Climate Realism Gains Ground in Europe – Live from Budapest! - The Climate Realism Show #159 - Environment and Climate News Podcast

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Those words hurt my virgin ears. One of the most
urgent tasks of our country isto decisively defeat the climate
hysteria hoax.

Speaker 2 (00:13):
We are in the beginning of a mass extinction.

Speaker 3 (00:16):
The ability of c o two to do the heavy work of
creating a climate catastropheis almost nil at this point.

Speaker 4 (00:23):
The price of oil has been artificially elevated to
the point of insanity.

Speaker 5 (00:27):
That's not how you power a modern industrial
system.

Speaker 3 (00:31):
The ultimate goal of this renewable energy, you know,
plan is to reach the exact samepoint that we're at now.

Speaker 5 (00:39):
You know who's tried that? Germany. Seven Straight
Days of no win for Germany.Their factories are shutting
down.

Speaker 2 (00:47):
They really do act like weather didn't happen prior
to, like, 1910. Today is Friday.

Speaker 3 (00:57):
That's right, Greta. It is Friday. It is the best day
of the week, and not justbecause the weekend is almost
here, because this is the day webroadcast at The Heartland
Institute. This show, theClimate Realism Show. My name is
Jim Lakeley.
I am vice president of TheHeartland Institute. We are an
organization that's been aroundfor forty years, and we are
known as the leading globalthink tank pushing back on

(01:17):
climate alarmism. Heartland andthis show bring you the data,
the science, the truth, and whenwe're fortunate, some very
awesome guests to counter theclimate alarmist narrative
you've been fed every single dayof your life. There is nothing
else quite like the climaterealism show streaming anywhere,
so I hope you will bring friendsto view this livestream every

(01:37):
Friday at 1PM eastern time. Andalso, share, and subscribe, and
leave your comments underneaththe video.
All of these things that arevery easy to do convince
YouTube's algorithm to smileupon this program. That way the
show gets in front of even morepeople. And as a reminder,
because big tech and the legacymedia do not really approve of
the way that we cover climateand energy policy on this

(01:59):
program, YouTube's channel hasbeen demonetized. So if you
wanna support this program, andI really hope you do, please
visit heartland.org/tcrs. That'sheartland.org/tcrs, and You can
help make sure that we keepbringing you this show each and
every week.
Any support that you can give uswould be warmly welcome and
greatly appreciated. And beforewe get started, we want to thank

(02:21):
our streaming partners atbeingJunkscience.com, CFACT,
what's up with that? The CO2Coalition and Heartland
UKEurope. So welcome to you allto the show and I hope you will
follow all of these accounts onX and become a subscriber to
this show on YouTube and Rumble.And let's get started.
We have a big show today and wehave a couple of very special

(02:41):
guests. We have with us asusual, Anthony Watts, senior
fellow at the HeartlandInstitute and the publisher of
the most influential website onclimate in the world. What's up
with that? Sterling Burnett, thedirector of the Arthur B.
Robinson Center on Climate andEnvironmental Policy at the
Heartland Institute.
We have Linea Lukin, ResearchFellow for Energy Environment
Policy at Heartland. And ofcourse, as always, Andy Singer,

(03:04):
producer extraordinaire, workinghis tail off behind the scenes
to make this the best lookingshow on climate anywhere that
you will see. But we're verywelcome to happy to welcome back
to the show James Taylor andLois Perry. James Taylor is
president of the HeartlandInstitute and Lois Perry is
director of Heartland UK Europeand they are coming to us live

(03:24):
right now on your screen fromBudapest, Hungary. Welcome James
and Lois.
Good to see you.

Speaker 1 (03:30):
Great to be here. Thank you Jim. Good to see you.

Speaker 6 (03:33):
Yeah, thank you for having me. So exciting.

Speaker 3 (03:37):
Yes, I know that there's a lot to cover with you
guys. You've had quite awhirlwind tour of Europe over
the last week and we're gonnaget into that at the near the
end of the show. But

Speaker 1 (03:48):
Did you notice Lewis' hat?

Speaker 3 (03:50):
Oh, yeah. What does your hat say, Lewis?

Speaker 6 (03:52):
Make Europe great again.

Speaker 3 (03:55):
Has that so you guys have been at CPAC Poland and
CPAC Hungary. Is that where yougot that wonderful lid?

Speaker 6 (04:02):
Yeah. I got it today. Somebody very kindly, a nice
young man said, I need to getyou a make Europe great again
hat. And I said, I'd love one.And he plunked it on my head.
So so, yeah, let's do this.

Speaker 1 (04:15):
It's not only a fashion statement. It's a
movement. Believe it or not,there are quite a few people
wearing the make Europe greatagain hats.

Speaker 3 (04:22):
Mega. Mega. Yeah, mega, mega. Yeah. And that's the
theme of our main topic today ishow, you know, there's a
conservative movement in Europe.
You may have read that in thenews. And that there's
resistance to net zero. Andwe're gonna be talking about
that. You guys are gonna betalking about that for sure.

Speaker 1 (04:39):
Awesome. And before we get started, though, just
just to alleviate any confusionyou you may have. At the the
bottom of the screen, it's notthere now, but it was a moment
ago where it had our names.Actually, she's Lois and I'm
James. I know the screen sayssomething different, but I wanna
make sure before you get tooconfused.
She is Lois. I'm James.

Speaker 6 (04:58):
Yeah. We're not we're not presenting at different
genders. Yeah.

Speaker 3 (05:03):
Very good. Alright.

Speaker 4 (05:04):
Alright. Your pronouns be he and she. There

Speaker 3 (05:12):
we go. Alright. The fun has already started. Well,
the most fun that I have on thisshow, and I think a lot of our
viewers would agree, is we startoff the show by covering the
crazy climate news of the week.Hit it, Andy.

(05:36):
All right, thank you very much,Bill Nye. All right, so our
first item today is Do AutopenClimate Rules Count? This is an
article from Fox News. So let'ssee. So we'll just take it here
from the top and read from thestory.
Power of the Future, a nonprofitorganization that advocates for

(05:59):
American energy jobs, reviewedeight Biden executive orders
that it says were significantshifts in domestic energy policy
and said it found no evidence ofthe president speaking about any
of them publicly, raisingconcerns that the orders were
signed by Autopen and that hewas not aware of them. You may
have read about that in the newslast couple weeks. Quote, these
are not obscure bureaucraticmemos. These were foundational

(06:22):
shifts in American energypolicy. Yet not once did Joe
Biden speak about them publicly,said Daniel Turner, founder and
executive director of Power ofthe Future and a friend of this
show and of the HeartlandInstitute.
The executive orders reviewed byPower of the Future include an
Arctic drilling ban in 2023, a2021 executive order committing
the federal government to netzero emissions by 02/1950, an

(06:44):
executive order maintaining,quote, clean energy, AI centers,
and an offshore drilling banexecutive order shortly before
leaving office in 2025. Findingno evidence of Biden publicly
speaking about the executiveorders on climate, Power of the
Future sent letters this week tothe Department of Justice, EPA,
the Department of the Interior,the Department of Energy, along

(07:05):
with House and Senate OversightCommittees calling for an
investigation to determine whomade the decisions, drafted the
executive orders, and ultimatelysigned them. Lynne, I'm gonna go
to you, but I think first we canplay a video that exemplifies
the fact that, you know, itseemed Joe Biden did not really
know what was going on under hisname, literally under his name

(07:27):
in his administration. Andy,

Speaker 4 (07:29):
can you play that video for us, please?

Speaker 7 (07:32):
And I said, mister president, thanks for the
moments. You know, I this isvery important. I got some big
national security things I needto talk to you about that I
heard and I think you know, andwhat do we do? And but first,
real quickly, mister president,can I ask you a question? I
cannot answer this to from myconstituents in Louisiana.
Sir, why did you pause LNGexports to Europe? Like, I don't
under you know, liquefiednatural gas is in great demand

(07:54):
by our allies. Why would you dothat? Because you understand we
just talked about Ukraine. Youunderstand you're fueling
Vladimir Putin's war machinebecause they gotta get their gas
from him.
You know? And he looks at mestunned with this, and he said,
I didn't I didn't do that. And Isaid, mister president, you yes.
You did. It was an executiveorder, like, three weeks ago.
And he goes, no I didn't dothat. He's arguing with me. I
said, Mr. President,respectfully, could I go out

(08:17):
here and ask your secretary toprint it out? We'll read it
together.
You definitely did that. And hegoes, oh, you talk about natural
gas. Yes sir. He said, No. Youmisunderstand.
He said, what I did is I signedthis thing to we're gonna we're
gonna conduct a study on theeffects of LNG. I said, no.
You're not, sir. You paused it.I know.
I I have the terminal the exportterminals in my state. I talked

(08:38):
to those people this morning.You're this is doing massive
damage to our economy, nationalsecurity. It occurred to me,
Barry, he was not lying to me.He genuinely did not know what
he had signed.
And I walked out of that meetingwith fear and loathing because I
thought, we're in serioustrouble. Who is running the
country? Like, I don't know whoput the paper in front of him,
but he didn't know.

Speaker 3 (08:57):
Now I'll just explain and clarify for our
international audience, and wehave a lot of international
viewers of this show. That washouse house speaker Mike Mike
Johnson. He's third in line tothe presidency, and he visited
president Biden, and he had noidea what was going on about LNG
exports. And apparently, a lotof other climate stuff too.
Lynne, we we did cover this onIn the Tank podcast a little bit

(09:20):
yesterday.
So, yeah, this is quiteremarkable.

Speaker 2 (09:26):
Yeah. Well, and I spent some time this morning
trying to dig up because I couldswear I I had seen a clip before
from Biden being, like, snaggedoutside of, you know, when he
was walking outside of the WhiteHouse or something. And they
asked him about another one ofhis executive orders having to
do with the offshore drillingpause or ban that he was working

(09:46):
on. And he also denied that. Andhe also denied, if I recall
correctly, some of the otherorders that the what's the
organization called again?
I'm sorry, from the Fox Newsarticle. Can we pull it up?
Thank you. Was all right. Well,that's okay.

(10:10):
Anyway, power of the future. Iwas about to say powered, but
that was something totallydifferent. So power of the
future mentioned a coupledifferent actions and executive
orders that Biden signed havingto do with energy policy. And I
recall multiple of those beingones that he had explicitly
denied when he was put on thespot about them, not just from

(10:33):
the Mike Johnson one. I had aheck of a time trying to find
those clips, and I still haven'tbeen able to find them.
So maybe I imagine them, but Idon't think I did. He really did
seem to have no idea what wascoming across his desk. And I
don't doubt in the slightestthat he signed either signed
things or delegated to Autopenthings that, you know, his

(10:56):
staffer walks up to him andsays, you know, here's this.
Here's a short summary of whatthis is, sign it. And he just
signs it without actuallyreading it or looking at it or
knowing anything about it,really.
And also his brain was oatmealthe whole time. I think it's a

(11:19):
combination of things. I thinkit's that he's in decline
greatly. Didn't actually readmost of the stuff that he was
signing and also lies. So all ofthose things apply in this
scenario.

Speaker 5 (11:34):
Yeah. I wanna grab onto the last statement, lies. I
I think he didn't know a lot ofwhat he was doing. I think
there's plenty of evidence ofthat. But there I think there's
there's more than enoughevidence to know that sometimes
he just lied about things.
You know, early in hisadministration, I think the
second year, it slipped out thatthey were planning a natural

(11:54):
gas, stove ban, appliances andstoves. And big caused a big
stir. And immediately, he was onthe air, and Kamala Harris was
on the air saying, we're notgonna ban we're not banning gas
stoves. Where did you get that?That's crazy.
We never do that. And withindays or weeks of them being very

(12:14):
publicly on the air saying thatthey weren't doing that, they
issued a rule that basicallybanned most guest host except
for, you know, wealthy celebritychefs. They can afford the most
expensive ones, but, for mostpeople, guest host would have
been banned. And I don't thinkhe didn't know that his
administration was working onthat rule. I think he just lied

(12:35):
about it because it wasunpopular and they were getting
a lot of blowback.

Speaker 3 (12:41):
Yeah. I like the comment from Kaiwan f eight, the
Costanza rule. It's not a lie ifyou believe it, right? Exactly.
Who knows what he believed?

Speaker 6 (12:50):
Can I just ask a question? So who do most
Americans believe was runningthings? If Biden didn't have a
clue, if it was the auto pen,who who do most American
citizens believe was running theshow during that period? I'm
just interested from a from anEnglish perspective.

Speaker 2 (13:10):
Well, I can't speak for everyone, but my opinion is
probably committee. Okay. I Ithink staff or committees more
more than any, like, particularindividual, but I know that some
people believe differently.

Speaker 5 (13:24):
There is no 99 97% consensus on who was running the
campaign.

Speaker 6 (13:29):
So, basically, the equivalent of our civil service,
you're saying we're we'rerunning the show and pushing
their own agenda?

Speaker 5 (13:36):
I I've heard Obama holdovers were doing it. I've
heard his wife was doing it. Ieven read recently that,
Elizabeth Warren was doing it.So I don't think there's any,
anyone is is certain. The onlything they seem certain about is
that Biden wasn't running thecountry.

Speaker 6 (13:53):
Okay. Right. Understood. Thank you.

Speaker 3 (13:56):
I mean, Lois, your your question is, who do
Americans think was running thecountry? Yeah. And I think most
Americans think Joe Biden wasrunning the country. A lot

Speaker 6 (14:06):
of Right. Okay.

Speaker 3 (14:07):
A lot of people actually believe the legacy
media in this country, and sothey were not told what was
really going on. In fact, youknow, the big controversy on the
new book by CNN anchor JakeTapper, you know, pretending
that nobody knew that his hisbrain was porridge, but we now
know because people told us. Imean, it's ridiculous. So
there's a big swath in thiscountry that are that are that

(14:29):
just believe everything that'sjust fed to them, unfortunately.

Speaker 1 (14:32):
I'm just hoping it was on Tundra's Hooker Friends,
but

Speaker 3 (14:38):
know, the

Speaker 4 (14:39):
unfortunately, it seems that president Biden has
given a whole new meaning tononcompass mentors because, I
mean, it's a shock to everybodythat, well you know it's not a
shock to some people obviouslybut it was a shock to a lot of
people that he was so completelyout of it that he had no idea
what he even signed and thengoes on to deny it and so I

(15:01):
think now you know when you goto the encyclopedia or the
dictionary you look up thephrase non compass dentist,
you're gonna see a picture ofBiden next to it.

Speaker 2 (15:10):
Yeah. Yeah. And Donald Kendall, also of the
Heartland Institute, says thatthe David Hogg recently made
comments publicly about who thelike, de facto person pulling
the strings behind the sceneswas. And I think that he said
I'm trying to look it upquickly, but it's not going very

(15:33):
well. Jill Biden's chief ofstaff is what David Hogg said,
which is fascinating.
I didn't even I actually did notknow that Jill Biden had a chief
of staff. I didn't realize thatthe floaters gets that, but I
suppose it makes sense. Butyeah. No. That's what apparently
David Hogg said that it wasactually Jill Biden's team who

(15:56):
was running stuff, which

Speaker 1 (15:57):
One of the things that that shocks me and amazes
me is the justification for thiswas, well, you know, your
elected policy and, you know,who cares if the policy was
good? Well, first, the policywas terrible, but let's assume
for the sake of argument thatyou believe it was good. Joe
Biden has the ability to hit theswitch for nuclear war. Joe

(16:18):
Biden is the person we'recounting on to respond to an
attack up to and includingnuclear war. And in and of
itself, that is reason forsaying we have to have somebody
competent and not in vanillapudding land at at the helm
whether you think that whetherit's Joe Biden's chief of staff,
whether it's some team ofblinking at all or doing that,
Obama people still, who is theperson that has that ultimate

(16:41):
ability to start or respond towar, including nuclear war?
And nobody knows. And that'sreally the biggest problem in my
mind.

Speaker 3 (16:51):
Yeah. And suppose and supposedly, the election of
Donald Trump is gonna cause aconstitutional crisis in this
country. And we had four yearsof a president who wasn't really
president and unelected,unaccountable staffers basically
making all the decisions even tothe point of the auto pen. I
hope there's a I hope there's acongressional investigation into
this. I, you know, probablywould amount to nothing, but I
think the American people areentitled to know the truth, and

(17:12):
maybe we'll get it this time.
Who knows? Alright. Well, thatwas nice and positive. Let's go
on to something even morepositive here. Our second item
here, don't shatter the climate.
Now, I came across this today.This is from the Blue Sky
account of a person namedJulianne Wingate who seems like
a nice person, a kind personthat might be, you know, a

(17:34):
little misguided and she is12,000 followers on Blue Sky
which is probably a lot for thatlittle lefty social media.
That's gotta be all of the overthere.

Speaker 5 (17:43):
It's gotta be all of Blue Sky.

Speaker 3 (17:44):
Yeah. It's probably all of them. You're right. Yeah.
And so I just wanna go throughsome of these things.
I think it's it exemplifieskinda why this show exists. And
so she she shares a Blue Skypost and says, don't shatter our
climate. Do not shatter ourclimate. Exclamation point. She
has a slide in here that says,here's the plot.
97% of the world's scientistsconspire to create an imaginary

(18:05):
environmental crisis only to beexposed by a plucky band of
billionaires, senators and oilcompanies. And then the
responses underneath it areactually pretty indicative of
this mindset as well. There's acartoon, somebody shares a
cartoon under there of, youknow, a bunch of children
sitting around a campfire. Andit says, yes, the planet got
destroyed. But for a beautifulmoment in time, we created a lot

(18:27):
of value for shareholders.
Wow, that's pretty hard hitting.And then there's another
response underneath that fromsomebody, what's that account
name? Patcat13. All right,sounds great. It says, and he
comments, Wealth and poweraddiction is the absolute worst,
most costly disease there is.
A drug addict will steal theirown child's piggy bank for

(18:48):
another hit and still gohomeless. A wealth and power
addict will steal all of ourchildren's futures and leave us
all homeless with an emoji ofEarth. Isn't that nice? And then
finally, one last one. This isan old saw that we've seen from
time to time, And it's a cartoonabout somebody being at a
climate summit and laying outall kind of net zero goals and

(19:09):
all of that.
And somebody in the audiencesays, what if it's a big hoax
and we create a better world fornothing? And so my point here,
you know, first of all, shatterthe climate. That's a new one. I
haven't heard that. So pointsfor creativity.
But, you know, really what'sbeing shattered here in my mind
is that the only motivation ofthe Greens is to get a better

(19:33):
and cleaner future. And that isjust not the case. These green
obsessed cultists are obviouslyand you see it all the time
motivated to punish Westernsociety and non commies for the
freedom and capitalism thatsucceeded over the collectivists
in the twentieth century. It isa common trope among these
Greens that all of the profitsof big oil need to be

(19:55):
confiscated. In fact, it's onlycorporate greed and a desire for
power that prevents us from asustainable future.
This is the messaging we hearall the time. But this is
exactly backwards in my mind,you know, because if not for
fossil fuels, if not for theindustrial revolution, we'd all
be living in medieval times forreal. Life expectancy would be

(20:15):
many decades below what it isnow. Famines would be more
frequent and widespread. Humanexistence would be more
miserable in every singleimaginable way.
And going green, committing tonet zero, would bring this all
about actually. So, you know, wedon't use fossil fuels because
of greed. We use it because itis continuing the greatest

(20:37):
streak of human flourishing inthe history of our species. And
so I guess this is kind of along way and I'd love to get all
of your comments on this,especially people in the
audience. You know, this is along way of saying, you know,
the climate hysteria has twocomponents.
There's the doom component andthere's the utopia component.
The alarmists are wrong on bothcounts, but we often only focus
on the silly doom component,especially in the crazy climate

(20:59):
news of the week. But we shouldalso remember that they have
this naive fantasy that we canall create a better world if
everyone would just do what theysay and and give up their
freedom. So that's it. I've hadmy say.
What say you guys?

Speaker 6 (21:13):
Well, I'd say in The UK, we came up with the phrase
that's probably been used in TheUS before, but I talked quite a
lot about big green. You know,everyone talking about big oil,
demonic big oil, but big greenis actually a much more sinister
prospect because whereas withoil, as you oil and gas and
fossil fuels, as you as youcorrectly just stated, it it

(21:35):
creates wealth. It createssafety. It creates security for
people. Big Green is totallyreliant on our money, taxpayers'
money, to actually work.
So we've got lots of examples inThe UK at the moment of offshore
wind farms and things like that.They pulled the companies have
gone bust because the subsidieshave been reduced and and

(21:55):
various other things becausewithout taxpayer money, there's
no such thing as renewableindustry. There's no such thing
as green. So, yeah, I'd say thatbig green is a massive money
laundering communist exercise.And, yeah.
And that's that's that's why I'mfighting. So I'm agreeing with
you 100%.

Speaker 3 (22:20):
We often do have agreement on this show. Well,
not always, but sometimes. It'slike we often do.

Speaker 5 (22:27):
You know, I I hate argument ad hominem arguments,
arguments based on character or,supposed motives. You know, my
training is in philosophy.You're supposed to look at the
arguments themselves. But it isfunny that they talk about,
greed and power, destroyingthings, being aligned when I

(22:51):
think of well, who has beenpushing the green agenda? It's
not poor folks in Africa.
It's not the poor in themountains of West Virginia or
along the border in Texas. A guynamed George Soros is pretty
prominent. No one's ever accusedhim of being poor. Bill Gates,

(23:13):
one of the wealthiest men in theworld, pushes the has pushed the
agenda. And and power brokers,these are these are power
brokers.
They are the ones that arepushing it, and it's not, I I
don't believe it it's it's forthe good of their souls. It's
for the good of theirpocketbooks. You know, Al Gore

(23:33):
has made a fortune on the, thegreen news scam and climate
alarmism. He he he was not asuper wealthy man before he got
into office, but after he soldhis share of the television
station and, you know, inventedthe Internet like he did and all
the other things he's he'sclaimed, he's a pretty wealthy

(23:54):
man today. These guys are notpoor, and they don't represent
the poor.
They certainly don't, aren'toverly concerned about average
folks and whether they can paytheir, light bills and their
food bills. They showed thatduring the last election when
they said, oh, well, so what ifTurkey's gone up a little bit?

(24:18):
We're we're saving the planethere. So that's just a a a, you
know, a red herring.

Speaker 4 (24:28):
You know, one of the things that really bothers me
about this particular tweet, ifyou can bring the tweet up
again, Andy, is that they'retalking about shattering the
climate, you know, and it's it'scrazy. They get this impression
that the climate is fragile andit can shatter with just a
gentle push off the table orwhatever. And that's not the

(24:49):
case at all. The climate ishighly resilient. Mean, you look
at how steady it's been overmankind's history.
Yes, we've had ups and downs.We've had the medieval warm
period, the Roman warm period,the little life age, all that
stuff. But overall, the climateof the earth has been very, very
steady and it just it'sridiculous that they believe

(25:10):
that it's so fragile moreridiculous even that they
believe that we can affect itand the other thing that's
ridiculous about it is thatwhole 97% thing now we debunked
that a long time ago not only onwhat's up with that but also
with the Harlan Institute andClimate Realism but we have a
new post up this week from ourfriend Chris Martz who really

(25:31):
just took this thing to taskthis whole 97% consensus thing
He just sliced it and diced itand made julienne fries out of.
And the point is that when yougo drill down into what was
actually listed as that 97%, itwas something to be on the order
of 72 out of 76 scientists thatresponded in a way they liked

(25:56):
made up that number. 72.
Wow, that's a worldwideconsensus, right? Oh, well,
they're climate scientists.They're bigger than regular
people. That's their wholeviewpoint on this thing. And so
it just goes to show that everytime you really scratch the
surface on this climate stuff,it comes up wanting for a lack
of real meat and potatoes factsin it.

(26:18):
It's just ridiculous.

Speaker 2 (26:26):
Jim, you're muted.

Speaker 1 (26:28):
What do you look, Scott?

Speaker 3 (26:29):
Gosh, I pulled a Jim right in the middle of my
hosting. I did it again. Goodgrief. Alright. Yeah, just to
tie a bow on it, you know, butit's just this idea that there's
a utopia in our future if wewould just stop using fossil
fuels, that needs to be it'simportant to debunk that as it
is all the other bad science andbad policy that is out there

(26:49):
because it's just not true.
Know, unimaginable misery wouldbe the result if they got their
world the way they wanted ittomorrow and that needs to be
mentioned. Right. Lots to cover,so let's get on to another one.
This one is a little bit morefun, I think. This is Climate
Clergy Streams the Sads.

(27:10):
This comes from our friendCharles Roder over at What's Up
With That? And he writes, It'snot often one encounters a
spectacle so rich in irony andunintentional comedy that it
practically writes its ownparody. Yet here we are watching
the quote weather and climatelivestream WCL unfold a one
hundred hour marathon of handwringing and bureaucratic

(27:32):
bereavement that makes theaverage opera look stoic.
Launched with all the solemnityof a state funeral, the WCL is
the alarmist's answer to QVC.Instead of selling miracle
blenders, they're peddling fearand nostalgia for a heyday of
bloated climate budgets andheaping spoonful of
international self pity.
The official pitch, a quotenonpartisan event dedicated to

(27:55):
educating the public about thecatastrophic consequences of
proposed federal budget cuts toclimate research. The reality, a
long monotonous group therapysession for government
scientists afraid their gravytrain has hit a fiscal cul de
sac. The pageantry of thislivestream is nothing short of
remarkable, Charles Roderwrites. With a tone oscillating

(28:16):
between funeral dirge andtelethon, they've assembled a
lineup of fairly fundedforecasters, former agency
heads, a token youth activist towarn of a future where hurricane
forecasts are slightly lessprecise, unless of course,
congress acts now to restoretheir budgets to previously
unchallengeable levels. It'slike watching a PBS PBS pledge

(28:37):
drive hosted by Chicken Littleand Greta Thunberg's Ghost
Rider.
Now, Anthony, this is posted onyour website. What's up with
that? Did you check this, didyou check out this, this little
telethon of misery? And perhapsyou can even address again the
idea that Americans are at riskunless every single cent that
was previously spent on climatestuff is spent again.

Speaker 4 (29:00):
Now I did watch it for a little while. Also looked
up the list of participants andthe list of participants was a
who's who and climate alarmismwith the strange exception of
Doctor. Michael Mann. Perhapsthey couldn't afford his fee. I
don't know.
He's got to pay for those legalbills now. But when you watch
this thing, these people aregenuinely full of angst. They

(29:23):
believe that we're on the roadto hell in a handbasket when it
comes to the climate and thefuture is dire and grim. And if
we don't do something, we're allgoing to die. I mean, literally,
the mindset of these people thatare participating and watching
this.
It is a mass delusion of an epicscale going on here. These folks

(29:45):
just simply are besidethemselves trying to figure out
a way to stop this.Unfortunately, they have no
control over it, thankfully,because the money is being
pulled out from under them. Thatwas the whole thing. That was
the whole reason that climatescience existed.
It started in June 1988 whenJames Hansen went before

(30:07):
Congress and said, We have acrisis in the making here. Look
at these graphs. These are thesemodel projections. We're going
to roast and we need to dosomething about it. Of course,
the government immediately threwvast amounts of money at it,
continued to throw money at itover the next few decades.
And we ended up with a wholeclimate science industrial
complex by the time Trump gotahold of it and shut it down a

(30:29):
couple of months ago. And thankgoodness he did because it was
getting out of control as we hadon one of our previous shows
when Biden was, on his, exittour. The auto pen signs orders
to start sending money out toall kinds of organizations. And,
you know, and then one guycommented that was doing this
saying, well, we're throwing thegold bricks off the Titanic. We

(30:49):
know the cause is sinking, butwe're trying to prop it up by
funding everybody we can beforeBiden leaves office.
And, of course, the the auto penwas the reason for that. Biden
himself had no idea what he wasdoing.

Speaker 3 (31:05):
Yes.

Speaker 6 (31:06):
Yeah, Jim. I'm just wondering how much of this is
actual faith for people thathave no faith or it's just like
people desperately, desperatelynot wanting the gravy train and
the subsidies to end. I thinkyou have a combination of both.
I think a lot of the youngpeople are fanatical about it.
Although Gen Z don't seem to bethat fanatical at all about the

(31:27):
whole climate stuff.
They're they're a lot morehesitant, a lot more reluctant.
They don't like the fact thatthings have been shoved down
their throats whether it'sgender ideology or climate
alarmism. But I think the olderpeople just don't want to see
the money stop. They just don'twant to see their you know their
green money coming in. So whatdo you think?
Do you think it's a balance ofboth or more one than the other?

(31:49):
I'm interested to hear what youthink.

Speaker 3 (31:51):
I think it's a balance of both. Actually, I
would like James to weigh inhere because the climate
alarmism industrial complex isbasically a government funded
operation. Whether you're a popup NGO planet and you get
$2,000,000,000 put in youraccount when you had $100 in it
yesterday, that's a pretty goodscam. James, this idea that

(32:13):
well, the only way you get moneyfrom the government is to
perpetuate the climate crisis,you know, to call everything a
climate crisis. You put the wordclimate in your grant and you
get money.

Speaker 1 (32:25):
Yeah, absolutely. Looking at some of the gold
standard peer reviewed studies.We're told if it's peer reviewed
and a peer reviewed publication,it's a gold standard. And time
and time again, you know,throughout the twenty plus years
I've been in Heartland, I willdo Internet searches to see what
the latest studies are because Iwant I want the best and latest

(32:45):
information whether it'ssomething I would have expected
or something I wouldn't have.And it's amazing how many times
there will be some paper thathas nothing to do with climate
change.
It could be some random topicbut if they throw in a little
section at the end about howclimate change is making the
problem worse or whatever, thenall of sudden it gets published
in this peer reviewed journaleven though it's a piece of

(33:06):
garbage, it's irrelevant, nobodycares, it's badly written and it
gets published and in academiait's published or perish. So,
the only way for many of theseauthors, scientists, garbage
scientists to get theirnotoriety, to get their funding
because they show they've beenpublished is to put in some
climate change angle And that'swhy in university settings,

(33:31):
young young students, youngassociate professors who want to
get tenure. If if they want toget tenure, if they want to have
a future, even even some of ourfriends and allies who we work
with, who are scientists atuniversities and the government,
they'll tell them, hey, look, wewant you to publish the truth
out there. It helps what webelieve in but on a personal

(33:54):
basis, we can't really urge youto publish the truth because
you'll be committing careersuicide and that's a shame and
that's that's the scientificindustrial complex that by the
way, Dwight Eisenhower warned usagainst.
We we hear quite a bit about themilitary industrial complex that
Dwight Eisenhower warned usagainst. But he also warned us

(34:15):
against the scientificindustrial complex that would be
funded by perpetuated by andcorrupted by government funding.

Speaker 5 (34:25):
It's you know, James is right. It's it's not just
peer reviewed studies that throwclimate in at the end. There are
many peer reviewed studies thatare misrepresented concerning
what they are saying, whetherwhether they're skeptical or
not. You'll have studies thatare written that largely, have a
skeptical bent. They cut theycome to conclusions that are

(34:46):
outside the so called mainstreamthat that climate change is not
causing this particular problemor it's not in evidence, in this
particular problem.
And they're good studies. Butthen at the end, they say, but
we're not saying that humansaren't causing dangerous climate
change. We're just saying wecan't find an inordinate little
section of the world. So theyhave to add that addendum or

(35:08):
they'll be accused of beingskeptics and undermining the
narrative, and that's not howscience should work.

Speaker 2 (35:15):
Right. No. That's fine.

Speaker 6 (35:17):
Yeah. That's right. I mean, one of the things that I
really pushed over in theBritish media over the last
couple of years, is that thefact that the IPCC reports, if
you look at the summaries at thefront and then the press release
of the summary of the report,they quite often bear no
resemblance to the original IPCCreport whatsoever. So you have

(35:40):
people quoting, oh, it said thisin this report. Why are you
trying to challenge them?
Well, actually, it didn't saythat in the report. It didn't
even say it in the summary. Itjust said it in the press
release. And when you actuallydelve into it properly, it it
they just they just bank on thefact that nobody reads stuff,
that nobody delves into thedetail. So there's so much
misrepresentation.

(36:00):
I totally agree with you,Sterling.

Speaker 1 (36:02):
Yeah. Getting back to what Anthony mentioned earlier,
the initial so called survey ofscientists that showed 97 survey
of 76 scientists which issupposed to represent the entire
world. And by the way thequestions were not about the the
extent of the so called climatecrisis. It was simply as the

(36:22):
earth warmed in the pastcentury, have humans played some
role? Well, mean, there are mostI think skeptics would say yes
to those questions and they getlumped in with the 97%.
So to Sterling's point about howthey misrepresent the studies
that are published, one of thefirst follow ups of that first
seventy six scientists surveythat they tried to validate it
with, what they did is theysaid, oh, well, first of all,

(36:44):
these are people dogs in thefight. These were climate
activists who they were theysaid, well, we we read and
evaluated papers that werepublished in a peer reviewed
literature and found out if theyagree with us or disagree and in
our opinion, 97% coincidentallyenough agreed with us. Well then
you looked at the papers thatthey cited, some of them were by
for example Willie Soon. If anyof you know Willie Soon, Willie
Soon does not believe in theclimate crisis but they read his

(37:07):
study to say that Willie Soonbelieves in the climate crisis
and then most of the studiesthat they said agreed with them
would be something like okaywell according to the UNIPCC
because of global warming we'regoing to have a 30% decrease in
precipitation. So we looked atwhat would happen if 30%
decrease in precipitation whateffect it would have on forests.
Well, they're not they theydidn't make any independent

(37:28):
finding that were causing aclimate crisis. They're saying
if we just take, you know, justfor the sake of argument what
some people tell us to believeso again, they they misrepresent
the the media, the climateactivists, misrepresent the
literature that's out there. Asskewed as is in the first place,
that's not good enough for them.They have to then misrepresent
the skewed literature. Yeah.

Speaker 3 (37:52):
Yep, 100%. Well, that's

Speaker 2 (37:53):
many such cases.

Speaker 3 (37:57):
What's that?

Speaker 2 (37:58):
I said many such cases. And the thing that's
especially annoying is, as wementioned earlier, the number of
people who just tack climatechange on to whatever study
they're trying to get fundedjust as kind of like a little
funding grab. It pretty muchguarantees they go to the top of
the pile in whatever fieldthey're in. I think it was
Sterling you talked about awhile ago, a study on the

(38:22):
effects of, deforestation onrainfall in, jungles in South
America. And their study hadabsolutely nothing to do with
climate change.
It was all land use changes, butthey mentioned in the in the
abstract human caused climatechange is going to cause all
these things according to theIPCC or whatever it was. And

(38:42):
then they proceeded to talkabout none of that for the rest
of the study.

Speaker 5 (38:48):
I I was on stage with a climate scientist at a debate
in San Antonio who wastechnically who who was set up
as being on the other side ofthe debate for me. And he told
me in the ride in from theairport because he said, was a
little surprised that they thatthey did this. He says, you
know, he he was an agriculturescientist. And he said, because

(39:11):
I I really don't think humansare causing dangerous climate
change, and my research doesn'tshow it. He says, I I but what
I've learned is that when I putout a a funding proposal, a
proposal for funding to groups,if I throw climate change in as
a possible, danger that I'mgonna look at, I get the
funding.

(39:31):
So he did a he did a study. Hedid research on the decline of
ice and snow on, some mountainsin Mexico. And he actually had a
hypothesis. It was that, theychanged farming practices. They
were farming higher up.
They'd ruin the land below. Theystart farming higher up the
mountains and slash and burnagriculture, and that was

(39:53):
putting soot into the air thatwas falling on the snow and
causing the melt, because thetemperatures at the top of the
peak had not changed. But whenhe sold it, he says, looking
into the day you know, theclimate dangers causing the
shrinking of ice caps inMexican, in Mexico and how it
could affect farming. He got hisfunding, but then he came back

(40:15):
with the the conclusion that ithad nothing to do with climate
change. So they have to know howto play the game if they wanna
keep their funding.
But even when they're honest,they get misportrayed.

Speaker 3 (40:30):
Yeah. Well, if they have to do a Jerry Lewis, Labor
Day telethon to continue fundingclimate alarmism instead of
taking it out of my pocket, I'mall for it. Let's move on. This
is a really fun one andSterling, you'll be teed up for
this one. I titled it, Do CowsDream of Electric Grills?
Definitely get that joke. Thisis a lively piece that we found

(40:53):
by a guy named Mike Miller overat Red State and he writes the
headline of the piece istaxpayer supported PBS implores
Americans to abandon fossil fuelgrills. Mike Miller writes, we
climate destroyers can't seem todo anything without the climate
scolds trying to suck the funout of every bit of life, either

(41:14):
by attempting to guilt shame usor by shoving their climate
friendly alternatives down ourthroats. Memorial Day weekend
presented a perfect opportunityfor the ever pretentious climate
catastrophizers of taxpayersupported PBS to press Americans
to kick their quote fossil fuelgrills to the curb in favor of
climate friendly electricgrills. And this story that he

(41:37):
quotes came from National PublicRadio's Climate Desk
correspondent Jeff Brady, whowrites, Electric grills are
climate are a climate friendlyoption to fossil fuel grills.
Summer grilling usually startswith filling a propane tank or
buying a bag of charcoalbriquettes, but some people are
ditching these fuels for a moreclimate friendly electric grill.

(41:58):
Just before dinner, Stoyo Kaczowwheeled his electric grill
across his family's backyardpatio to an electrical outlet,
plugged it in and hit the powerbutton. I mean, you know, who
doesn't start Memorial Dayweekend that way? It really
takes a picture, right? It's asAmerican as apple pie.
Alright. We continue on quote,you can choose whatever

(42:19):
temperature you want. Ketchupsays setting it to 500 degrees
Fahrenheit on the digitaldisplay. See? So you see it's at
152 now and it'll take aboutfifteen minutes to get to 500.
Wow, what great technology. Onthe menu that day were two
family favorites. We're makingsome Bulgarian short ribs and
we're gonna make some Vietnamesepork belly. She and said his

(42:40):
partner, Don Nguyen.

Speaker 5 (42:43):
Also All American Foods, by the way. Oh,
absolutely. Your Labor Day.Labor Day grilling.

Speaker 3 (42:49):
It actually sounds pretty delicious. I'd like to
try that. So but anyway, theysaid that the the reason they
switched to electric grill wasfor convenience. But that's
enough from NPR's Climate Desk,which we can hope will be
defunded soon. But a recent sirthey did note in the story that
a recent survey showed that 10%of Americans own an electric
grill.
Now, one, I don't believe thatnumber. And two, anybody who

(43:12):
surrenders their gas or charcoalgrill to cook their summer food
like a real American and as Godintended and uses an electric
grill on their back deck shouldbe immediately deported. And
they move in front of the line,front of MS thirteen gang
members and also out you go.Sterling, I can't take this
anymore, so, I'm just gonnathrow it over to you. You are in
Texas after all.

Speaker 5 (43:32):
I am in Texas, and they will take away my charcoal
and gas grill when they can prythe spatula grilling fork and
tongs for my cold dead fingers.Look. I I honestly didn't know
there were such things aselectric grills until I saw the

(43:52):
story. And I'll comment on that,and someone said, oh, no. And
then they showed me the GeorgeForeman grill.
And I said, oh, well, I have oneof those, but that's an indoor
that's an indoor substitute fora grill. Not really a grill, but
sort of like a grill. It's a

Speaker 1 (44:06):
hot plate.

Speaker 5 (44:07):
Yeah. It's a hot plate with ridges and and a
drain. And so maybe the 10%includes all those indoor
grills. Right? But I looked intoit.
About 60% fifty to 60% of grillsare gas grills. If if you know

(44:28):
anything about Texas, we we likeour natural gas grills. We also
like our charcoal grills. I haveboth. I have a gas grill.
I have a charcoal grill with an,an associated smoker. They, the
other 30% are charcoal grills.About 10% are electric. Didn't
know that. Or there there's somepellet grills, then there's

(44:49):
electric.
Like I said, I didn't know theywere electric. The electrics
are, I guess, useful if you livein a condo or apartment and you
can't grill legally on your yourdeck. That that that happens.
The condo I used to live in, butdid not allow grilling on the
deck. I will confess now twentytwo years, they can't get me for
it.

(45:10):
I had a small charcoal grillthat I did grill on the deck
sometimes. But I looked into it.And so there are outdoor
electric grills, and I keptthinking, okay. Do I want a
rechargeable battery grill nearmy pool where water is being

(45:32):
splashed? Do I want electriccord, an extension cord with
with plugs near my pool where Imight trip over it, drag the
grill into the pool, or wherethe kids who play in my pool
might do the same thing, or, youknow, more importantly, electro
you know, electrocute eachother.

(45:52):
And the answer to both thosequestions was no. I don't want
those electric things near mypool, which is where I do my
grilling and where a lot ofTexans do their grilling. I just
you know, they're really, reallyreaching for, the dregs. It's
like, what can we go after next?

Speaker 6 (46:12):
Yeah. I must say until now. I totally agree with
you. I think it's it's like anemasculating type thing as well
because I don't know about TheStates. I'm sure it's exactly
the same.
But in The UK, the whole outdoorcooking thing is about an
explosion of masculinity andcaveman stuff, you know? And
that and that is not aboutelectricity and like, you know,

(46:35):
like daintily or campy, likebrilliant stuff on an electric
grill. Yeah. And also, as youjust said, Sterling,
electricity, being outdoors,what if it starts raining?
Doesn't really go together, doesit?
So yeah, I can't really see thiswhole thing apart from another
woke attack on on somethingthat's supposed to be for men,

(46:56):
for blokes to do something quitecool and caveman y outside. Just
just tell them to do one.

Speaker 1 (47:01):
So so my reaction upon reading that story, I I two
of them. First of all, is thisguy is soft. I mean, electric
girl, really? I mean, if youwanna make a difference, just
take your slices of tofu and putthem on the solar panels
directly put them on directly onthe solar panels on your roof.
Why do you need an electricgrill?
I mean, that you're just puttinga middleman in there that's
inefficient. Yeah. But secondlyis I mean, these people are

(47:25):
crazy. I'm I'm glad these peopleare so just ridiculously stupid
as far as tactics go. If youwant to win people over to your
side, if you want people to geton board, I think probably the
thing you don't wanna do is kickoff the summer by saying, we're
gonna attack the one thing thatAmericans love to do in the
summer more than anything else,and we're gonna take that off

(47:47):
your plate, and we're gonnashame you for that.
What a bunch of morons. I'm gladthis is perfect.

Speaker 2 (47:51):
I'm thinking there's there's also there's there's one
thing that I very much adore mylittle Weber kettle grill for
other than just generallygrilling out in the summer and
stuff. And that's duringhurricane season. If it wasn't
for my Weber kettle grill, Iwould not have been able to have
coffee for, like,

Speaker 6 (48:10):
a week when I lived in Louisiana. Yes.

Speaker 2 (48:13):
And that would have been unacceptable. Completely
unacceptable.

Speaker 3 (48:20):
Anthony, you're outside. Know it looks like that
might be your back patio. Do youhave a grill?

Speaker 4 (48:25):
You have an electric? Well, know, yeah, it's just this
is totally ridiculous. And likeyou say, they suck the life out
of anything fun, know, becauseof the climate. So in my view,
instead of just talking aboutthis, actions speak louder than
words and that's what I'm gonnado here. Got my grill ready to
go right here.

(48:45):
I'm gonna add a couple of coupleof hot dogs right on him, and
I'm gonna open up my grill andthrow a couple of hot dogs on.
And I'm going to grill rightnow.

Speaker 2 (48:57):
This is Wow.

Speaker 4 (48:59):
I'm not gonna take this I'm not gonna take this
lying down.

Speaker 1 (49:03):
The gonna be brought up for charges at The Hague.
Watch out.

Speaker 5 (49:06):
NPR NPR knows its audience, and it's it's it's
talking to, in this case,metrosexual males who have their
who have their man pursessexual. Who who who have their
man purses.

Speaker 6 (49:21):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (49:23):
Yeah. Well Yep.

Speaker 4 (49:24):
Yeah. The other thing about a lot about electric
grills, you know, if everybodystarts using electric grills and
electric cars and the grid shutdown, you got nothing. But if
you still got a propane gasstove or a natural gas stove,
you're in business. You can havelife for the next few days while
they get the grid back up.

Speaker 6 (49:43):
Absolutely. It's like in The UK at the moment that all
of the landline connections arebeing disabled and everything
will be online. So you can havea landline phone. My my nan's
got one. But but it will beconnected to the Internet.
But in the past, if the Internetwent down, you still could use
your landline if there was anemergency or something. And it's

(50:05):
the same with what you're sayinghere. If you if you take away
everybody's ability to be ableto do things without
electricity, if you lose yourelectricity, as, Ylena just just
pointed out, you're completelyshookered. You've got no one
this you need to have a varietyof different sources of energy
communication, I feel.

Speaker 5 (50:23):
It's a great way it's a great way to control
information. Right?

Speaker 6 (50:26):
Yes. Absolutely.

Speaker 5 (50:27):
You get rid of landlines or hardlines to
computers, and you go only WiFi. And when the enter when the
government doesn't want you toknow something, the the system
fails.

Speaker 6 (50:39):
Yeah. I mean, we've heard that when there was a week
during the seven seven bombingsin London, all of the mobile,
network, they shut it offbecause they didn't want there
to be any way for any more bombsto be remotely, you know,
detonated. So if I hadn't had alandline at that time, I sorry,
we're going slightly off topichere. But if I hadn't had a

(51:00):
landline, I would not have beenable communicate with my family
to let them know that I wassafe. So it's just about a
variety of different sources ofenergy, communication.
And it it's dangerous if oneperson or one organization and
there's only one form of energyor one form of communication.
But I'm teaching you guys tosuck eggs. I'm gonna shut up
now. There you go.

Speaker 3 (51:22):
Yeah. Well, I I just gotta say, I I I gotta hand it
to to, Anthony Watts. He's verybrave, live streaming him
grilling hot dogs on the grillbecause there's probably gonna
be people in the chat are gonnasay, you're doing it wrong,
Anthony. What the heck are youdoing? It's a big risk you're
taking.

Speaker 4 (51:38):
There you go. Hey. At least I didn't pull up Chuck
Schumer. Right?

Speaker 1 (51:41):
Remember that? Right. You want a hamburger.
Absolutely.

Speaker 3 (51:44):
That's right. That's right. All right. Well, as we
say, we have a little meme uphere saying that fighting global
warming with barbecue sauce tohelp fight CO2 levels, I kill
carbon producing animals andthen recycle them into my diet
with a picture of a snake.Alright.
Well, at long last, we've had somuch fun with the crazy climate
news of the week. Now let's talkabout the climate realism on the

(52:06):
rise in Europe with our twospecial guests, James Taylor and
Lois Perry, who are coming to uslive from Hungary. So James, let
me start with you. I know, know,CPAC Poland and CPAC Hungary
have been going on for a fewyears. But just a few years ago
it seemed, maybe before CPACreally started to reach out the

(52:29):
conservative movement intoCentral Europe and Eastern
Europe, that it seemed evencountries that were kind of
reasonable, right?
They didn't have crazy policies.We're still kind of on board
with the whole net zero thing.You know, they believed enough
of the climate catastrophism, orperhaps they found it profitable

(52:50):
to join the Greens in The UK andFrance and other places and
directed by the WEF and all ofthat. But it seems for me from
the reports you guys have sharedon your travels this week that
maybe the mood has changed andthat eyes have been open about
what a disaster net zero wouldbe.

Speaker 1 (53:11):
Yeah, absolutely. So going back five or ten years ago
and we've been going to Europefor a number of years, our
friends at climate and energy.They have annual conferences,
climate conferences in Germany.They invite us to participate.
So I've participated quite a bitthere.
And talking with people there,talking with conservatives

(53:33):
throughout Europe to get them totake on the extreme and idiotic
green energy agenda has beenhard to do because that's
something even even theconservatives in Europe would
say, well, you know, that'sfirst of all, nobody will listen
to us. We have no way of winningthem over and second, you know,

(53:55):
well, I mean, you know, this issomething to look into. Well,
just in the past few years, it'schanged. People have understood
because, okay, you startimplementing more wind and solar
power while you shut down coalpower. You, you know, you're
you're less and less usingnatural gas as well even though
America has plenty to export andelectricity prices have gone
through the roof and people havebegun challenging that.

(54:17):
Moreover, people are beginningto look at the foundational
underlying structure of the socalled climate crisis. I mean,
the whole basis for them sayingwe need green powers to fight
climate change and And it'samazing. Like I said, just five
years ago, four years ago, threeyears ago, it would be very
difficult to get anybody inEurope, including conservatives

(54:37):
to engage on this. And what Ifound on this trip is that
people are bringing up on theirown volition. It's not that I
need to prompt them with theclimate change topic or the
green transition as they call ithere topic.
They will say in and ofthemselves. This is climate
change, climate craziness is oneof the seminal topics that we

(54:59):
need to hit, that we need totake advantage of this idiocy,
both politically, but also againfor the well-being of our
people. And I don't need toprompt them on this. And for
this, you know, it's funny. Atthe Heartland Institute, we
don't endorse candidates.
We don't endorse parties. Wewant to produce ideas, and we
don't care who whichpolicymakers come on board. But

(55:20):
I have to say, you know, withinthat proper context, it's been
amazing when when I look at TheUK and Lois here from The UK.
She's the head of Heartland UKslash Europe. Nigel Farage in
Great Britain was the firstperson even when the Tories were
saying, well, we're we're we'regoing to compete with the
Liberals to see who can mosteffectively reduce carbon
dioxide emissions.

(55:41):
Nigel Farage had the courage totake that on and say, no. This
is this is stupid. And moreover,the underlying climate science
that supports skeptics,realists, Nigel is not afraid to
bring that to public attentionand it's wonderful to see now
the rest of Europe seeing whatNigel saw. He was the leader in
Europe and what we I think havebeen successfully promoting for

(56:03):
decades which is climaterealism. So yeah, the tide is
turning and I don't think it'sjust a blip.
I'm very optimistic about thefuture here in Europe.

Speaker 2 (56:14):
That's good.

Speaker 3 (56:15):
Go ahead, Lois.

Speaker 6 (56:16):
Yeah, I must say I totally agree and Nigel Farage
did a speech a few days agowhere he said that one of his
first things that he'll do whenhe's prime minister in 2029 is
to abolish all net zeropolicies. And he has publicly
credited us with being thepeople that have advised him to

(56:40):
to do so. So that's been amassive win for for the
Heartland UK and Europe and forthe for the Heartland Institute
in America. Because it it isquite likely that he will win. I
mean, he's polling at 32% at themoment.
And as James quite rightly says,while we would never endorse any
particular party over another,when you do have a party that's

(57:03):
taken on board your policysuggestions and it looks like
they're going to win, you can'thelp but be a little bit pleased
about that. So if only becauseyour policies are going to be
implemented. But since we'vebeen in Poland and since we've
been in Hungary, we've beenmeeting at heads of political
parties who have been, I'd say,a little bit today, he said, oh,

(57:29):
you know, in in Poland peoplestill a bit funny about talking
about net zero and but they'vegot the confidence and the
courage from seeing what's goingon in America and The UK to
actually say no. We're going tofight this. We're going to
challenge the science and we'regoing to challenge the ideology
behind it.
And we've made someextraordinary progress in Poland

(57:50):
and Hungary and some massiveconnections. And I'm flying out
to Italy the week after next tomeet with hopefully Georgia
Maloney and very seniorpoliticians on our side of the
argument. So there's there'sdefinitely definitely a feeling
in Europe that they can take onthis net zero zealotry and that

(58:13):
they can win. And they'reinspired by America and they're
inspired by The United Kingdom.

Speaker 1 (58:18):
Yeah. And and another illustration. Two years ago,
then prime minister of Poland,Matias Morvetsky, to his credit,
he asked me to come to Poland tomeet with him in a in a very
small group of his advisers andme to discuss energy and climate
policy. And that the fact thathe invited me to come out and

(58:39):
carved out time, it was morethan an hour, which I'm told was
unheard of to get that much timewith him. But he he he wanted
the best information.
He saw the Heartland Instituteis providing that. But when when
really nuts and bolts were wereyou know put to the test here.
He said look I agree witheverything. That's why I invited
you out here. I agree witheverything you say.
The problem here in Poland isthat because of the EU, we can't

(59:01):
do much of this change. We'rewe're trying our best to get
information out, but there'snothing we can do. Well, fast
forward just two years to nowduring my trip to Poland, I was
invited to speak at CPAC Polandand meet with various people
there. I met with with some veryinfluential people at the top of
the Law and Justice Party aswell as Confederacya and they

(59:23):
were bringing up on their ownwithout me even prompting them
that, hey, we need to take onthis net zero garbage and we
need to get the truth aboutclimate realism to people and
even if it's more difficult,even if the EU is trying to
pressure us, we need to do that.

Speaker 6 (59:38):
They asked for our help, didn't they? Right. To do
that.

Speaker 1 (59:40):
Right. And so two years ago, Matias Morvezki, the
prime minister who reallybelieved in what we're doing
said, look. But there's nothingI can do. Now they're saying,
well, you know what? We're gonnachallenge that there's nothing I
can do because the people arebehind us and we have momentum
on our side.
We met with Tony Abbott, theformer prime minister of
Australia. We met with him. Wasit yesterday or today?

Speaker 6 (59:59):
It was yesterday. Yesterday.

Speaker 1 (01:00:01):
And and Tony Abbott brought up on his own that he he
thought there are two issuesthat are most important for
conservatives and Australianaround the world. And one of
them was climate change andbringing climate realism, the
truth out. And again, that's notus prompting him. So that, you
know, these types ofconversations would never have
occurred just a couple yearsago, but now they are. It's
wonderful to see.

Speaker 6 (01:00:20):
Oh, there's us with Tony. Yeah. Yep.

Speaker 3 (01:00:23):
Yeah. We got we got a slideshow here. It's like, you
know, you go on vacation and youput in your you put in the old
slideshow and make your guestssit down and watch you go. But,
yeah, you you talked to TonyAbbott and James, you had said
to me in a message, you know, onyour travels that, you know,
that climate and pushing back atnet zero, but, you know, pushing

(01:00:44):
back at climate alarmism has nowbecome and it wasn't the case in
the past, that is now becomingsomething that's very important
that the conservative movementglobally understands that
defeating climate alarmism iskey to it's one of the key
issues they need to push backon.

Speaker 1 (01:01:02):
Yeah. Here in Europe, pushing back on net zero was
rare and pushing back on climatealarmism was unthinkable just a
few years ago, and now that's nolonger the case. Well, Go ahead,
Sterling.

Speaker 5 (01:01:17):
Well, I I think it's even more than talk, though.
It's it's more than y'allgenerating sort of allies and
and gathering steam. You know,just last year, you didn't bring
it up, but, you know, the

Speaker 1 (01:01:36):
Oops. Sterling has run afoul of big tech censorship
moderators. Yeah.

Speaker 5 (01:01:41):
On a green energy bill, in the EU parliament was
about to take place. Theybrought you over there. You
talked. You gave them a talk.You explained the situation.
The Hungarians changed theirvote, and it was defeated.
You're actually we're actuallyhaving an impact on policy. It's
not just, oh, we're all startingto generate the skepticism and
and being willing to talk aboutit. No. We're No.

Speaker 6 (01:02:02):
You're absolutely right. Yeah. And one of the
things that they've asked us tohelp them fight back against is
the is the green the green newdeal, the green deal that the EU
has presented to them, whichbasically for the Polish
farmers, we we met with theunion, the Polish Farmers Union
called Solidarity, which is amassive political movement. And
they said that they're beingforced to to accept grain that's

(01:02:26):
coming in from the Ukraine,which has does not meet any of
their standards, which is whichis very, very cheap and and
which is flooding their markets,and they can't they can't
compete against it because theregulations that are being put
on them by the EU are soextraordinarily restrictive that
they're losing they're losingcontrol of their own markets,

(01:02:47):
that they're having they're losethey said that they were able to
protect their farms duringcommunism, but they're unable to
protect their farms from thegreen deal that the EU is
presenting. And they want ourhelp.
Not just alliances and littlechats, but they want our active
help to fight against this. Theysee this as scarier than living
under communism. They really do.

Speaker 3 (01:03:10):
Yeah, and like you said James, the topic of climate
has come up organically or fromthem. In the past you've had to
go to Europe and convince themthat climate alarmism is a
danger to freedom Europe and nowthey bring it up to you. You
said that that was one of thetwo issues that Tony Abbott, the
former Prime Minister ofAustralia, mentioned to you out

(01:03:33):
of his own volition, thatclimate was one of them and
multiculturalism was the other.

Speaker 1 (01:03:38):
Yes, aggressive multiculturalism. And that's not
just Australia, that's in Europewhere you see the the forced
acceptance of people, you know,we all have a heart. We all want
to alleviate the suffering ofothers. The problem is when you
have this aggressive forcedresettlement to people who don't

(01:04:01):
share, who don't understand yourhistory, who don't share your
culture and your values and itmakes it very difficult when
they're when people like thatare brought in en masse. So,
there's a reason why people fromEurope are not would not be
permitted to massively settle inSaudi Arabia or even United Arab
Emirates or Japan or whereverelse and it's not due to racism.
It's because they love theirculture. But here, you know,

(01:04:24):
those were the two issues.Climate, realism, and aggressive
multiculturalism.

Speaker 3 (01:04:31):
Yeah. So is Net Zero on you know, I know that
obviously Nigel Farage Net Zerois a big part of his agenda. All
I see these days, Lois, is thatNigel Farage is going be the
next Prime Minister of TheUnited Kingdom because
Kirstarmer is a disaster andhe's just getting ripped ripped

(01:04:52):
to shreds. Who knows? But is netzero gonna go down in Europe?
Is it is it gonna be defeated inThe UK and in Europe eventually?

Speaker 6 (01:05:01):
Well, one of the things that I was discussing
with James earlier, and youasked me to mention tonight on
the show, I was in Runcornrecently where there was a by
election, and it was a a reallybig deal because it was a very
strong labor seat. It had over15,000 majority, which is huge.
You know a huge majority. Andreform and Nigel Farage's party

(01:05:22):
won it. They won it by sixvotes.
And for the I was covering thethe by election for Talk TV
which is Rupert Murdoch Stationin in The UK. And for the first
time ever, ever on the doorstep,net zero was a doorstep issue
when when they were campaigning.The the people were bringing up

(01:05:45):
the issue of net zero. Theyweren't having to have it
explained to them. But they saidthat they felt that they were
being ripped off by it.
That they felt that it was youknow it was a it was a a money
laundering or a scam. The scamwas the word that they used.
They were bringing it up. And Ithink that that is a massive
massive step forward. And that'sa lot to do with Nigel and a lot

(01:06:07):
to do with reform.
But a huge amount to do withwhat what you guys have been
doing in The US, Trump, and whatwe've been doing in The UK with
Heartland UK and Europe. So

Speaker 1 (01:06:17):
so Lois, tell tell us all now. What does Nigel Farage
say about, the new Brexit?

Speaker 6 (01:06:23):
He said that he announced it at our event,
didn't he, in December. He saidthat net zero is the next
Brexit. So there you go.

Speaker 3 (01:06:33):
It's to god's ears.

Speaker 5 (01:06:35):
It's also I think if net zero goes down, it will also
be in part at least due toreality. I think There

Speaker 6 (01:06:42):
you go. Yeah.

Speaker 5 (01:06:43):
I think Spain and Portugal was a wake up call for
some people over net zeroambitions. Oh, I think Germany
Germany has been backing down onsome of their stuff. They've
recently agreed. It's it'sinteresting. They now say they
wanna count, nuclear as cleanenergy.
They shut down their nuclearplants, but they want nuclear

(01:07:05):
elsewhere in Europe. So I Ithink it's reality, you know, of
the electric power grid. Macron,how many how many riots can he
afford, you know, taking to thestreets? Can he afford to fight
yellow vest taking the streetsover, the cost of fuel? How long
can he stand if that's going on?

(01:07:26):
We've already seen governmentschange in Italy, and some other
places. They haven't abandonednecessarily net zero yet, but
they are more skeptical ofclimate stuff. And I I just
think that's that's one, factor.

Speaker 3 (01:07:40):
Yep. Alright. You guys ready for questions yet?
Let's go to questions.

Speaker 2 (01:07:46):
Alright. Great. Okay. Q and A section here. Okay, we
have our first question is fromTerry Barnes, who says, better
question.
Why did the countries of Europesubordinate their national
interest to The US and sacrificecheap Russian gas, which is the

(01:08:06):
lifeline of European industry?

Speaker 1 (01:08:10):
I will I'll flip that on its head, and I will ask why
is it that the Brussels eliteswho wag their finger at Russia
and talk about how horrible itis and how America has to spend
all their money and treasure tofight off Russia on the European
continent when, by the way,Europe has a strong enough

(01:08:32):
economy. They can feel theircountries can feel their own
armies. Why is it that that thatthey insist upon buying Russian
natural gas, which they stilldo? Germany still wants to be
buying all their gas from fromRussia. We can provide liquefied
natural gas.
Yes, LNG, it it increases thecost when you have to, you know,
go through the LNG process butas a recent paper that we

(01:08:55):
published at the HeartlandInstitute shows, natural gas is
far and away the most affordableenergy source. In fact, it's
less than half the price of thenext closest competitor. Coal is
the second most affordable. Evenwith the LNG process, still
natural gas is much moreaffordable than wind power,
solar power, whatever they'retrying to replace coal power
that they're shutting down inPoland for example. So, we have

(01:09:18):
the opportunity to provide.
America has more coal, oil,natural gas in any country in
the world. Even exporting them,we can provide very affordable
energy sources and the folks inBrussels who are pontificating
about how horrible Russia is andand all the, you know, all the
things that they'd like to do toRussia and wanna make sure
America does it and then they gobuy Russian natural gas because

(01:09:39):
it's cheaper because they don'thave to go through the
liquefaction liquefactionprocess.

Speaker 5 (01:09:44):
I I wanna chain change the question a little bit
too. It's just why leave thequestion up, please. I wanna
read it. Why did the countriesof Europe suburbinate their
national interest? I wanna sayto global environmental elites
who caused them to shut downtheir coal industry, prevents
fracking.

(01:10:05):
They can provide their ownnatural gas. They can provide
their own coal. They can keeptheir plants open. They can keep
their nuclear plants open. Whyare they subordinating their
national interest to globalinterest out of the UN to, the
George Zoros types, and to anerupt of voters in those
countries?
Look. The greens aren't thedominant party anywhere. Why are

(01:10:28):
their concerns the dominantconcerns of the leaders of the
EU? So it's not they'resacrificing it to to The US or
sacrificing it to Russia, thoughthey are. It's why are they
sacrificing it to these peoplewho don't have average folks in
Europe's interest in mind?

Speaker 1 (01:10:47):
Yeah. And if Germany wanted to, for its own economic
condition say, look, we're goingto overlook Russia's aggression,
Russia's a tactics of attackinghospitals and schools and you
know, whatever else and we'renevertheless, we're going to buy
the least expensive Russian gas.You know, so be it but at the

(01:11:11):
same time, we have you know, wehave German politicians. We have
Brussels that are so insistentthat The United States sacrifice
our treasure, our put our troopson the line, sacrifice quite a
bit to defend Ukraine when youcan make a very good case that
Ukraine is is the victim hereand and should be getting

(01:11:32):
assistance but why is it thatAmerica should be doing it?
Germany doesn't do it and thenbuys Russian natural gas.
By the way, Jim, thank you orAndy. Thank you for putting up
the chart with the prices. Thatwas from our affordable,
reliable, and clean study thatwe put out. And this is is data
taken from a 2022 peer reviewedstudy. This is, look, if you're

(01:11:54):
going to if you're going topower your grid with these very
sources, let's say, let's justpower it with natural gas or
let's power it with coal.
Let's power it with biomass. Andwe're going to apply the full
system levelized cost ofelectricity. In other words, if
you're gonna have to if you'regonna put in place all sorts of
new wind turbines or solarpanels, they cannot be built
like natural gas or coal powerplants can be built almost

(01:12:17):
anywhere right near cities. Forwind power, solar power, you
have to build all sorts of newtransmission lines. They're very
expensive because the winddoesn't typically blow or the
sun doesn't shine best nearDetroit.
So here's how much it would costand you can see natural gas is
far and away the most affordableenergy source. Coal is easily
second most affordable and lookat wind and solar power for

(01:12:39):
people who say, you know, weoften hear this in the media,
the propaganda. Oh, wind andsolar are now cheaper than
conventional energy and theynever sign any data. They never
sign any studies and just likewith global warming, when
everyone knows global warming iswe're all going to die because
of it. You hear it enough.
They think that they say itenough. People will believe it.
Wind power is seven times moreexpensive than natural gas.

(01:13:00):
Solar power is more than 10times as expensive as natural
gas. It's right there.
You can find the study on ourwebsite, heartland.org.

Speaker 2 (01:13:10):
Alright. Awesome. Okay. We have this good question
from, Michael Johansson whosays, will a tour come to any of
the Nordic or Scandinaviancountries? Do you guys plan on
going up north?

Speaker 6 (01:13:23):
I don't know, boss. Are we going to the Scandinavian
countries?

Speaker 5 (01:13:27):
James Taylor in Norway. Lie.

Speaker 1 (01:13:30):
We'll we'll take a look at that. We have some good
friends out there who do a greatjob. Clintel does a fantastic
job. But they count as NordicScandinavian?

Speaker 2 (01:13:38):
Yeah.

Speaker 6 (01:13:39):
Yeah. Think. It's about. I think. Yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:13:42):
But you know but we we work together as friends and
allies. And yeah tell you what.To keep sending in these
questions and support, and maybewe'll take the tour there.

Speaker 6 (01:13:53):
The grand tour. Alright.

Speaker 2 (01:13:57):
Awesome. This is from one of our Rumble viewers, DJ
Bo, who says, will EU climatepolicies cause more countries to
bail from the union? And who doyou think will be first?

Speaker 1 (01:14:09):
It's interesting talking with some of our Polish
friends and and about theirfrustrations with the EU. They
say, look, Poland joining the EUhas been more beneficial than
harmful. Being a part of thatentire economy, getting the

(01:14:30):
benefits and integration, andthen, even, you know, with or
without NATO implicitly kind ofthe collective security. But
people are getting more and morefed up with how you have the
Brussels ruling class. Yeah.
Socialist elites that aredictating to Poland and other
countries. Pretty much the samepolicies and the same manner
that the communist did behindthe iron curtain.

Speaker 6 (01:14:52):
Except worse. They're saying in some way.

Speaker 1 (01:14:54):
Yeah. So, there is talk and they say for the first
time, there is legitimate talkabout a Polish exit, about other
countries in Eastern Europe.Yep. Yeah. Don't come.
We're coming up with theacronyms. But they there's a
real chance for that. And if ithappens, it's going to be the
Brussels elite shootingthemselves in the foot because
they think that, you know, theythey have the arrogance that

(01:15:15):
they can do whatever they wantand it doesn't matter what
these, previously independentcountries think.

Speaker 3 (01:15:26):
You muted Linea. You pulled a gym.

Speaker 2 (01:15:29):
Yep. I sure did. It's because my dog is barking again.
This show happens to air at theexact time that, like, the
mailman does rounds in my newnormal. So it's just awful
timing for my very annoying dog.
Okay. So let's see. This is aquestion. I'm not sure. I'm
gonna pitch this at Anthonybecause I'm actually not sure if

(01:15:50):
any of us know the answer tothis question, actually.
Our friend Chris or Archie's momasks, our friend Chris Packham
has said that the seas aroundThe UK are five degrees warmer
than in the eighties. Is thistrue?

Speaker 6 (01:16:03):
If Chris Packham said it, it's always certainly
untrue.

Speaker 2 (01:16:09):
Thank you, Lois.

Speaker 6 (01:16:09):
Okay. But that's sorry. No,

Speaker 2 (01:16:12):
you're right. What do you think, Anthony? You're
muted.

Speaker 3 (01:16:17):
You're muted as well.

Speaker 2 (01:16:20):
We're all doing that today.

Speaker 4 (01:16:21):
There we go. I'm sorry. Yeah, temperature
fluctuates on the oceansignificantly over years and so
so what? You know, it might bewarmer this year, but next year
it might be cooler. So what?
It it's not anything relevant.There's no real trend involved
that we can pinpoint off The UKthat's of many relevance.

Speaker 6 (01:16:41):
Chris, sorry. Could I just sit there? Chris Packham
ran away from me the other day.I had the House of Commons, and
he saw me. So I was going to adinner and he was walking down,
he was walking down.
He had a meeting with a ministeror something, and he saw me and
actually ran. He actually ranaway.

Speaker 1 (01:17:00):
I'm not surprised. You can't compete with your
intellectual health.

Speaker 4 (01:17:03):
You're a

Speaker 1 (01:17:04):
menace. But, you know, how many people in The UK
do you think on just some givenrandom day say, you know, I'd
really like to go to the beach,but the water is just too darn
warm.

Speaker 3 (01:17:14):
I wish the water would

Speaker 1 (01:17:15):
be colder, and then I can go in the water. So I you
know, even if that's true, fivedegrees. Oh my gosh. The the the
end of the world is coming.Another 10 degrees of warming,
and we might actually have watertemperatures that we can go in
and enjoy the beach.

Speaker 2 (01:17:30):
That's right. Okay. So this is actually this is a
good this isn't quite aquestion, but I wanted to pull
it up anyway because we actuallyhave answers to this, which is
from K1 who says climate changeroutinely ranks way down the
list of priorities in every pollin The US. I wonder if it's any
different in The UK. And infact, at climaterealism.com, we

(01:17:52):
have an article titled ThanksGuardian for reporting that
Europeans are also unwilling tomake huge lifestyle changes.
And in that one, we're talkingabout a YouGov poll of people
across Europe surveyed between3,000 people in Denmark, France,
Germany, Italy, Spain, Swedenand The UK. A majority of

(01:18:12):
Europeans surveyed said thatthey were either fairly or very
worried about climate change.However, just like in The United
States, those numbers droppedright off the second you started
asking them about what they'rewilling to do about it. The
Guardian reports that the more ameasure would change their

(01:18:34):
lifestyle, the less they supportit. They're very into ideas like
planting trees and using fewersingle use plastics.
But when they were asked to dothings like changing their meat
or dairy intake, which I'm surewould be very unpopular
somewhere like France, Itcrashed off pretty hard. Let's

(01:19:02):
see. The elimination of meatranked 10% of people in Germany
said yes to that. 19% of peoplein Italy. For some reason, we
have two for Germany on thisarticle.
I'm not sure why. 17%. Oh,right. Limiting the number
limiting the number of childrenthey had and or limiting meat

(01:19:25):
eating. Both Germany and Italyranked highest in those
categories of like approving ofit.
But it's still a tiny minoritycompared to the number of people
who said, heck no to all ofthat.

Speaker 5 (01:19:37):
What you don't understand about that question
is that the Italians were sayingthat they wanted to limit the
number of German children.

Speaker 6 (01:19:45):
The

Speaker 5 (01:19:46):
Germans were saying the same about the Italians.

Speaker 2 (01:19:49):
Yeah. No. And then there is another at what's up
with that? There's a UN pollthat was conducted like ten
years ago where people aroundthe world also ranked climate
change dead last among all ofthe things that they were
concerned about. So, no, it'sbasically not different
anywhere.

Speaker 5 (01:20:09):
Well, I think Lois has something to say on that.
The former organization she waswith, she ran, they did a poll.

Speaker 6 (01:20:19):
Yeah. So we we did, the the last set of polling that
we did, showed that, for the forthe first time ever, basically,
the the the significant numberproportion, majority of those
expressed an opinion stronglyeither way agreed that they

(01:20:39):
didn't believe that climatechange was if indeed existed was
man made. So our polling showedthat we managed to tick the
balance of of those thatbelieved in man made climate
change. But also the first setof polling that we did a few
years before showed that themajority of people that
expressed an opinion either waythis was a YouGov poll wanted an

(01:21:01):
a referendum on net zero. Thoughyou don't want a referendum on
anything unless you want the thestatus quo to shift or change
completely.
So yeah I mean it's as I say onthe doorstep in Runcorn during
the by election people they theythey don't it's not that they
they they don't care aboutclimate change. They don't they

(01:21:24):
don't they don't want net zero.They think they think it's a
scam. And this is this is new.This brand new.
They think it's a scam. Theythink they're paying a lot more
for their energy and that peopleare siphoning off profits
through renewables and greensubsidies and that they're being
taken for a ride. So yeah theOverton window has well and

(01:21:44):
truly shifted 100%.

Speaker 2 (01:21:49):
Absolutely. Oh, this is an easy question from our
friend Albert who says, wherecan I find the complete audit
and findings that Anthony Wattsdid on all the weather stations
in The US?

Speaker 4 (01:22:02):
Well, you can go to climaterealism.com and there's a
link on the sidebar for thereport that we did in 2022, the
most recent one. You candownload it and distribute it
however you like. Use it for aslideshow, whatever. All the
facts and photos are in thereand you're welcome to use it.

Speaker 2 (01:22:20):
Awesome. Okay. This one's a bit more energy related
from Andrew Goderich, who saysCanadian oil sands described to
Ann Coulter by Ezra Lavant asfair trade coffee of the world
oil industry. True or false?That's kind of hard framing,
Andrew.

(01:22:40):
But without more context, Ireally don't know why he's
saying that it would be the fairtrade coffee of the world oil
industry, that it's not usingslave labor or something to
extract then. Yeah. But thatwould be correct for all North
American oil and gas products.So I don't really know. Do any

(01:23:02):
of you know more of the contextof that?

Speaker 5 (01:23:06):
Yeah, I don't get the question.

Speaker 2 (01:23:09):
Nope. Okay. Then we will move on.

Speaker 1 (01:23:12):
If Ann Coulter were as prominent as she used to be,
we would all know that.

Speaker 2 (01:23:17):
All right. Kwan says, when are people going to realize
that the locus of power residesin Davos, not Brussels? James,
got any comment on that ordisagree?

Speaker 1 (01:23:31):
Yeah. No. I don't disagree. You have in Davos.
That's where you have all of thewoke millionaires, billionaires.
Billionaires. The governmentsthat are subservient to such
elites, you know, like the Bidenadministration, like Obama. You
know, for them, it's, oh mygoodness. If if Bill Gates is

(01:23:54):
for this, you know, this is mystar power. If Jay Z says
something he likes, this is ourstar power.
So, Davos is is where these kindof self professed or people who
have the goal of being theruling class without being
elected and then run arounddemocracy put together their
ideas and unfortunately, the theleftist media, policy makers,

(01:24:15):
the government institutions thatare largely run by the left, the
deep state. That's where theylook to. That's that's the
cutting edge of what's comingdown the pike from the left. So
the locus of power doesn'treside in Davos and or Brussels.
I think it begins in Davos, andthen it gets implemented in
Brussels.
And from time to time here inThe United States, they work

(01:24:37):
together.

Speaker 2 (01:24:40):
Yep. Oh, this is a good question that just popped
up. From Val Knight Lily. Anypredictions on what the global
elites will do when they realizemajority of people in the West
no longer believe in climatecatastrophism?

Speaker 6 (01:24:56):
Another pandemic.

Speaker 1 (01:25:00):
Well, in in my talk at CPAC Poland, I felt
compelled. Normally, I'll I'lltalk about climate and energy.
And I was on a panel on stagethat we did talk about that. So
that was good. But for mykeynote address where I got to
choose the topic, what I talkedabout was how you know, it's
amazing that you have the theleftist globalist elites that'll

(01:25:20):
call anybody who challenges themthe modern day fascist, the not
modern day Nazis, thetotalitarians.
But what you see time and timeagain, for example, free speech.
It's the left that wants tocensor and criminalize people
who engage in what they refer toas hate speech or
disinformation. In other words,anything that the left doesn't

(01:25:41):
agree with. It's the left that'staking away our rights to
freedom of assembly. Just lastyear, they shut down a public
forum with Nigel Farage, aleader of the most popular party
in The UK, and Viktor Orban, thedemocratically elected president
or prime minister of Hungary,and they called it, you know,
dangerous for public safety.
It's the left that hasprosecuted Marine Le Pen and

(01:26:05):
said she can't run for power ina democracy. She cannot run for,
you know, for the leadership ofFrance. True. They have in
Romania. They've said that thetwo most popular candidates, one
after another, cannot run forelection.
In fact, they canceled anelection because they're about
to lose. Yeah. Donald Trumpwould be sitting in prison right
now and for the rest of hislife, if not for the election
coming when it did. So what itboils down to is this, the the

(01:26:27):
globalist elites, the socialistruling class, they will stop at
nothing. Nothing to keep theirgrip on power and to
aggressively impose theirvision, their totalitarian
vision.
It's amazing. They talk aboutthe the growing grassroots
conservative movement as amodern day Nazis and fascists
and and totalitarians. They arethe ones that engage in that

(01:26:50):
time and time and time againwhereas the grassroots
conservatives are the onesstanding up for freedom. And
I'll tell people in Europe, I'llsay, look, they'll they'll label
you that. I know it's not true.
But also always keep in mind,freedom is primary. Freedom
comes first. That's what definesus as conservatives or as
libertarians, the freedommovement. And unfortunately, the
global elites, they will,without hesitation, impose

(01:27:12):
whatever totalitarian tacticsthey can to, to advance their
agenda and and their hold onpower. It it it's it's

Speaker 5 (01:27:19):
frightening. Yeah.

Speaker 4 (01:27:20):
The global

Speaker 5 (01:27:20):
the global elites are using news, news speak from from
Orwell. Right? Freedom freedomis slavery. Because I've been
called a fascist. I've beencalled a Nazi.
I've been called all sorts ofthings. No one's ever called me
a communist.

Speaker 2 (01:27:37):
But

Speaker 5 (01:27:39):
I always point out when I'm called that, I said, in
in what sense? I don't believein the government controlling
speech. The fascist did. I don'tbelieve in the government
controlling the economy. Thefascists did.
I believe in advancing freedomand individual choice. The Nazis
did not. In what way am I thefascist or the Nazi and not the

(01:28:03):
people that are calling me that?It's the very opposite. It's
it's it's a topsy-turvy world,and it's like I said, it's it's,
it's news speak.

Speaker 1 (01:28:12):
Yeah. And one point to make, it it was the Nazi is
short for the German NationalSocialist. Socialist. Workers
party. Socialist.
Adolf Hitler, how he became aNazi, started Nazi movement
shortly after World War one. TheGerman army assigned him to go

(01:28:33):
and eavesdrop on a meeting ofthe socialists in Munich that
they thought might be a threatto the government. Adolf Hitler
attended and he was mesmerized.He loved what he heard. He
became a socialist.
He quickly rose to leadership inthe socialist party. What he did
was for his hatred of the Slavs,he did not wanna be subservient

(01:28:54):
to Moscow where theinternational socialist movement
was. So he created the GermanNational Socialist Workers
Party. They deliberatelyreferred to each other pointedly
as comrade. They when whenHitler and Stalin made a pact to
invade Poland that started WorldWar two, it was because they had
the mutual interest of takingdown the capitalist nations of

(01:29:17):
the West.
And the only reason why hitwell, two reasons really why
Hitler turned on Stalin, one isbecause he, again, he did not he
he hated the Slavs almost asmuch as he hated the Jews. And
so he could not stomach workingwith and giving equal share,
equal power, equal amounts ofland to Stalin. Second, just his
own narcissism and and andwanting to take over the world.

(01:29:40):
The Nazis were at their heartsocialist and they remained that
way to the end. They controlledthe economy.
You could not create a businessindustry, cannot function
without the Nazis approval. Itwas state governed state run.
Whereas conservatives is exactlythe opposite. It was a Nazis
that banned free speech. It wasit was the Nazis that censored
free speech just like today'sleftists are doing.

(01:30:01):
It's a Nazis that criminalizedopposition parties and said
people cannot run for office.Again, it's what the left is
doing. When they try to makethat claim and even many
conservatives fall victim tothis. Well, we have to be
careful though about theseEuropean conservatives because
they're the modern day fascist.They have those fascist Nazi
roots.
And in Europe, you know, it wasjust forty years ago. Well, now
I guess it's, you know, eightyyears ago. Just eighty years ago

(01:30:23):
that these they were saying thesame thing. No, they were saying
exactly the opposite. Don't letthem defame the modern day
grassroots conservative movementby labeling them as such.
And I can say it's not just thatI emphasize it when I speak
here, but I don't need toemphasize it because when I talk
with policymakers from Austria,from Hungary, from, you know,

(01:30:45):
what's called the German right,from Poland, freedom is a word
that they are using more thanany word I can think of. Yeah.
They are fighting for freedom,and that's what the
conservative, libertarian,blending together that is now
the free market, the bulk offreedom because it's not just
the free market. That is thefreedom movement in Europe.

Speaker 2 (01:31:06):
Awesome. We love a James Taylor rant when we can't
get a James Taylor rant as And

Speaker 3 (01:31:12):
I'll just mention that James did give a fantastic
speech at cinectpolin and youcan find it at Heartland's
YouTube channel. It's very easyto find there.

Speaker 2 (01:31:23):
Alrighty, here's a science question for us real
quick. Pop this up on the screenfrom Nude, who says, do you
agree that current Antarctic icegrowth is due to more rainfall?
Could it be that Antarcticaforeshadows a coming cooling?

Speaker 4 (01:31:43):
It's not you mean snowfall.

Speaker 2 (01:31:46):
Yeah. I don't

Speaker 4 (01:31:47):
think there's really any

Speaker 2 (01:31:48):
that often for rain.

Speaker 4 (01:31:51):
Yeah. It gets some rainfall up on the northern part
of the peninsula on occasion,but most of the time it's
snowfall. And so, yeah, that'sthe way ice builds, you know?
You get more snowfall. Itcompacts and it comes down and
it adds more ice.
The snow turns into ice. That'show glaciers grow all over the
world. The thing is thatprecipitation patterns vary

(01:32:14):
widely and so although we'regetting a gain right now, the
next decade, we might see aloss. It's natural variation.
It's not climate change.

Speaker 5 (01:32:22):
I would I would add. I I have some questions about
that study. Not that there'ssome gain going on, but all the
headlines were, this is thefirst time in decades. This is
the first time in decades. Oh,decades.
The the Antarctica has beendeclining. Well, I'm sorry. NASA
put out a study in 2015 thatshowed there was net ice gain on

(01:32:44):
Antarctica, for for two decades,when warming was supposedly
occurring, that the eastern partof Antarctica and the mainland,
the the center of Antarctica wasgaining ice even as the
peninsula and the western,Antarctica was losing ice, but
more was being gained. And thatwas NASA in 2015. So it wasn't

(01:33:05):
decades ago that this washappening.
It was a decade ago. And you hada decline. You had a shift, and
now it shifted back.

Speaker 2 (01:33:18):
Yeah. And and with regards to foreshadowing a
coming cooling, it's just likethe global warming stuff, I
would say. It's it's people are,making too strong of claims, I
think, with very littleevidence. I think Anthony would
agree with me on that.

Speaker 4 (01:33:34):
Yeah, it's difficult to predict the future. It really
is.

Speaker 2 (01:33:39):
Yeah, especially correctly, right?

Speaker 4 (01:33:42):
Yes. Not like Yogi Berra said it's difficult to
make predictions, especiallyabout the future.

Speaker 2 (01:33:48):
Right. Okay. This is a great question from Climate
Bell who says, the pandemic fromstart to finish taught us the
characteristics of theestablishment beast and how to
defeat it. Can we teach that tothe masses? This is for anybody
who wants to jump on it.

Speaker 4 (01:34:09):
One hopes.

Speaker 5 (01:34:12):
I've always I've always said, you know, my whole
life, I've seen the governmentgrow. So Sometimes
incrementally, sometimes by hugemargins, great leaps forward,
but I've never seen it trulyshrink.

Speaker 1 (01:34:26):
No. And I would like oh, go ahead. I'm sorry,
Sterling.

Speaker 5 (01:34:29):
And and I've always argued. Look. It's a it's an
incremental educated process.You have to teach people the
virtues of freedom and liberty,and that's not a short term
thing, especially when they'rebeing indoctrinated daily in
public schools.

Speaker 6 (01:34:43):
Yep.

Speaker 1 (01:34:44):
So the, you know, the tactic, regarding COVID and
using that as an excuse toextend the government's reach
and control our lives and, shutdown dissent. There's a lot in
common with what happened duringCOVID with how the establishment

(01:35:05):
left is treating climate changeTrying to utilize that as a
bludgeon for us. And we haveproduced a video. You can find
it if you do an internet searchfor you've been lied to. And the
video is actually going quiteviral.
Especially put together as wellas it was done by Andy Singer.

(01:35:26):
They're in the background heretoday but check it out and it's
short, it's pithy, but it doespresent just how the two are
related in the sense that thisis the way that the, the leftist
elites have tried to take awayour freedom.

Speaker 2 (01:35:47):
Yeah. And I would say, you know, to to a certain
point, I'm not entirely surethat we beat the establishment
beast from in the during thepandemic. We certainly held
ground on a lot of in a lot ofareas, but it was pretty bad. I
mean, people seem to forgetalready that they were, like,
filling in skate parks with sandand stuff. Yeah.

(01:36:10):
Sure. It was pretty crazy.

Speaker 5 (01:36:11):
That they were that they were telling people despite
a pretty clear injunction of thefirst amendment of the
constitution that they couldn'tgo to church on Sundays. You
couldn't get to at your churchand worship freely.

Speaker 6 (01:36:24):
But I feel that if if the pandemic hadn't happened and
people hadn't startedquestioning the science in
inverted commas that actuallymaybe we wouldn't. I'm not
saying that I wanted it tohappen in any way whatsoever,
but I'm just saying that peoplestarted questioning all the

(01:36:45):
sciences settled after thepandemic, including climate
science. I found that people aremuch more open to hearing about
climate scepticism, challengingorthodoxies, challenging things
where where you're not allowedto talk about things because
it's settled and you know, ifyou do, you're a denier or an

(01:37:06):
anti vaxxer or whatever. But itdid open people's minds up to to
challenge things more generally.And that I feel has opened up
the net zero debate.
I really do.

Speaker 2 (01:37:19):
Absolutely. Alright. Very important question from
Kwan. Ketchup or mustard on thehot dogs, Anthony?

Speaker 1 (01:37:28):
Mustard. Attaboy. With jalapeno peppers, I hope.

Speaker 4 (01:37:35):
Yeah. That's if I'm hot dogs. I'm sorry. That's just
sacrilegious.

Speaker 2 (01:37:41):
We only have a couple more questions here in my feed.
We've got one from our friendBob who says, what do the
various AI websites offer on thereality of climate change? Has
anyone really explored that? Iknow a lot of people say Grok is
good, but I don't know.

Speaker 4 (01:37:58):
Yeah. Well, what's up with that? We use three
different AI models. We useGrok, we use ChatGPT, and we
also use Perplexity to help uswith research. These AI models
don't speak for us, what theyare good at is doing research
for us, finding out, you know,give me a series of scientific

(01:38:21):
articles that talk about CO2saturation, for example, and it
will go find them much fasterthan I could ever do it.
So those are really useful forresearch. So when you ask them
to do things like that they comeback with accuracy. If you ask
them opinionated things such asis climate change a crisis? Well

(01:38:43):
we just had a post on that itwalks up with that. Groth by the
way is neutral on the topic, andthat's because Elon Musk
directed it to be that way.
But the other two, they comeback with, you know, climate
change is a crisis. You have todo something. That's their
opinion that's built into theway that the models were
created. So if you want a honestAI to ask questions about

(01:39:04):
climate change, use Grox.

Speaker 2 (01:39:07):
Yeah. As one of our commenters here said, Val says
AI shines as a tardive search.That seems to be right to me,
too. Asking it for, like,whether or not something other
than very basic things are trueor not seems to be a waste of
time because it will kind of bewishy washy. And it depends on

(01:39:30):
what they're pulling from, too.
The like Google search AI, Iwould not depend on for almost
anything ever. It's been likeextreme or even the one that
pops up at the top of the screenon brave, I would not depend on
for anything because it is verywrong and it seems to
hallucinate is what the wordthat they use for it. Like, just

(01:39:53):
if it can't find things with thewords that you use to describe
it, it will just make somethingup that sounds kind of right and
quite incorrect. So always,always, always double check the
sources that it links to becauseoften, it'll just make something
up and then give you a source.And that thing it made up is
nowhere in the source.

(01:40:15):
It made up a statistic on, thenumber of earthquakes The US has
had so far this year that I sawthis morning, and it just pulled
it out of thin air. And I kepttrying to get it to tell me
where it got it from, but it waslike, I don't know. You find
out.

Speaker 5 (01:40:30):
Now got me scared because that does sound like the
machine actually thinking.

Speaker 6 (01:40:36):
Well, I'm I'm just going out

Speaker 5 (01:40:38):
and grabbing data that's out there. It sounds like
it's actually making stuff up,that sounds like a human being.

Speaker 2 (01:40:44):
Well, it's not. It's just that it's a computer, like,
trying to answer it's answeringyour question even if it doesn't
have information to answer itfrom.

Speaker 5 (01:40:55):
That sounds like people. I hear people like that
all the time. What do you thinkcaused the car your car to
explode?

Speaker 1 (01:41:02):
Am feeling much better, Dave. I am completely
confident in this mission.

Speaker 2 (01:41:10):
Here's a question from a viewer on X. Rants from
Alaska asks, do you guys havethoughts on the BBB about the
climate cuts? So this would bethe big beautiful bill that just
passed the house.

Speaker 3 (01:41:24):
The more the better.

Speaker 5 (01:41:26):
It it it it it was a it did not go far enough, but
we'll take any gain that we got.

Speaker 6 (01:41:37):
Brilliant.

Speaker 2 (01:41:38):
Nothing else? We don't have any specific
favorites from that one? I thinkwe do. We we We did

Speaker 5 (01:41:43):
all the saw on it last week, didn't we?

Speaker 2 (01:41:45):
Yeah. We did. Actually, yeah. Rants from
Alaska, you can watch. We had wehad our main topic, I think,
last week was on it.
As Sterling said, it probablydidn't go far enough. It seems
to kick the can down the roadquite a bit on a lot of it, but
maybe it wasn't built to do thatthis time. Anyway Yeah. I'm

(01:42:06):
hearing the music, so I thinkI'm being kicked out.

Speaker 3 (01:42:10):
Yeah. It's like the playoff

Speaker 6 (01:42:11):
That's Jim. That was very subtle.

Speaker 3 (01:42:14):
Wow. Yeah. Thank you, Andy producer extraordinaire for
doing that. It's it's it's likethe Oscars. They play the music
and you gotta go.

Speaker 6 (01:42:20):
Well, we're off to an event now, aren't we? Where are
we going, James, with the team?

Speaker 1 (01:42:24):
Yeah. There's a CPAC event. I forget the name of the
restaurant. It's it's in my textmessaging, but it's the big fish
that we were invited to. Sowe're feeling

Speaker 6 (01:42:34):
And I'm gonna remove the hat.

Speaker 1 (01:42:36):
No. There

Speaker 6 (01:42:36):
you go. Oh, no. Actually, no. I'm gonna put
gonna put it back on.

Speaker 3 (01:42:40):
Once you start with a hat, you gotta keep the hat.
That's just

Speaker 6 (01:42:43):
where Yeah. No. I'm gonna have to do some tonguing
and some stuff. So, yeah.

Speaker 3 (01:42:47):
Yeah. Those are hair rules. So, okay. I wanna thank
James Taylor and Lois Perry, ourvery special guests, for coming
to

Speaker 4 (01:42:54):
us live Safe

Speaker 3 (01:42:57):
travels back to The U. S, James. Safe travels back
to The U. K, Lois. Thank you foron.
You, Andy, the producer in thebackground, plus our intern,
Ian. Thank you, Sterling. Thankyou, Anthony. Thank you, Lanea.
And thank you, the audience, forbeing here with us today.
It was such a very lively andfun show. Always visit
climaterealism.com. Go toclimateataglance.com,

(01:43:18):
energyataglance Com. Those arefantastic websites to learn a
lot more about climate andenergy issues. And of course,
always visit heartland.org.
And thank you again for being onthe show, and we will talk to
you next week. Bye bye.

Speaker 6 (01:43:33):
Bye bye. How dare you?

All Episodes

Climate Realism Gains Ground in Europe – Live from Budapest! - The Climate Realism Show #159

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

Crime Junkie

Ridiculous History

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Climate Realism Gains Ground in Europe – Live from Budapest! - The Climate Realism Show #159