.

H. Sterling Burnett (21:37):
The no. No. No. The Democrats may put her in
charge. This this is what theythink the height of science
knowledge is.
She makes AOC look smart.

Cal Beisner (21:48):
Yep. That's kinda difficult to do.

H. Sterling Burnett (21:51):
It is. But she does it. Managed it. But she
does it. And it's hard to knowwhich of the many idiotic claims
she made in that single segmentis the most egregiously foolish.
But I wanna know you know, it'sfunny because she says after

(22:12):
it's over, she says, oh, well,clearly, I was talking about the
sun. Well, hold it. You weretalking about the sun, but you
were talking about, a, youcalled the moon a planet, which
it which it ain't. It's asatellite of the Earth. B, you
said it's made of gas, and it'svery powerful, and it blocks out
the sun as if it's a a a a aconscious entity.

(22:36):
Could you say they do this, theydo that? But you said it's gas,
and I wanted to know what wasNeil Armstrong standing on when
he planted the flag? Because I Ididn't see him sort of floating
above this this amorphous gas.It looked pretty solid to me.

(22:57):
How I know how this woman getselected, because I know the
district.
The people of Houston were smartenough not to nominate her as
the Democrat or Houston mayor.They rejected her, but she's
been in congress for years. Andyou would think she'd have a
single staffer, at least asingle staffer, who would say,

(23:19):
no. You can't say this. Come on.
Let's let's Yeah. Let's reignthis in. She doesn't have a
single staffer that's smartenough to know that the moon is
not a ball, a gas, a planet,that it has no consciousness. So
I didn't just step in front ofthe sun and block that light.

Cal Beisner (23:36):
I'd like to bring a little theological critique into
this too.

Jim Lakely (23:40):
Please.

Cal Beisner (23:41):
I was struck by the extent to which she was willing
to say, look. The sun and themoon, they control our lives.
They control what you think.They control what you what you
want. They control what youcreate and all these things.

H. Sterling Burnett (23:55):
Music. Yeah.

Cal Beisner (23:56):
And I'm and I'm right. Arts and music. And I'm
thinking to myself, you know, inRomans chapter 1 of the new
testament in the bible, forthose of our listeners who
aren't familiar with that,right, the apostle Paul says,
when people stop worshiping thetrue God who created the
universe, they begin worshipingcreated things instead, and they

(24:18):
treat those things as if theywere god. Well, that's exactly
how she's treating the sun andthe moon. We're seeing here, the
the result of the flight fromthe reality that the scripture
gives us of the the, God of allcreated the the the God who

(24:38):
created all things, and we'reseeing exactly what scripture
says happens.
Professing themselves to bewise, the people who do this
become fools.

H. Sterling Burnett (24:51):
Well, you know

Cal Beisner (24:53):
Golly. This is exactly what Paul said happens
when people exchange the gloryof the incorruptible God for
images like men and birds andfour footed things, and for that
matter, sun and moon and planetsand all of this. It's it's
really tragic. And to me, it's areminder that we owe to

(25:17):
Christianity, to the Christianworldview, the development of
real science, which began inonly one place and only one time
in world history, and that wasmedieval Europe, where the
biblical worldview dominated,that gave rise to science not
as, okay, an occasional inspireddiscovery here and there, but a

(25:40):
systematic, disciplined programof investigation using
hypothesis, prediction, andcomparison with real world
observations. But you, Sterling,you just pointed out that the
fact that Neil Armstrong didn'tjust kinda sink down into the
moon when he was standing there,that was a real world

(26:01):
observation.
Right? That's inconsistent withher hypothesis that the moon is
made of gases.

H. Sterling Burnett (26:07):
But maybe it confirms but maybe it
confirms maybe it confirms theconspiracy theory that we never
went to the moon. It was reallya, you know, a movie lab out in
Nevada.

Cal Beisner (26:18):
That's it. You got it.

Jim Lakely (26:20):
Yeah. Well, I wanna I wanna thank, we're gonna move
on to the next story. But PeterWilliams, thank you for the, the
9, £9.99, because you donated tosee if you can send her to the
moon. If you donate £20, we'llput on a rocket and fire her
into the sun.

Sheila Jackson Lee (26:37):
Look. But I don't

Jim Lakely (26:38):
take £20 at least.

Sheila Jackson Lee (26:39):
Don't you do all those?

Linnea Lueken (26:41):
Almost too hot to get near.

H. Sterling Burnett (26:43):
Almost too hot to get near. She'll find
out.

Jim Lakely (26:45):
She'll be the first one to report back on that.
That's great.

H. Sterling Burnett (26:47):
Be setting up a a colony on the sun anytime
soon. Yeah. She was actually soshe got that right. She did. I
just wanted to say, you know,she's she she rambled on.
She was talking about howpowerful they are and how, it
was date. She I think she saidthe word dangerous. She said,
this is, you know, it'sdangerous. And it made me think,
well, you know, at one time,entire people thought things

(27:11):
like this were dangerous. Andwhat they did is they went out
and sacrificed people, to bringthe sun back after, or to thank
the gods for bringing the sunback after an eclipse.
They they thought it was reallymomentous. And she sounds like
she lives in that age still,but, of course, they do. Right?
Because they the the climatealarmist are so fearful of

(27:34):
climate change. They're willingto sacrifice entire generations
and entire peoples in, othercountries and some in our
country to the climate gods.
You know, you must live without.You must starve. You must have
disease because you can't havemodern technology because that's
what's killing us.

Cal Beisner (27:52):
Yep.

Jim Lakely (27:53):
Alright. Well, we'll move on to our next story here.
It's from The Daily Signal. Andas a former journalist, this
actually was very troubling whenI saw this, saw this news this
week. Avoid false balance.
Associated Press style guideaims to silence dissent from
climate alarmist narrative. Nowthe Associated Press style book

(28:14):
is the bible, of the secularbible, Cal, of course. But it's
the secular bible of journalism.It's used in every newsroom, at
least when I was a journalist.It's on it's at the cubicle of
every journalist in America.
It's basically used so that youknow, how to write stories
correctly, you know, what towhat to include. It's it's

(28:35):
morphed over time. Used to justbe basically a a great grammar
guide, but now it has turnedinto a Yep. You know, a an
indoctrination guide as well. Soit says here that most news
outlets rely on the AP styleguide, officially book, as the
arbiter for grammar, spelling,and terminology in news
coverage.
While AP puts forth its styleguide as an impartial rubric for

(28:58):
fair coverage, not anymore somuch, but Impartial. White. Its
rules are displayingconservative views from the
outset, for sure. Take AP'slatest round of updates released
a week ago today. The updatesinclude guidance on how to
avoid, quote, stigmatizing obesepeople, admonitions to avoid
calling people homeless becauseit might be dehumanizing, and

(29:19):
warnings to avoid the termfemale since some people object
to its use as a descriptor forwomen because it can be seen as
emphasizing biology andreproductive capacity over
gender identity.
Oh, science.

H. Sterling Burnett (29:30):
It it could be critiques for following the
science, biology.

Jim Lakely (29:35):
Yes. Yes. And so we'll just skip down a little
bit here. Yeah. One of thelargest sections of the updated
style guide and by involvesclimate change.
A term that the Associated Presssays, quote, can be used
interchangeably with the termclimate crisis. Quote, climate
change resulting in the climatecrisis is largely caused by
human activities that emitcarbon dioxide, methane, and

(29:56):
other greenhouse gases into theatmosphere. According to the
vast majority of peer reviewedstudies, science organizations
and climate scientists, the APstyle goat in guide in tones.
This happens from the burning ofcoal, oil, and natural gas, and
other activities. Greenhousegases are the major the main
driver of climate change.

(30:18):
And, the AP insists that this isall true and that when, quote,
telling the climate story, thestyle guide urges journalists
to, quote, avoid false balanceby giving a platform to
unfounded claims or unqualifiedsources in the guise of
balancing a story by includingall views. For example, coverage
of a study describing effects ofclimate change need not seek

(30:41):
other side com comment thathumans have no influence on the
climate. That's about as much asI can take reading on this.
Sterling, you've been injournalism as well. You know
very well the the climate guide.
This is to my mind when I readthis, this is basically just
putting into the journalismbible what we've all experienced

(31:03):
actually as climate skeptics whopresent our views to the media,
what what we've seen beenhappening over the last several
years?

H. Sterling Burnett (31:10):
I think no one should be surprised by this
because the AP has become abought and paid for shield for
the climate, crisis community.Right? They admit it. They they
held they held a publicannouncement. They put out press
releases just a few years agowhen 6 foundations were giving
them 1,000,000 of dollarsspecifically to talk about

(31:31):
climate change, to hire newpeople in foreign countries to
up their climate coverage.
So, look, you know, Al Gore wassort of right. It's hard to, to
find inconvenient climatecoverage when you're being paid
to find climate crisis, andthat's what they're being paid
to do, and they're doing it. Andso they they haven't been able

(31:53):
they still haven't convincedeverybody that it's a crisis.
And so, like you say, they putout their their journalistic
bible to say, look, we stillhaven't succeeded in
brainwashing and indoctrinatingeveryone. Here's how we go about
doing it.
You you just don't allow anydissenting points of view.

Cal Beisner (32:15):
You know, I would suggest that the APU, style
guide editors need to consultthe UN intergovernmental panel
on climate change. Might behelpful if they were to read the
entire working group one reportof of, the 6th assessment. I
believe that was 3,999 pages. Ithink that was the, page count.

(32:36):
But here is what, Steven Coonan,who was undersecretary for
science in the Department ofEnergy under the Obama
administration, says about thisvery issue.
He says, you don't find thewords existential threat,
climate catastrophe, climatedisaster at all in the 6th

(32:57):
assessment report, you find thewords climate crisis exactly
once, and that's not ascientific finding, but it is in
reference to the way in which,drumroll here, the media have
amped up their coverage. Woah. Imean, it's it's as if he was

(33:18):
prophesying. He actually saidthat 2 years ago in a, lecture
for the Global Learning PolicyFoundation. He was prophesying
what the AP style guide wasabout to do.

Jim Lakely (33:29):
Yeah. Yeah. Very good. So, Lynnea, do you have
anything, to add to this,discussion for you?

Linnea Lueken (33:36):
Not just to this discussion, but also our good
friend Peter has given usanother 20, what is this
currency again? Pounds. Pounds.And, so, yes, now we are
financially obligated to sendour representative to the, to
the sun this time. So

H. Sterling Burnett (33:55):
Let's contact let's contact, Elon and
see if we can get one of thoserockets.

Linnea Lueken (34:00):
Yep. I don't know if he'd give us one, but we
could try. So thank you verymuch for that. And, in regards
to this, it's look. LikeSterling said, we cover it all
the time over at,climaterealism.com.
We've known forever that the APalong with many other, including
the Washington Postorganizations in the media are,

(34:22):
you know, actively paid to coverclimate change, not just in
general, but in a certain way.So it's really no surprise at
all.

Jim Lakely (34:33):
Yep. I there's just one more, is crazy climate, news
of the week that I wanted tograb, this week. There's
actually 2 more on my list, butwe're we wanna get to, talking
about Cal's new book, but thatis, this one. Oh, I'm sorry. The
other one after that one, Andy.
UN climate chief presses forfaster action and says humans

(34:56):
have 2 years left to save theworld. Now I know a lot of our
viewers are trying, like me, tokeep track of how much time we
have left to save the world. Imean, over the last 40 years,
it's been 10 years, 5 years, 20years, 10 years. I believe AOC
said 12 years, and that mighthave been 2 years ago, so that
would make 10 years now. But nowthe United the United Nations,

(35:17):
climate chief says we have 2years left to save the world.
And so that must be why, thatmust be why the AP has put this
in their style book because ifthey don't help out in saving
the world in the next 2 years,then we're all doomed.

Cal Beisner (35:32):
But you have to act now because the sale ends
Saturday.

Sheila Jackson Lee (35:35):
You know? So I

Cal Beisner (35:38):
mean, this is not science. This is showmanship.
This is propaganda. You know,gee whiz. What's gonna happen
when 2 years go by and wehaven't yet saved the world?

H. Sterling Burnett (35:51):
Well, they'll because because it's a
doomsday call. You know, they'lljust commit suicide. And, no,
what they'll do is they'll startover and, and predict another 2
years. We got the math wrong.Well, God you know, he whispered
in our ear, and he said, youweren't listening the first
time.

Cal Beisner (36:08):
This is pretty simple math. If they get that
wrong, how do you trust them onthe climate models that are
using extremely complex math?

H. Sterling Burnett (36:16):
Well, you know, I was sitting in my house
this week when they said, andlast week, when they said there
were 2 days, there was a a 99%chance of rain, 95% chance of
rain, and we got no rain thosedays. That was a day in advance
they were predicting it, butthey can think it could they
predict a 100 years from nowwhat it's gonna look like when
they can't even get a day inadvance right, probably Yeah.

(36:40):
40% of the time. It's it's crazythat people like this once
again, she he's another guy ofimportance who has a platform,
and he will be shown to befoolish, and no one will call
him on it, but but people likeus a couple of years from now.
It's it's it's disgraceful.

(37:04):
These are the people we we havein power.

Jim Lakely (37:07):
Before we get to the rest of this podcast, I I wanted
to let you know about 2fantastic live podcasts
Heartland produces every week.We'd love for you to join us
every Thursday at 1 PM EST, noonCST, live for our flagship in
the tank podcast. You can watchon the stopping socialism TV
channel on YouTube where you canparticipate in the show in the

(37:28):
chat with other fans and alsoask questions that we'll address
on the air and put up on thescreen. And every Friday, also
at 1 PM EST and noon CST, youcan go to Heartland's main
YouTube channel. Just search forthe Heartland Institute on
YouTube for the new ClimateRealism Show.
Heartland's climate team ofAnthony Watts, Sterling Burnett,
and Linnea Lukin cover the crazyclimate news of the week, debunk

(37:50):
mainstream media myths about theso called climate crisis, dig
into energy policy, and muchmore. The show often features
guests that include some of theleading climate scientists and
energy policy experts anywherein the world. There is no show
like it, so become regular liveviewers of both of these
programs if you are interestedin smart, lively, fun, and

(38:11):
interactive conversations.
We hope to see
you there every Thursday Friday afternoons at 1
PM Eastern and Noon Central atthe stopping socialism TV and
the Heartland Institute channelson YouTube. Oh, yeah. We're also
on Rumble. See you there.
Well, you know, this is a, so we only have 2 years.
The the the upshot on this,everyone, is that now you only

(38:33):
have we know we only have 2years left to get a copy of Cal
Bysner's new book, Climate andEnergy, the Case for Realism. I
hear a rumor. If you put in thepromo code Greta, you will get
25% off, but, that isunconfirmed rumor. We'll have to
see.
But, Cal, this this book, is acompilation. I believe you you

(38:55):
and, another friend of thispodcast and of the Heartland
Institute, doctor David LeGates,compiled this book. I wonder if
you can kinda set up for us, thereason that you and, David got
together, to put this booktogether.

Cal Beisner (39:11):
Yeah. Well, the aim was, really, I think,
communicated well in the titleof the book itself, Climate and
Energy, the Case for Realism.You know, it seems like almost
everything that you see in themedia is either climate
alarmism, you know, humaninduced global warming is not
only real, but it'scatastrophic. It's bringing on

(39:32):
the 6th greatest extinction.It's an existential threat, all
of that kind of thing.
Or you see and when you see thisin the media, basically, you see
it as, you know, ridiculed,Denialism. The whole thing is a
hoax. There's no global globalwarming. There's no climate

(39:52):
change. If there were, humanactivity wouldn't contribute to
it at all and so on.
And they're really the onlypeople who believe in this stuff
are commies and and people whoare pursuing one world
government. Well, you know,there are commies on both sides
of the issue. There are peoplepursuing one world government on
both sides of the issue. Thereare there are democrats and

(40:13):
republicans on both sides of theissue. And so we we don't really
wanna just root everything inpolitics.
What we thought what we soughtto do with this book, Climate
and Energy, the Case forRealism, is to bring together
the work of 9 different climatescientists, including some of
the world's top, people like RoySpencer and and David Leggate,

(40:37):
frankly, as as well as, JohnChristie and Patrick Michaels
who sadly died just about amonth after he finished writing
his chapter for us, comparingclimate models with the actual
observations in the real world.Plus economists, environmental
economists, developmentaleconomists, looking at the

(40:59):
impact of climate policy, notjust on climate, but also on
human well-being, as we switchfrom the abundant, affordable,
reliable, scalable energy thatwe get from fossil fuels to the,
diffuse expensive, unreliable,non scalable energy that you get

(41:20):
from wind and solar, whathappens? Well, you know, for
instance, you have a 29%increase in, gasoline prices in
the US over the last 4 years.That's rather steep inflation
there. You you have, biggerincrease in electricity prices.
And that hurts people and, assomeone who, who has spent a lot

(41:45):
of his life writing on aChristian approach to economics,
and is particularly concernedabout the impact of any policy
on the poor around the world,That concerns me. So our aim was
to provide good, solid,empirical evidence for the
position that I think is verysimilar to Hartland's position

(42:06):
that, yeah, human inducedclimate change is real. It's not
catastrophic. Probably the thethe, effects of it are going to
be more beneficial than harmful,and adaptation is a whole lot
smarter than mitigation. Thatis, it makes a whole lot better
sense for us just simply toadapt to whatever happens in the

(42:30):
climate than to try to controlthe global climate.
And we simply don't have goodreasons to be fearful about all
of this. You know, sometimesI'll be asked, you know, why are
people so fearful about sealevel rise? Well, I used to live
in South Florida. I was 8 feetabove sea level, 15 miles from

(42:50):
the beach, and I thought, oh,this is great. I'll have
beachfront property and theprice of my house will go way up
high.
Right? And then I took theIPCC's figures on the rate of
sea level rise and I appliedthem to my situation, I
discovered, yeah, I'd havebeachfront property in about 36
100 years. Well, too bad for myportfolio. But, why are people

(43:14):
so scared of sea level rise? Ifinally figured it out.
They didn't grow up in Holland.They didn't grow up in the
Netherlands, 60% of which,roughly, is below sea level and
has been for 100 of years. Andthe Dutch have known how to
handle that with dykes andseawalls. And, hey, at at an an

(43:35):
average rate of 1 and a halfmillimeters per year or 7 or
thereabouts inches per century,Any place else in the rest of
the world can handle sea levelrise. And we can handle whatever
temperatures come.
Hey. We can thrive in everyclimate from the Arctic Circle
to the Sahara Desert to theBrazilian rainforest if we have

(43:58):
adequate income, adequatewealth. If you don't, and that's
gonna be the result of the kindsof policies that are being
promoted to fight climatechange, well, then you can't
thrive in the best tropicalparadise.

Jim Lakely (44:16):
Yes. Yes, very good, Sterling. I know that you've
looked at this book and youactually it was your suggestion
that we have Cal on and it was agreat one. Why don't you ask
some questions?

H. Sterling Burnett (44:26):
Well, you know, the first I want to go
back to something, Cal saidearlier. It never struck me
until you spoke, Cal. It neverstruck me just how much the
disaster, claims, the 2 years,the 10 years, the 12 years, just
sounds like a sales pitch on TV.Get it now before it's too late

(44:47):
because I

Jim Lakely (44:47):
get these I

H. Sterling Burnett (44:48):
get these things all you you said you say,
mattress mattress store, who ourfirst our best sale ever, except
they run the same ad every weekfor 20 years. Yep. If you don't
if you don't get it now, youwon't get it. No. We know that
you're you can get it anytimeyou want.
It's not a sale. And in the end,just like those false

(45:12):
advertising for this, neverhappened ever before, get it
now. Buy in now. That's whatthis is. It's Yeah.
Because when they're wrong,you'll have it again the next
week. You'll have it so, anyway,I I never realized just how
close it did to mimic those adsuntil you you did that, and it's
like,

Cal Beisner (45:32):
wow. You know, The New York Times The New York
Times has been covering thisstuff a whole lot, of course,
and they're totally on boardwith the climate catastrophes
narrative. And the reliabilityof what they're saying about
that is, I think, every bitequal with the reliability of
the email that I get from theNew York Times to my account,

(45:56):
oh, about 3 or 4 times a week,telling me that I better act now
because this $1 a week specialprice ends tomorrow.

H. Sterling Burnett (46:08):
Yeah. I've been getting those

Cal Beisner (46:10):
emails for about the last 6 months.

H. Sterling Burnett (46:12):
You know, if this were true, I I should
probably also believe thatNigerian prince keeps riding me,
trying me to to help him getmoney out of the country to an
account.

Cal Beisner (46:22):
He wrote YouTube? Yeah.

H. Sterling Burnett (46:24):
He does. He's desperate. See, he's
writing me. Believe me. So, Cal,to your book, you know, you you
describe what you do in thebook, but there are some good
books out there.
Climate realists like yourselfand our and and us at Harlan, we
do sometimes have a hard time,almost an impossible time,

(46:47):
getting in peer reviewedjournals, But we've gotten some
good books published. Now,you've got a good book out, and
the question is, what niche doesyour book fill that you thought
other books, you know what whatdid you cover that you thought
other books weren't covering?

Cal Beisner (47:03):
Great question. First off, I just point out that
this book has been, it opened asa number one bestseller in both
energy policy and environmentalpolicy on Amazon, And it has
stayed way up high like that inthe almost a month now since it
came off the press on March 19,or rather was released on March

(47:24):
19. And so even if we justsimply look at that, where are
people most interested in this?Well, the people who are
interested in environmentalpolicy and in energy policy. And
the fact that it rose so rapidlyto number 1 and number 2 in
those two categories indicatesthat, there was a lot of

(47:44):
interest that wasn't yet beingserved well, in that in that
range.
Part of what we were also tryingto do was to put together
something that would,simultaneously be accessible to
non experts, to layman, topeople who don't have, you know,

(48:05):
MS or PhD in any of thesciences, but who are really
interested. And that's why everysingle chapter in this book
starts off with a 1 page chaptersummary that is written
especially for laypeople, fornonexperts. And then the rest of
the chapter written by an expertin the field, climate scientist,

(48:27):
economist, energy engineer,energy, management specialist,
whatever, Every one of thesechapters, we told our authors,
look. You have to write in a waythat is understandable for lay
readers. So I think what's oftenhappened is that many of the

(48:48):
books from the realistperspective have either been
highly technical on the one sideand therefore don't really,
communicate too well to laypeople or entirely popularly
written on the other side andtherefore aren't taken seriously
by the technical experts.

(49:09):
This book combines the twomethods. It avoids the extremely
technical language that wouldjust make the lay readers' eyes
gloss over, but it has the goodsolid, empirical evidence that
the technical experts want. So Ithink we've done a good job of,

(49:29):
of addressing the 2 differentkinds of audience and really
inviting the laypeople throughthe chapter summaries to get a
good grasp of the overallconclusions of the of the
chapter and then move on andlearn more so that then they are
comfortable with the moretechnical discussion that

(49:50):
sometimes happens in publicforums.

H. Sterling Burnett (49:54):
Well, I personally do think

Jim Lakely (49:55):
you read the needle quite well.

H. Sterling Burnett (49:58):
But, let me ask you so let me ask you this
about the details the book. Justa couple of chapters, I I think
are none of them are notimportant, but some of them are
really of interest to me. Andthat is, the chapter by David
about why you don't learn aboutclimate realism from science
journals or the mainstreammedia, and the chapter from the

(50:20):
late Pat Michaels comparingclimate models to the scientific
method.

Cal Beisner (50:25):
Yeah. Yeah. Well, David's chapter, on the history
of climate change, really driveshome one basic simple point.
It's not about the science, andit never has been. What he does
is he he rehearses the wholehistory of the controversy over

(50:47):
human induced climate changestarting back when the fear was
of global cooling rather thanglobal warming.
And he shows over and overagain, in one case after
another, ultimately, it wasn'tscience that determined the
direction of public discourseand particularly of academic
discourse and politicaldiscourse. It was always

(51:10):
politics. It was always thedesire to push a particular sort
of policy. And you know, backwhen the fear was global
cooling, the solution wasalways, well, we need to stop
using fossil fuels because byemitting, sulfur dioxide and
other things into theatmosphere, They're they're

(51:33):
reflecting sunlight back intospace so they're cooling the
globe. We have to stop usingfossil fuels to prevent global
cooling.
But we know that people aren'tgonna be willing to do that
voluntarily so you have to giveup control to us experts and you
have to, give over decisionmaking to global bodies instead

(51:54):
of national bodies. And so thepush is toward socialism and
globalism, replacing capitalismand nationalism and the benefit
of having, you know, a nation bto which you can migrate if your
own nation is ruled by tyrants.You know? And then we get global

(52:16):
global warming, and the solutionturns out to be exactly the
same. You have to stop usingfossil fuels, and you have to
give up your freedom and put usin control and put the control
at the global level instead ofthe national level.
If anything indicates that it'snot science, it's politics that
drives this stuff, that does. SoDavid does a wonderful job of of

(52:37):
rehearsing all of that history.Pat Michaels, god bless him. God
rest his soul. Wonderful man.
His chapter just does a greatjob of explaining why the
climate models that are dominantin the field miss the mark so
badly. I mean, we're we'retalking out of a 120 plus

(53:00):
climate models used by the UNIPCC and US Global Change
Research Program and so on, outof a 120 of those, the average,
simulate 2 to 4 times as muchwarming as actually observed
over a relevant period. Only 2of them, both of them coming out

(53:22):
of Russia, are even close to thereal world observations. And now
if you were really doing goodscience, you would say to
yourself, These two models seemto be really accurate. They they
match up well with real worldobservations.
We should focus on theirpredictions. But, of course,

(53:45):
they predict very, very, verylittle warming from added c 02
and methane and nitrous oxide inthe atmosphere, whereas all the
others predict lots of warming.So if you wanna scare people so
that you get them to embraceyour policies, well, you ignore
those 2 Russian models that arereasonably accurate, and you

(54:07):
focus on the others that arescary. That's the kind of thing
that is, really just, destroyingthe reputation of science. So,
you know, follow the science hasnever been good advice, never
truly scientific.
Mhmm. But sadly, the failure ofscientists to police themselves

(54:29):
on this issue is undermining thepublic's trust in science. And
that's one of the, I think, oneof the most dangerous results of
this whole thing because we needgood science. Good science has
brought us all kinds ofmarvelous discoveries and
technologies. And as people lessand less trust science, they're

(54:53):
going to turn away from the goodthat it can do.
So, unfortunately, those of uswho question catastrophic global
warming are accused of beingscience deniers.

H. Sterling Burnett (55:05):
Well, clearly, Khal.

Cal Beisner (55:07):
Exactly the opposite.

H. Sterling Burnett (55:08):
Clearly, Cal, the problem with the
Russian models is that they'renot sophisticated enough to
correspond with the consensus,so we've gotta throw them out.

Cal Beisner (55:18):
Right. Because

H. Sterling Burnett (55:18):
They they may reflect reality, but they
don't correspond to the to theothers that are the ones we're
supposed to believe.

Cal Beisner (55:25):
Yeah. Now Aristotle, of course, defined,
popular vote or or any vote atall as a logical fallacy, you
you know, appeal to to, thepopulace, argumentum et populum.
He defined that as fallacy along, long time ago. And, Hey.
You know what?

(55:45):
I used to teach logic at thegraduate level in seminary, and
it still is a fallacy. Andunfortunately, it seems like a
whole lot of, climatecatastrophes scientists never
learned their basics in logic.

Jim Lakely (56:10):
Yes. Okay. I'm sorry, Sterling. I hand it over
to you, and you just stop.That's okay.

H. Sterling Burnett (56:13):
No. Well, I was I I've asked I I think Lanae
should get a shot at somequestions and maybe some reader
audience questions.

Linnea Lueken (56:19):
Yeah. We've got a couple of audience questions. I
do have a kind of a, well, a bitof a question. The the, so over
in the Skeptosphere here, webring up the idea that, you
know, the economic arguments andthe impact of these bad

(56:41):
environmental and climatepolicies on, like, the 3rd world
or the poor in general, which issomething that your book, leans
into pretty hard, especially thesection written by, our friend,
and I'm sorry I butcher his nameall the time. Jayjayrayana?
Yeah. Yeah. And, so we makethese arguments all the time,
but why do you think that it'slargely ignored in the
mainstream? Do do people who arenormally on top of, like, I hate

(57:08):
to use the word social justice,but I mean it in the old way,
not the, like, new modern waykind of, term. Those issues,
people who worried about thepoor and stuff before, they seem
to just not care now when itcomes to climate change and
energy stuff.
Why do they just turn off theirbrains when it comes to climate
change?

Cal Beisner (57:28):
Boy, what a great question. And if we had a whole
lot more time, I think I'd tryto go into significant depth
because, actually, I think youcan draw a line from Thomas
Robert Malthus in his essay onpopulation in 17/98 to from to
Charles Darwin and his theory ofof evolution, taking place by
the survival of the fittest inthe in the, competition for

(57:53):
scarce resources, to his nephew,I believe it was, Francis
Galton, who wrote an essay onhuman potential that launched
the, eugenics movement promotedby, Margaret Sanger, the founder
of Planned Parenthood in Americaand by Adolf Hitler. Some people
might have heard of him.Something some guy over in

(58:16):
Germany, you know, back in the19 thirties forties. But, all of
this really rests on, sort of anelitist mentality that says the
top of the pyramid of humanbeings, they're the ones we
really, who who really deserveto survive and thrive.

(58:37):
And the rest, well, socialdominance says we don't need to
care much about them. And I Ithink that though most of these
folks probably haven'tconsciously thought that
through, I think that's thementality underlying a lot of
their attitudes that say, look.Okay. So we in the west got rich

(58:59):
by using fossil fuels. Thoselifted us out of poverty.
Those increased our our lifeexpectancy at Earth from 27 or
28 years before the industrialrevolution to 80 now. Look. The
developing world, the poorcountries around the world, hey.
We've helped them grow to thepoint where they now have 65

(59:20):
year life expectancy. That'senough.
They don't need any more. Theydon't need fossil fuels. They
should go straight from wood anddried dung as their primary
energy sources to wind andsolar. Never mind the fact that
wind and solar are far moreexpensive because they're
diffuse and intermittent andunpredictable than fossil fuels.

(59:41):
You know, just let these thesedeveloping countries skip our
path.
That's hard hearted, to put itmildly. It is abominable. It is,
I think, socially or morallyunconscionable. And you're
right. Vijay Jayaraj, who hasthe advantage of being both a

(01:00:04):
climate scientist and an energymanagement specialist, and
having grown up in India in anagricultural family, he has the
advantage of bringing all thatperspective into this.
And that's why he calls all ofthis stuff climate colonialism.
It is the rich west pushing itspolicies on the rest, not giving

(01:00:27):
a damn, frankly, what happens tothe people of Sub Saharan Africa
who have no electricity anddesperately need need it. And
not caring that, hey, if weabandon fossil fuels as Bjorn
Lomborg, estimates, you wouldalmost immediately have the
death of 4,000,000,000 peoplebecause they depend 100% on

(01:00:49):
fertilizers made from naturalgas or made using natural gas
for their food. And prettyquickly, you would have the
deaths of another 2,000,000,000people because they depend on
not on fossil fuels for steel,cement, plastics, all sorts of
other things. Doesn't matter.

(01:01:11):
After all, you know, the optimalpopulation trust used to say
that the best total humanpopulation for the for the world
would be, oh, around 200 to300,000,000 people. Doesn't
matter if we have to get rid ofthe rest of the 95 to 97% of us.

H. Sterling Burnett (01:01:29):
Yeah. Crickets crickets as to how that
comes about. Right? They neverwanna talk about what it would
take to get there, but I wannasay it does come down to
population. You're right aboutthat.
And maybe that's why I'm gonnastep into some sticky wicket
here. But, there's this embraceof robotics and AI. I'm not sure

(01:01:49):
how intelligent AI actually is,but I have seen the big
promoters, the first promotersof AI, and they're out there
saying, oh, you're probablygoing to have your communist
utopia because no one's going tohave to work because AI is gonna
free them up. Well, how are theygonna get paid? AI is gonna
print money so people starve.

(01:02:09):
And and the wealthy, the elite.I've always wondered, what do
you think you're going to dowhen all the people who actually
put the food on your table anddo the hard work when they're
gone, now they think, well, wegot robotics and AI. That'll
continue to grow food andprovide and, plus, we won't have
to grow as much food becausethere's only us left.

Cal Beisner (01:02:29):
Yeah. You know, I I think there are some wonderful
potentialities in AI androbotics and, already we've been
using robotics for a long time.And it has really improved
productivity per man hour oflabor invested in various
different things. That's that'swonderful. But the fact is that
what drives all of this is ananti biblical, anti judeo

(01:02:54):
christian notion of what humanbeings are.
For the population controlmongers, every new person born
into the world is a mouth tofeed. And they forget that, as
Julian Simon famously remindedthem, attached to that mouth
there are 2 hands and mostimportantly a mind, which is why

(01:03:18):
every person on average is goingto produce several times more
than he consumes in a lifetime.Back in the 19 eighties when I
was working on my book,Prospects for Growth, A Biblical
View of Population Resources inthe Future, The average American
male produced 13 times as muchin his lifetime as he consumed.
The average American femaleproduced about 8 times as much

(01:03:40):
in her life time as sheconsumed, which by the way gave
men a great reason to brag,right, until we remembered that
the average American female alsoproduced the average American
male. So, no, the fact is we aremade in god's image to be
creative and productive as godis and to make more than we

(01:04:02):
consume.
And that's why the long terminflation adjusted and most
importantly, wage adjusted pricetrend of every single resource
that we extract from the earth,whether it's mineral or plant or
animal. The long term pricetrend is deeply downward. We're

(01:04:24):
talking, you know, 98, 99% downfrom, say, 1800 to the present.
It's because people areproductive. So instead of
instead of, you know, bemoaningpopulation growth, we should be
celebrating it.
The sad thing is I think thatactually where we're headed

(01:04:45):
demographically is forpopulation decline. We're headed
into what is described in onevideo on YouTube as demographic
winter, and that's gonna be verydangerous because it is going to
result in a superannuatedpopulation unable to provide for
its own needs without sufficientyounger population to provide

(01:05:07):
for it. Now some people areputting their hope in AI and
robotics to solve that problem.I have my doubts.

Linnea Lueken (01:05:16):
Well, thank you very much for that. We've got 2
of our audience members who havesome questions here, which if we
can kinda lightning round, we'vegone a little bit, over time,
but here we are. They're goodquestions. Okay. Calvin, can we
use geothermal as a realalternative for green energy
instead of wind and solar scamsthat fall far short and are
detrimental to the environment?

Cal Beisner (01:05:38):
Super quick answer. In the very, very few rather,
restricted locations where itworks well, yes. Absolutely. But
they're very few. Not gonnapower the grid.

Linnea Lueken (01:05:51):
Yep. And, Francis, you can look at, energy
at a glance.com. I actually havea paper that I wrote on
geothermal talking about, whereit works and where it doesn't
work. And it is a little bitmore complicated than just, you
know, poke a hole in the earthand make steam. So alright.
Next question. What realisticand practical things can people

(01:06:15):
do to break free from thedeliberate lies that the climate
crisis is?

Cal Beisner (01:06:20):
Oh, this is the far and away the best thing they can
do. They can go to amazon.comand order Climate and Energy,
the case for realism, or I'msorry. Actually, even better
than that, go to CornwallAlliance dotorg. That's Cornwall
Alliance dotorg slash donate.And as you fill out the donation

(01:06:42):
form and make a donation of anysize, simply write in there
somewhere, please send Climateand Energy, and we'll send you a
free copy.
A 100% of your donation will betax deductible, and we'll just
do that as our way of sayingthank you.

Sheila Jackson Lee (01:06:57):
Yes, ma'am.

Cal Beisner (01:06:58):
So, that's for the month of April here as long as
our supply lasts.

Jim Lakely (01:07:04):
Yes. Well, I was I was gonna mention all of that as
we get to close here, Cal. So,good for you to have saved me
from doing all of that. I thinkwe can, we can call it a day. I
wanted to add to the stage.
It's a cartoon I saw, todayshared with with folks. There it
is. And you you had hinted onthis, Cal. Why isn't China

(01:07:26):
concerned about global warning?Because they have a communist
government already.
So that is, well put, and Ithink it's it's, gonna be
eternally funny and is eternallytrue. The the idea that no
matter what is happening to theearth, the answer is always the
same. Take away your freedom.Take away your money. Let

(01:07:47):
government handle it.
If if that doesn't wake peopleup to the scam that is climate
alarmism, I don't know whatwill. But, the

Cal Beisner (01:07:56):
the whole thing is happening.

Jim Lakely (01:07:58):
Yes. Yes. So, that'll do it for today. I wanna
thank everybody, for watchingand listening to today's
program. Come back to theHeartland Institute's channel on
YouTube and Rumble every singleFriday at 1 PM EST to get the
climate realism you need, thecounter programming to the
foolishness, the alarmism, andthe lies that you see and hear

(01:08:18):
in the mainstream media everyday.
They cannot win on the facts,and we prove that on this show
every single week. We also urgeyou to share the show with your
friends and family. Let peopleknow about the show, even bring
them along for the livestreamwhere we have a lot of fun. If
you want to learn more about ourguest today, Cal Beiser, you can
go to Cornwall Alliance dot org.It is a nonprofit 501c3 just

(01:08:41):
like the Heartland Institute is.
You can also find links to buythe book there. And as Cal
mentioned, if you donate toCornwall Alliance, you may, also
get a free copy of his brand newbook. Visit Heartland's
fantastic and comprehensivewebsite starting with
heartland.org. We also haveclimate realism.com, climate
ataglance.com, energyataglance.com, and also download

(01:09:03):
our new app, Climate at aGlance, which puts a wealth of
climate realism and databasetruth right there in your pocket
for all time. Thank you everyonefor coming on the show today.
Cal, thanks for being a guest.Thank you, Linnea. Thank you,
Sterling, for being a part ofthe show today. Thank you for
watching and listening, and wewill talk to you next week.