Climate Realism Is HOT in the UK — The Climate Realism Show #174 - Environment and Climate News Podcast

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Sterling Brunnett (00:04):
One of the most urgent tasks of our country
is to decisively defeat theclimate hysteria hoax.

Speaker 2 (00:11):
We are in the beginning of a mass extinction.

Jim Lakely (00:15):
The ability of c o two to do the heavy work of
creating a climate catastropheis almost nil at this point.

Anthony Watts (00:21):
The price of oil has been artificially elevated
to the point of insanity.

That's not how you power a modern
industrial system.

Speaker 5 (00:29):
The ultimate goal of this renewable energy, you know,
plan is to reach the exact samepoint that we're at now.

You know who's tried that? Germany. Seven
straight days of no wind forGermany. Their factories are
shutting down.

Linnea Leuken (00:45):
They really do act like weather didn't happen
prior to, like, 1910. Today isFriday.

Jim Lakely (00:55):
That's right, Greta. It is Friday, and it is, our
favorite day of the week. Andnot just because the weekend is
almost here, because this is theday the Heartland Institute
broadcasts the climate realismshow. My name is Jim Lakeley.
I'm vice president of theHeartland Institute.
We are an organization that hasbeen around for forty one years,
and we are known as the leadingglobal think tank pushing back

(01:17):
on climate alarmism. Heartlandand this show bring you the
data, the science, the facts,the truth that counters the
climate alarmist narrativeyou've been fed every single day
of your life. There is nothingelse but like the climate
realism show streaming anywhere.So I hope you will bring friends
to view this livestream everyFriday at 1PM eastern time. And
also like, share, and subscribe.

(01:38):
Be sure to leave commentsunderneath underneath the video.
These all convince YouTube'svery mysterious algorithm to
smile upon this program a littlebit, and that helps get the show
in front of even more people.And as a reminder, because big
tech and the legacy media don'treally like the way we cover
climate and energy policy onthis program, Heartland's
YouTube channel has beendemonetized. So if you wanna

(01:59):
support this program, and Ireally hope you do, please visit
heartland.org/tcrs. That'sheartland.org/tcrs, and you can
join other friends of theprogram who help bring this show
to the world every single week.
And we also wanna thank ourstreaming partners, that being
The c o two Coalition, CFACT,junkscience.com, What's Up With

(02:21):
That, and our friends atHeartland UK Europe. We have a
big show today, and we have avery special guest today. So I
wanna get right into it and getstarted. We have with us, as
usual, Anthony Watts. He is asenior fellow at the Heartland
Institute and the publisher ofThe World.
Most viewed website on climatechange. What's up with that? We

(02:42):
have Sterling Burnett. He's thedirector of the Arthur b
Robinson Center on Climate andEnvironmental Policy at the
Heartland Institute. And, ofcourse, Lynea Lucan, research
fellow for energy environmentpolicy at Heartland.
And, I wanna thank our producer,Andy, who had the power go out
in his house about ten minutesbefore we went to air. So he
might be able to get back onlineand help us out in the

(03:02):
background, but I wannarecognize our producer as well.
But, of course, she was gonna beon last week. Something came up,
and she is on this week. We'rewelcoming you back to the show,
the lovely Lois Perry.
She is the director of HeartlandUK Europe, the host of the Lois
Perry show, a bird's eye view,which is a very cheeky little
title there, Lois. And, she justhappens to be one of the most

(03:23):
effective and influentialcommentators on climate and
conservatism and common senseanywhere on the globe. It is our
honor to have you back again.Lois.

Speaker 2 (03:32):
One introduction. Maybe in The UK, not certainly
not on the glow in the globe as,you know, as you you guys prove,
but thank you so much.

Jim Lakely (03:41):
You I thought I've seen you on Australian
television. Is that not true?Maybe.

Speaker 2 (03:46):
Okay. Yeah. I've done this yeah. I've I've done
Australian television. Yeah.

Jim Lakely (03:50):
There you go. See, Globe. And and I have

Speaker 2 (03:52):
a special couple of ago. I'll take it. Alright. I
love I'm an Essex girl, hencethe bird thing.

Yes. Try continental. Try continental.

Speaker 2 (04:00):
Just keep the compliments coming, actually.
It's all. Well,

Jim Lakely (04:05):
it is it is certainly a pleasure to have you
on today, and there is a lot totalk about because what they
used to call global warming,they now call global climate
change. This is a global fightfor climate realism, and you're
kicking it over there. You know,you're kicking butt over there,
as we say, The United Stateswith partly UK, Europe, and we
are gonna talk a little bitabout that. But I know you

(04:26):
wanted you wanted to havesomething to say of of about the
recent horrible events thathappened in The United States
recently.

Speaker 2 (04:32):
Thank you, and thank you for giving me the
opportunity to do so. I'd justlike to say on behalf of myself,
my team, and I can't speak foreveryone in the in The UK, but I
can certainly speak for themajority of right minded
individuals in The UK. We wouldjust like to offer The UK's most
sincere condolences after theassassination and the death of

(04:57):
Charlie Kirk. The he wasextraordinarily respected this
side of the pond, the mothercountry, and we are absolutely
devastated. And all we can hopeis that his death and I I don't
think I'm exaggerating here.
Like Jesus obviously, he's notJesus, but that his death will

(05:21):
mean that that more people willwill come to our side, more
people will realize that thatwhat's going on, and and more
people will come to God and andto Christ. So his death will not
be in vain. So, yeah, thank you.

And, you know, Lois, you're right about that.
It's not in vain. I read justthis morning that over 65,000
requests have been put in to theTurning Point organization for
new chapters at high school andcolleges. I mean, wow.

Speaker 2 (05:57):
My son who he'll tell me off, actually. I'm gonna do
it anyway. I'm gonna do itanyway. So my son, he's 22. I
was a child bride, obviously.
My son, he he has never had anyparticular interest in faith. In
fact, he has been almostpassionately athe an atheist.

(06:20):
Said to me the other day, I'minterested in finding out more
about God. Don't want to be onthe side of the people that are
making these horrific commentsabout Charlie Kirk. And I
thought, you know, I need to bea little bit balanced here.
I said, well, you you it doesn'tmean you're a horrible person
because you don't have faith.Lots of people who don't have

(06:41):
faith are good people. But hesaid, yeah. But there's
something that Charlie had thatI want. And I thought, my
goodness.
My son, who's been a passionateatheist, unfortunately, for all
this time saying that, that thatgave me such extraordinary hope.
I I think we're gonna I thinkhe's I think it is a sacrifice,

(07:05):
and and it is not in vain, andand and the movement is gonna
explode because of it. So thankyou so much for sharing that
with me about the chapters thatbecause that that's proof of
what I've been thinking. Thankyou.

Like his wife said, you guys have no idea what
you've unleashed.

Good. Powerful testament. Yep.

Jim Lakely (07:31):
Yep. For sure. Alright. Well, our our
backgrounds here are a littlebit messed up. I wanna apologize
to the audience, and I reallylove seeing that little green
thing going around.
And maybe we could fix that inmiddle of the show. But it'll
just you know what? All that'sjust distracting from from
looking at Lois. You know? Solet's just make sure that she
has got the attention shedeserves because she has a
special guest

Speaker 2 (07:51):
on her show. Thank you.

Jim Lakely (07:53):
Alright. Let's move on then to, you know what? Last
week, we we always start theshow, as you know, Lois, I'm
sure, with the, the crazyclimate news of the week. And
last week, it was a littlesomber, so we decided to give,
our intro guy for crazy climatenews the day off. But guess
what?
You're back on the job. Here wego. Alright. Thank you again,

(08:26):
Bill and I. Only one week offfor you.
Alright. So we're gonna get toour crazy climate news. The
first one here, comes to us fromThe Daily Skeptic. I I titled it
in the sidebar, which you can'tsee right now. Dying to save the
planet, and the headline hereis, funerals should comply with
net zero.
Says labor, labor party in TheUK. So, you know, apparently,

(08:50):
labor wants to scrap gascremations and make families say
goodbye in eco friendly wickeror bamboo coffins instead. And
they link over from The DailySkeptic over to The Telegraph.
I'll read a little bit fromthis. New rules for crematoria
drawn up by the UK environmentdepartment are set to be
upgraded to meet both newpollution standards and The UK's

(09:12):
commitment to reach the targetof net zero by 2050 championed
by energy secretary Ed Miliband,your favorite your favorite
person ever.
I love you.

Speaker 2 (09:21):
Favorite point. Yeah.

Jim Lakely (09:22):
Yeah. Under the plan, the government will seek
to cut emissions of greenhousegases and other pollutants,
including mercury from dentalfillings and airborne toxins
from burning coffin glue andembalming fluid. Draft rules
also suggest crematoria burncrematoria burn bodies one after
another with no gap to retainheat and save on gas. A tough

(09:44):
target for an industry thatrelies almost entirely on gas
fired ovens, DEFRA makes clearthat the burning of that the
burning coffin and corpse willgenerate emissions even if
powered by green electricity. Ohmy gosh.
There is, however, a downside tocremations powered by
electricity, which is that theytake much longer. Cremations in

(10:05):
gas ovens, quote, range from aslittle as fifty minutes to more
than two hours depending on bodysize, unquote. But, quote,
cremation times on electriccremate cremators are longer,
the guidelines warn. Industryestimates suggest that cremating
a large corpse would take up tothree hours in a crematorium
powered by low carbonelectricity, twice as long as

(10:27):
with gas. Anthony, I know Loisis gonna weigh in here, but I
wanna start with you.
This is just really gross. Imean, is there literally no
aspect of life that the climatezealous won't micromanage?

That's exactly what I was thinking. Yeah. They
wanna get control of everyaspect of your life, and they
use the guise of, you know,we're going to burn up from
climate change if we don'tchange our lives. And and it's
an absolute lie what they'regetting into. I mean, the bottom
line is is that when you look atat temperatures, like, for
example, the Central Englandtemperature index, it has not

(11:03):
changed significantly for acouple of centuries.
The same thing goes with the USclimate reference network in The
United States since 02/2005.There's no significant changes.
The idea that we are gettinghotter from climate change is
not supported by the data. Yes.Overnight temperatures have gone
up, but that's mostly due to theUHI effect and the micro siding

(11:25):
effect that I have, exposed inthe 2022 climate report at
Heartland about weatherstations.
And The UK is seeing now thesame thing. We've got a great,
group of people over in The UKthat are with the the Daily
Skeptic and others. They aregoing through and looking at all
these weather stations, and theyhave found that the Met Office

(11:46):
weather stations are even worsethan The United States. And
they've even they'vecommissioned news stations where
they don't even pay attention tothe siding. You know, there are
fours and fives on the scale,which are considered
unacceptable by the WorldMeteorological Organization.
So, you know, the wholetemperature data is just not

(12:06):
supporting that we are getting areal crisis with climate. And
but the people that are dumb,like Ed Miller bland, as we call
him here, don't pay attention tothat. They don't actually look
at the data. They do notactually pay attention to
history. They're only looking atthe rhetoric that comes out in
the latest press release, andthat's what they latch on to,

(12:28):
and that's what they use to tryto control our lives.
Rant over.

I'd I'd like to weigh in on this. I I was the
one that shared the story, my,you're right, Jim. There is no
aspect to our lives that theydon't wanna control. Evidently,
in The UK, even more so thanhere, it's sort of cradle to
grave, literally grave, climatemandates. They don't want you to

(12:55):
have children now.
Right? They're they'reconstantly harassing, haranguing
people, saying children are badfor the planet. You know? They'd
like one child or no child,climate, China type policies, I
suspect, if they had their wish.And now they want to tell you
how to care for your loved ones,post death.
They, despite the fact that theelectric, cremation, let's be

(13:23):
clear, it might be three hours,but it could be as many as five
hours. If you've got multiplethey want you to do them back to
back to back. That could stackup for days, you know, as
opposed to moving through anumber of bodies in a single
day. It could take much longer.And, of course, where does your

(13:46):
electric power come from?
Are you gonna be able to crematepeople in the days the wind
isn't blowing? The sun isn'tshining for a week. Good old
sunny UK. Oh, wait. It's not.
Will you have the power to runthe electric crematoriums?

Speaker 2 (14:02):
Well well yeah. I mean, the the irony

It could create more emissions, and it's
just none of their business.Lois? No.

Speaker 2 (14:13):
No. You're absolutely right. And the irony is,
obviously, because nobody canafford to heat their homes in
The UK, our cost being six toeight times more expensive than
you guys because we're notfracking, that that people will
be freezing to death. So theywill have, you know, extra
people needing to be created inthe winter where there's no wind

(14:38):
and there's no solar. So how arethey gonna do these eco
fumaroles?
You're gonna have extra bodiesbecause of net zero, and then
you're not gonna be able tocreate them because of net zero.
So where where does real lifeactually you know, where where
does reality actually come in?But it's interesting what you

(14:58):
say about

I had a good friend of mine who retired a few
years ago. He was the head ofBig City Radio two. He was a
good guy. He was a bit of a woe,but he was okay. Anyway, so I
went to his retirement party,

Speaker 2 (15:11):
and Ed Ed Miliband was there. And I said, oh, at
that time, I I was heading up aa a climate realist
organization, nothing on thescale of you guys, very small,
but but influential organizationin The UK called Card Twenty
Six. And I said, I don't believein the science. And he was
mortified. I mean, completelymortified.

(15:33):
So he said, I need to talk toyou. I need to talk to you. And
it was a bit weird. He keptpulling me off. He wanted to
talk to me, and then he got abit strange.
And then he'd have a drink, thenhe come back and pull me off
down to the stairwell to lectureme about the dangers of c o two.
He kept going, you must comeinto parliament, Lois. You must
hear. It's real. It's real.
And you know what? I actuallybelieve that look. I believe he

(15:55):
is a Marxist. 100%. We knowthat.
But I also believe he's reallybought into this stuff, hook,
line, and sinker. And he's azealot, and zealots are
dangerous. He's a zealot forcommunism, and but he's also I
genuinely believe believes allthis gump. I really, really do.

(16:18):
So absolutely.
So, yeah, so we'll kill them alloff in the winter, and then we
can't create them. Good plan.Well done, UK. Good comparison.

But you should England England doesn't
have a lot of space. I knowthat. No. But you should find a
space, some wilderness area thaty'all protected for decades.

Speaker 2 (16:39):
You're not gonna say anything that I'm gonna get in
trouble for, are you? I hope

not. I'm just gonna say, look. The Native
Americans used to have someNative American tribes used to
have a practice.

Speaker 2 (16:49):
Well, a banishment.

No. They they they set them up on when you
died, they would set up a pyre,not a burning pyre, but just a
stand and leave you out thereand let the buzzards and
whatever birds you have in TheUK take their choice. There's no
methane. It's, you know, it'sit's just

Speaker 2 (17:05):
Yeah. We we haven't gone up for him. Sorry. I mean
Nope.

Now that we're getting into the macabre, I
would simply say my protest tothis would be, if I had this
situation in The UK, I wouldtell the funeral director to
take the body in the casket to10 Downing Street and drop it
off and say, this is yourproblem now.

Jim Lakely (17:26):
Yeah. Well, you know, I I I was yeah. We should
move on.

Speaker 2 (17:29):
This is

Jim Lakely (17:29):
pretty it's pretty grim.

Speaker 2 (17:30):
It's getting a little bit macabre.

Jim Lakely (17:32):
Yeah. It's getting a

Speaker 2 (17:33):
little bit gothic, isn't it?

Yeah. Well, you know,

Speaker 2 (17:36):
if if thought you would say e emo.

Yeah. Well, that's that's that's why this
story is such so perfect forcrazy climate news of the week.

Jim Lakely (17:44):
That's true. That's what

we call

it. Yeah.

Jim Lakely (17:47):
Well, I'll I'll just I'll just close by saying if I
happen to pass away in TheUnited Kingdom, I wanna be
burned on a pyre like DarthVader in Return of the Jedi
because that will ensure maximumc o two emissions, which is what
I want my legacy to be. We'llmake sure

Speaker 2 (18:00):
you're wearing a prescription. Extraordinarily
vain. So I've told my both mychildren, which I'm sure they'll
completely ignore, that I wantto be buried and I want to have
an effigy of me at age 25 on thetop lounging like this. So both
of them will ignore it, andthey'll probably get me a co op
funeral, which costs about $3and and you know? But but but I

(18:23):
said I will haunt them so theyhave got that on their backs.

Jim Lakely (18:29):
So do what your mother says always.

Speaker 2 (18:31):
Alright. Exactly. Yeah. Let's let's move on. My
daughter to do that.

Jim Lakely (18:36):
For sure. Alright. Let's move away from the macabre
and into the ridiculous and thedisasters of the electric
vehicle disaster update. We liketo visit this topic every few
months just to check-in on howit's going badly, and we may not
even to report on this after toomuch longer the way things are
going. But EV disaster update isa friend of mine in the show,

(18:57):
writer Buck Rock Morton at Aceof Space HQ calls EVs eternal
combust external combustionvehicles, which I think is
pretty good way to say it.
That's what EV stands for.Anyway, this comes from the
publication CanadianManufacturing. Quebec pulls all
1,200 Lion electric buses offroads after school bus fire.

(19:19):
Schools across Quebec have beenforced to cancel bus services
after the government pulled allof the roughly 1,200 Lyon
electric buses in the provinceoff the roads. The provincial
government said it took theprecautionary measure after Lyon
electric school bus fire caughtI'm sorry.
After a Lyon electric school buscaught fire in Montreal earlier

(19:40):
this week. Several children anda driver were inside the bus
when it caught fire, but nobodywas injured. In a joint
statement on September 11,education minister Sonia Labelle
and transportation ministerJonathan Julienne said a, quote,
defect may have caused Septemberfire. Quote, the preventative,
the preventive vehicleinspection operation will take

(20:01):
place all weekend to allownormal school transportation to
resume as quickly as possible,they said. If adjustments to the
vehicles are necessary,alternatives will be offered to
parents for transporting theirchildren to school next week.
Now the story does go on to sayor claim, I'll just say it that
way, that batteries were not thecause of these fires, and that
seems, I don't know, prettysuspicious to me, but let's take

(20:23):
their word for it. Histories,however, says it's only a matter
of time until they becomeexternal combustion vehicles
because of their batteries. Andthen there's another story here
related to electric vehicles.This comes from USA Today. The
Ram 1,500 REV has been canceled.
Stellantis shifts energystrategy as EV demand drops. And

(20:47):
let me read a little bit fromthis. Ram is pulling the plug on
its electrified pickup truck.Initially called the Ram 1,500
REV, the fully electric pickupwas slated for market in 2024.
Then it was delayed until 2025.
Then it was 2026. Recently, thedeadline was moved to 2027, and
now the automaker has canceledthe whole program the company

(21:09):
announced on September 12.Quote, as demand for full size
battery electric trucks slowsdown in North America,
Stellantis is reassessing itsproduct strategy and will
discontinue development of afull size BEV pickup, the
company said. Ram now says thatthe, the nameplate of the now
defunct EV pickup will betransferred to what was what was

(21:29):
previously known as the Ramcharger, a Ram 1,500 on a range
extended powertrain, which isslightly different from a full
battery powered electricvehicle. The range extended
pickup truck is, the rangeextended pickup truck is
projected to go on sale in 2026.
Now the idea is that Ram, the1,500 REV, will use power from
the battery to power the vehicleforward, and it will drive and

(21:51):
feel like an EV. However, thebattery is powered by an
internal combustion engine inthe truck that runs on gasoline.
So the battery will not have tobe plugged in to be charged,
although that is an option. Yousimply fill up the tank and
drive the car. So, that's notexactly a a hybrid, but an EV
powered by an internalcombustion engine.

(22:13):
I don't know. Maybe there'sgonna be a market for this.
Sterling, we always go to youfirst when we get to these crazy
stories, but, you know, we weretold we were told by very
reliable sources that electricvehicles were the future, that
the future is here now. Yeah.What happened?

So much to say. The first off, I believe

bucks.

I believe that that school bus fire wasn't
due to the electric battery justlike I believe that Portugal and
Spain's electricity failure lastyear wasn't due to wind and
solar. In other words, I don'tbelieve it. The it's
interesting. If it wasn't due tothe batteries or to the unique

(22:52):
structure of operating a batterypowered bus, then why do they
pull all the battery poweredbuses but none of the diesel off
the road? What what's thedifference?
Oh, the battery and the batterypack and the electric,
electrical system working thebatteries. You know, they've got
a problem. It's not just in TheU I mean, it's not just in
Canada. They have found thatbuses don't complete their

(23:15):
routes, stranding children,especially during bad weather,
like in the snow in Maine, whereyou don't want, your bus dying
on the side of the road with noheating. And the problem, you
know, the problem is compoundedby the fact that Lion and
Proterra, another electric busmanufacturer, have now both

(23:36):
declared bankruptcy.
Lion had a multiple billion. Ithink 4,100,000,000.0 or
1,200,000,000.0. I forget howmany. In '21, that was its
value. It sold in bankruptcy forless than 100,000,000,000.
They aren't honoring theirwarranties because a company
that's out of business can't,you know, fix things when

(23:58):
they're broken. In The US, we'vesubsidized hundreds, if not
thousands, of these electricbuses being, bought. Many of the
diesel buses were trashed, notrecycled, because we didn't
wanna go back to diesel. Wedon't want that option. So now
they have to buy new diesel.
The costs are higher. The costof operating are higher. They

(24:21):
don't run as long. This was,something that you know, this
was a a disaster that was youknow, I'm not much of a
prognosticator, but I predictedthis one because it wasn't that
hard. It wasn't that hard.
Look at all the fires. Look atall the people in danger. Look
at people who aren't even on thevehicles, like the scooters that

(24:44):
catch fire in New York andburned down buildings, killing
people. This was somethingwaiting to happen. It's happened
in India.
It's happened in France. Yeah.Everywhere EVs have been tried
and used, and governments haveforced them to be tried and
used. And they're puttingchildren at risk, And it's good
they're taking them off theroad. This is an experiment that

(25:04):
has not just failed, but it wasit it it was easily predicted to
have failed in in advance.
As far as Stellantis look. Look.That that that, truck that you
you described, it's not thefirst hybrid to operate that
way. Karma, which used to beFisker, was precisely that. It

(25:26):
was a hybrid electric vehicle.
It had a battery. It had fullbattery range for about 30
miles, but then it had aninternal combustion engine that
charged the battery. And so itcould run, you know, normal

Speaker 2 (25:38):
Yeah. Range. Strikes sense.

And BMW's I eight is the same thing. So so
Stellantis wasn't they weren'ttrying to cop out. They do have
batteries. The batteries runthem for a certain amount of
thing, but the internalcombustion engine charges them.
It's a different kind of hybrid.
It's actually the only kind oflow emission vehicle I support

(26:04):
because you got the generalcombustion engine backing you up
or providing power. That's whatdiesel electric that's what
diesel electric motors do.Right?

Speaker 2 (26:12):
It it charges it does it my understanding is that the
the the the fact that itgenerates energy by being a
normal ice vehicle chargecharges the battery so that it
that it can work it can actuallybe quite good. You know? But the
you know? But but the climatechange of Penangent would would

(26:34):
have us believe that that thiswas some sort of panacea, you
know, that the electric car wasgonna save us all, and it was
gonna be good and clean. And andyou know what?
All those annoying poor peoplewouldn't be able to drive. You
know, we don't want them on theroad anyway. We don't really
want them making a few quid. Weit much better than at home

(26:55):
because we don't need themanyway because we've got AI now.
You know?
So I I I just get the feeling,and it's because of you guys
being so amazing on the otherside of the pond that that that
narrative is not the case now.It really isn't. It's not the
case. You know? The whole netzero, the whole electric

(27:17):
vehicle, the whole ice thing,the whole anti fossil fuel,
because of what you've done andbecause Trump is in power, I
feel that that's not am I rightto feel that?
Am I right to feel that?

Well, you know, unfortunately, you you're
right you're both right andwrong.

Speaker 2 (27:37):
Okay.

Trump is getting rid of a lot of this
stuff. I mean, he just whackingit. Daily, we're winning.

Speaker 2 (27:45):
Good. Whacking on

on green energy. But for some reason, the
Trump administration has decidedto continue to fund, the net the
network of EV chargers that theBiden administration yeah. It
was a surprise to me. I justfound that out. So we're not
gonna build the thousands andthousands, that that Biden had

(28:09):
wanted to do, but we're I thinkwe've still on pace.
We're still funding, several 100new national EV chargers, which
I think is, once again, a wasteof money that we could've we
should've avoided.

Speaker 2 (28:23):
I tell you what, even though you guys are doing that,
it's one and a half billiontrillion times better than
what's going on in this country.I can tell you that for nothing.

And Jim keeps pulling a Jim. He hasn't figured
out that he's on mute.

Jim Lakely (28:35):
Oh. Oh, that's right. We were gonna do we were
gonna do a pulling a Jim jarthat we're gonna have out and
Yeah.

It's on my to do list. I'm gonna make one.

Jim Lakely (28:42):
It is pulling a gym. That that's called that's called
keeping your mute button on andnot noticing. But I would just
add that the the $7,500 taxcredit for purchasing EVs, it
ends today, September 19, endsin eleven days. Yep. So, you
know, at least, Lois, that Trumpand the rep rep republics got
the taxpayers out of thespiraling into the toilet EV

(29:04):
business, and the government isapparently out of the EV mandate
business.
So Good. Yeah. So if you're ifyou're interested in an EV
vehicle, you know, get one whileyou can, I guess, because the
sales of EVs

Speaker 2 (29:14):
I've been anywhere from the

list? Yeah.

Speaker 2 (29:16):
Isn't it a bit like being castrated for a man
driving an electric car?

I see. Imagine Now you're gonna get us
in trouble. Now you're gonna getus

Speaker 2 (29:26):
in Back me up. Back me up. A guy picks you up an
electric car, you just say no.No. No.
It's not. I'm not going to workwith you, is he? Well I I'm
really busy. I've suddenlyrealized that my cat needs to be
brushed or something. Do knowwhat I mean?
Like, you come up with a reasonwhy not to get in the car, won't
you?

He's he's probably he's probably got a man
bun. Yeah.

Speaker 2 (29:47):
He has a man bun.

And we have a bag.

Speaker 2 (29:50):
And then he'd ask you to go halves on the dinner.
100%.

A save the earth sticker, and he wants to
take you to the veganrestaurant.

Speaker 2 (30:01):
Not happening. Not happening.

Jim Lakely (30:03):
Yeah. Well, you know, America

Speaker 2 (30:05):
am I, aren't I? Yeah.

Jim Lakely (30:07):
Yeah. Mean, America has a car culture America has a
car culture. Anthony is veryfamiliar with it, man. Muscle
cars and, you know, all of thatstuff. So Yeah.
Maybe maybe women maybe singlewomen can get us out of this
mess.

Speaker 2 (30:17):
Electric car person.

Should Should be be fair. You know, the EVs do
have the added benefit, I guess,of you don't have to have a
lighter or a match to start abonfire sometimes if you

Speaker 2 (30:30):
I suppose it'd be more plausible if they pretended
to back break down, wouldn't it,on the way back?

Jim Lakely (30:36):
Yeah. Yeah.

Speaker 2 (30:38):
They could just say they've run out of battery.

Jim Lakely (30:41):
Yep. Just just pull over just pull over. Yeah. Yeah.

Now that one and and they and they know
they're doing about electricvehicles. They couldn't say, oh,
this is just a ploy. No.

Speaker 2 (30:52):
No. You say, okay. Alright. You know, I don't
really believe you, but it itit's possible. It's possible.
Yeah. Anyway, sorry. I'm beingsilly. Sorry.

Jim Lakely (31:00):
No. It's that's we like to have a lot of fun on
this show. And so,

Speaker 2 (31:03):
yeah, you

Jim Lakely (31:03):
could just could just pull up you could just pull
up to the you could just pull upnext to a a a comely young lady
and and have unburdened for youblasting from your speakers in
your electric car and see howthat works out.

Speaker 2 (31:14):
Yeah. And it run it'll run out very quickly with
the because if you have thespeakers on, apparently, that
that winds the battery down.That's gonna

Jim Lakely (31:23):
be a short date. Alright. Let's move on to our
next, our next item here, whichI've titled, we'll never have
Paris. This comes from the NewYork Times, and this is in the
very good news, segment of ourcrazy climate news of the week.
From New York Times Magazine, itisn't just The US.
The whole world has soured onclimate politics. The day has

(31:47):
come, guys. The day has come.Their subhead is, how do we
think about the climate futurenow that the era marched by the
Paris Agreement has so utterlydisappeared? I'll read a bit
from this and, try not to smiletoo hard and hurt your face.
Ten years ago this fall,scientists and diplomats from a

(32:07):
195 countries gathered inLiberget just north of Paris and
hammered out a plan to save theworld. They called it blandly
the Paris Agreement. But it wasobviously a climate politics
landmark, a nearly universalglobal pledge to stave off
catastrophic temperature riseand secure a more livable future
for all. Heartland Institute,myself included, were there, by

(32:29):
the way, during that duringthose negotiations. Barack
Obama, applauding the agreementas president, declared that
Paris represented, quote, thebest chance we have to save the
one planet we've got, unquote.
Paris wasn't just a brief flareof climate optimism. To many, it
looked like the promise of awhole new era, not just for the
climate, but also for our sharedpolitical future on this earth.

(32:52):
A decade later, we are living ina very different world. At last
year's UN climate changeconference, COP twenty nine, the
president of the host country,Azerbaijan's, Eham Elaiev,
praised oil and gas as, quote,gifts from god. And though the
annual conferences since Pariswere often high profile, star
studded affairs, this time therewere few world leaders to be

(33:15):
found.
Joe Biden, then still president,didn't show. Neither did vice
president Kamala Harris orpresident Xi Jinping of China or
president Ursula von der Land ofthe European Commission. Neither
did president Emmanuel Macron ofFrance, often seen as the
literal face of westernliberalism, or president Luis
Innacio Lula da Silva of Brazil,often seen as the face of an

(33:39):
emergent movement of solidarityacross the poor and middle
income world. This year'sconference, takes place in
Brazil this November, is meantto be more significant. COP
thirty marks ten years sinceParis, and all 195 parties to
the 2015 agreement are supposedto arrive with updated
decarbonization plans callednationally determined

(33:59):
contributions or NDCs.
But when one formal deadlinepassed this February, only 15
countries, just 8%, hadcompleted the assignment. Months
later, more plans have trickledin, but arguably only one is
actually compatible with thegoals of the Paris agreement.
I'm almost done, guys, but I'menjoying this. Everywhere you
look, the spike of climate alarmthat followed Paris has given

(34:22):
way to something its supportersmight describe as climate
moderation, but which criticswould call complacency or
indifference. Quote, you can'twalk more than two feet at any
global conference today withoutpragmatism and realism being
thrown around as the order ofthe day, says Jason Bordoff, a
former Obama energy adviser whonow runs Columbia University

(34:44):
Center on Global Energy Policy.
But, quote, it's not clear to methat anyone knows what those
words mean other than this wholeclimate thing is just too hard.
And I will end it there. I can'ttake my excitement anymore. I
don't know how more dramaticallyI could read this, but I did
enjoy it. Linea, you know, I'mgonna start with you because

(35:06):
after all, all of these all ofthese jet setting global leaders
are trying to save the planetfor you and for your generation
and the ones that come afteryou, And they have failed you.
Do you need do we need to fundsome counseling for your grief?
Do you need a safe space? What'syour reaction?

Well, you know what? They have failed my
generation and younger, andthat's by inflicting us with
climate anxiety that'scompletely unnecessary.

Speaker 2 (35:32):
Totally.

Right? So, yeah, we have been we have been
afflicted by climate change, andit's because of the media and
it's because of our politicianswho don't understand the science
and don't don't intend onlooking into it any deeper than
they already have, which is tosay not at all other than, you

(35:53):
know, taking whatever it is thattheir assistance hand to them.
But I yeah. The Paris Agreementhas been a joke since the
beginning. One of our commenterspointed out that Stassel had a
funny video about it showing allof the countries and their
promises, and it's all just likethe West is just being fleeced
is basically what's going onwith Paris.

(36:14):
And it and it reminds me ofevery single time people talk
glowingly about how green Chinais. And it just it takes an
unbelievable amount of I don'teven know. Just

Cognitive dissonance.

Yeah. You're you're you're just ignoring all
of the evidence because whatdouble thing. Brags about how
many wind turbine elements andhow many solar panels they
produce. Like, meanwhile,they're just paving over half of
their half of their land andbuilding tons of new coal and
everything at the same time.They say that they do not

(36:49):
anticipate whatsoever indecreasing the amount of coal
they use.
In fact, that they have theyhave told other countries that
they plan on increasing how muchcoal they use over the next
couple of years. It's you haveto live in a completely
different world to believe anyof this stuff.

Yeah. China's expanding coal imports right
now, and it's it's havingripples on the world coal price
market. China alone

Speaker 2 (37:13):
They're using so much.

Yeah. Yeah. They're and they're importing so
much. It's not because theycan't produce enough
domestically.

Speaker 2 (37:18):
You're joking. Really? I should know that.
Sorry, James.

We're having to import it. And and and that
of course, the importation isemissions, and and that's
affecting world coal prices. So,you know, I wrote climate I've
been writing climate changeweekly for a while now, and

(37:43):
Paris is 2015. And if you read,you know, you have to go back to
the archives, but you read thetwo or three climate change
weeklies I wrote after Paris.And I pointed out that they knew
that that that to some extent,the Times article is premised on
a lie.
Paris was never even by theirown lights, their own standards,

(38:04):
Paris was never going to savethe Earth, and they knew it at
the time. The people, JamesHansen said so. This is a fake
agreement. It it has no teeth.Why?
The standards, all voluntary.Every country had to set its own
emissions reductions goals. Thethe general goal was under two

(38:25):
degrees, but as close aspossible to below 1.5 degrees.
We were already locked in tosurpass that. And the the
nothing in the agreement, it itis what Hobbs said.
Covenant without the sword isbut words. There was no penalty

(38:46):
for not hitting any of yourtargets other than the next
year's climate conference.They'd say, bad, bad, naughty,
naughty. You're you're a you'rea naughty child for not eating
your peas, not hitting yourgoals. And they knew it at the
time.
What I'm saying is it was nevergoing to save the earth. When

(39:07):
they signed the agreement, theyhad the big conference. They had
the big press release, but theyknew at the time that this was
not going to do what they said.And now for them to be moan to
be bemoaning ten years later, ohmy gosh. We're not meeting the
goals that we're gonna save theearth when they knew they
wouldn't save the earth at thetime is just it's kabuki

(39:30):
theater.

Speaker 2 (39:31):
Absolutely. Totally agree.

Jim.

Jim You're

Speaker 2 (39:39):
on mute.

Jim Lakely (39:40):
Man, that's

too You're paying you're paying big time
this time, Jim.

Jim Lakely (39:44):
That's too. I'm gonna go broke. We have to we
have to we have to end thestream earlier. I'm gonna go
broke.

Speaker 2 (39:49):
Is Jim, Jim, do do you know what the history of the
two fingers up with the nailsfacing front?

Jim Lakely (39:54):
I do. I do.

Speaker 2 (39:56):
I'm sorry. Know. You're

supposed to

Speaker 2 (39:58):
sit now. I was gonna say, alright. Great. Whatever.
You're too clever.
Two.

Jim Lakely (40:02):
Rock on.

Speaker 2 (40:02):
Don't know. Do you know what this one is?

Jim Lakely (40:05):
I do know what that one is. Yes.

Speaker 2 (40:06):
It's about the arches. You know that. Okay.

Jim Lakely (40:08):
Yes. I do. I I apologize. We do have a lot of,
a lot of viewers from The UK,and and we have a

Speaker 2 (40:13):
guest from UK. No. No. Sorry. I thought I was being
interesting.
I clearly not quite interestingenough. I

Jim Lakely (40:20):
know how to I know how to I don't know very I I
can't speak any languagesfluently, but I can swear at
about ten. So Okay.

Speaker 2 (40:26):
That's all you need.

Jim Lakely (40:27):
That's all you need in most countries, really.
Alright. Anthony, want any addanything to the discussion about
Paris? I mean, you know, to me,it's just the despair. I I hear
this.
I hear the pain in the voices.You can it bleeds off the page
digitally in places like The NewYork Times, and I don't know.
Maybe I'm a bad person, but itmakes me happy.

You're not a bad person, Jim. We're all thinking
the same thing. But, you know,the whole climates the whole
Paris climate agreement was justsimply a number pulled out of
thin air. This is what we thinkwe can convince people to agree
to. That's all it was.
There's no science behind it.And the bottom line is is that
we have already reached 1.5degrees centigrade of

(41:10):
temperature rise. You know? Ifyou go back and you look, at
older records, you know, back toabout 1850, you will see that
we've not only reached butexceeded that amount, and the
world did not collapse. Youknow?
Death and destruction did notrain from the skies. And, you
know, it's just I don't have anyother word for the Paris Climate

(41:31):
Agreement except it wasbullshit. I'm sorry. That's all
it is.

Speaker 2 (41:35):
Is that a technical term?

Yes. That's scientifically precise term.

Speaker 2 (41:40):
Thank you so much.

Well okay. Okay. The technical term is

defecus maximus. Well, now now

Speaker 2 (41:48):
It sounds like a dinosaur in Jurassic Park.

Jim Lakely (41:51):
Well, now now we know Anthony knows how to knows
how to state profanity in twolanguages, English and Latin. So
that's great.

Speaker 2 (41:57):
That's yeah. That is it's extraordinarily impressive.

I I would just point out that since Paris,
I believe we've had the lastthree conferences in petro
states. Yes. The Azerbaijanwhere they praised it. Right?
The one before that was, Ibelieve, somewhere in The Middle
East.
I forget whether it's Oman or orThe UAE. It was the the one

(42:22):
before that, it was the onebefore that. And now they're
going to Brazil, which is apetrol state as well. It's the
largest or second largestproducer of oil in South
America. They are not giving uptheir oil contrary to their
green credentials.
They're increasing their output.

Speaker 2 (42:38):
Oh my god. Who would have thunk it?

Yeah. Who would have thunk it? And to hold
this conference, rather than,you know, say what you will
about Paris. Say what you willabout the the, you know, the The
UAE where they held theconference. They held them in
major cities.
Right? In in places that youcould get to. They didn't have
to destroy entire countrysidesto hold a conference, on climate

(43:04):
change. In Brazil, we're hostingit now. They are they are mowing
down thousands, if not tens ofthousands of acres of the Amazon
that they say are the lungs ofthe world to make roads to ship
people from major destinationsto the destination.
They don't have the hotels forpeople. It's gonna be one of the

(43:25):
smallest attended, I suspect,cop conferences, which, you
know, by their light, should begood for the planet. But what's
can't be good for the planet isall the destruction they're
wreaking because they couldaheld it in Sao Paulo or they
coulda held it in god. I'mgetting old. Brazil's largest

(43:47):
city.

Jim Lakely (43:48):
Rio De Janeiro.

In Rio. Yeah. Rio De Janeiro.

Speaker 2 (43:51):
But the thing is, though, they're all busy because
they're all with Greta on on aflotilla towards Israel. You
know? Like, they they they foundanother cause. So may maybe
maybe they'll let us, you know,maybe they'll leave us be. Who
knows?

Jim Lakely (44:07):
Yeah. By the way, I didn't see any sails on that
boat of the flotilla for

Speaker 2 (44:11):
No. But you know what? The funny thing is Israel
was so so clever. What they didis they said, yeah. You can come
in.
That's not a problem, but youwill be going into a military
prison. Suddenly, there wasmassive climate change, and, and
and there was a freak storm, andthey had to turn around. I mean,
how extraordinary that that thatthey had this storm that meant

(44:34):
that they couldn't go to Israelwhen they've been told they were
gonna be put in military prison.

The the storm that nobody in the
meteorological community couldfind. Literally

Speaker 2 (44:42):
nobody else knew about. You know? Well, I I you
know, good I'm happy for them. Idon't I I don't wanna see Greta
in in a military prison, or ormaybe I do. I don't know.

Well, you know, she could she

Speaker 2 (44:55):
could pay a £100,000,000 to see her in
prison,

wouldn't you?

Speaker 2 (44:59):
It's so

fun. They could turn the flotilla around,
hope towards the Amazon and tryand go up the Amazon to the
conference and perhaps not be,you know, taken over by tribal
peoples.

Speaker 2 (45:12):
Maybe she could charge her phone by plugging it
into a tree and see how thatworks out for her. Right? Yeah.

Jim Lakely (45:19):
Well, you know, as the song goes, clowns to the
left of me and jokers to theright. That

Yeah.

Speaker 2 (45:23):
Here I am

stuck in the

Speaker 2 (45:24):
middle of you. Well, I'm glad that I was stuck in the
middle with you guys. You'refabulous. That's

Jim Lakely (45:29):
great. Alright. Let's get on to our main story
today and, the big reason why wehave, the wonderful Lois Perry
on the program today that we'reso fortunate, to have today, and
that is, how climate realism isheating up in The United
Kingdom. And this story, comesfrom Politico, the Trump aligned

(45:49):
climate skeptics advisingBritain's Nigel Farage. So,
buckle up, Lois.
This one is about you and even I

Speaker 2 (45:55):
know I know all all these credible sources writing
about me. I mean, you know,thank you.

Jim Lakely (46:00):
Great. Great. Let's let's read a little bit. Let's
read quite a bit actually fromthis because I think it's
important to cover all of thisinformation here. And so
Politico, which is a left winggarbage publication here in The
United States, Right.
Nigel Farage's reform party isbeing advised by a think tank
which denies the science ofclimate change and claims the UK
government wants to use electricvehicles to control its

(46:22):
citizens. Hey. We just mentionedelectric vehicles. Lois Perry,
UK And Europe director of theHeartland Institute think tank,
told attendees at reforms annualconference last week that she
was, quote, very grateful to beable to consult and influence
the reform reform party at thehighest level, unquote. The
Heartland Institute confirmed toPolitico this week that it has

(46:43):
held conversations withpolicymakers within Reform UK.
The institute, which is closelyaligned with US president Donald
Trump's anti climate policiesanti climate policies. I don't
even know what that means. Hascast doubt on global warming and
branded climate change policiesa hoax and a scam. Earlier this
year, the defense it, meaningHartland, backed Trump's

(47:06):
decision to pull out of the UNParis climate agreement and to
roll back Joe Biden era cleanenergy products, projects. The
organization was invited to anevent at the White House Rose
Garden when Trump announcedplans to pull The US out of
Paris during his first term in2017.
Quote, the reality is this,we're not facing a climate
crisis. The organization'spresident James Taylor told a

(47:28):
Heartland sponsored fringe eventat Reform Party's conference in

Speaker 2 (47:32):
Birmingham on Saturday. On the main stage.
Sorry to to be a pedant, but wewe were actually the the main,
like, we the main panel event onthe main stage. Just just yeah.
Okay.

Jim Lakely (47:46):
Oh, yeah. You're gonna you can explain all that
here very shortly.

Speaker 2 (47:48):
Okay. Okay. Alright.

Jim Lakely (47:49):
The the reality is this, said, James Taylor. We are
not facing a climate crisis.Speaking at the same conference
fringe event, they did it twice,Lois. Perry, a former leader of
UKIP, said, quote, there'snothing wrong with c o two. C o
two is not a pollutant.
They're just quoting you there,Lois. She said that government

(48:11):
net zero policies are, quote,bad for the environment and have
been induced, quote, to controlus. It's to tax us, is to take
our money, and is to take ourliberty. Harry added, they want
us in electric cars. Electriccars can be remotely controlled.
Again, not a conspiracy theory.These cars can be shut down.
Imagine during COVID. Imagineyour car is disabled remotely.

(48:32):
You have no control over itbecause it's an electric car,
and that's if you can afford anelectric car.
There's a reason why this neoMarxist communist shambolic
government wants us in electriccars.

It is so that

Jim Lakely (48:42):
we have no freedom whatsoever. Lois,
congratulations. That was

Speaker 2 (48:46):
a fantastic quote. Congratulations on the event.
Ever let Nigel Frasch give methree glasses of champagne at
breakfast again.

Jim Lakely (48:56):
So

Speaker 2 (48:57):
Well, actually was great. I should. I I, yeah, I I
didn't hold back. I apologize ifit was a little bit too much.

Not for me.

Speaker 2 (49:06):
But but, yeah, I mean, I just wanted to
communicate. I mean, we had ahuge audience, Jim. I mean, it
was huge. Had, like we hadseating for 400 people, but
there were a 100 people thatwanted to come in. So James will
tell you this.
James Taylor, obviously, ofHeart and Industry main in
America Heart and Industry.There were people coming all

(49:28):
around. We had people standing.We had people push trying to
push through. It wasextraordinary.
And what I really got from thatevent, especially with the q and
a's, is that people said, webelieve you. We totally get what
you're saying. We know this is ascam, but give us the tools.
Give us the tools to fight backbecause they're gonna come at us

(49:50):
with all this stuff and give usthe tools. And James told them
about the tools that you thatthat we have and that heart
Heartland USA have, to tocounter all the arguments.
I don't know I don't know theexact link, but, Jim, if maybe
you could share it, where wherepeople are it has all the

(50:10):
answers to all the most commonlyasked questions, like polar
bears, climate change, freakevents. And people were writing
it down. They were scribbling itdown on their notepads. They
were really into it. It was inthe it was it was actually and I
don't say this lightly.
It's actually quite beautiful.It really was. I loved it. I

(50:31):
loved it.

Sterling Brunnett: Climate@aglance.com. (50:33):
undefined

Speaker 2 (50:34):
That's it.

Thank you. And we're about and we're about
to have, an updated secondedition out, this next week,
which people can, can order offhim. Oh, Jim's saying something
here.

Speaker 2 (50:47):
Oh, sorry.

If he's not No.

Jim Lakely (50:50):
I I I was gonna say second edition, but I didn't
wanna offend anybody. So I'll doit this way. Second edition.

Yes. Second edition. It's updated. It has
some new material, but it alsohas updated material from the
last edition And

Speaker 2 (51:02):
Love it. Of course. Amazon. And there's an app,
isn't there?

And and they and, you know, we got an app.
Yeah. They get on their app.They can go to our website. A
lot of ways to access it, butthat's got the factual detailed
information.
In addition, if they you know,if you're like me, you wake up
in the morning and you gothrough some headlines, and
almost every day, you find aclimate headline. And every day

(51:29):
at climaterealism.com, werespond to those those climate
headlines, debunking them.

Speaker 2 (51:36):
But I'd just like to say I'd just like to say as
well, from from Nigel Farage,that people keep trying to catch
him out by saying that he'sworking with us. Yeah? And and
he's proud to work with us. Sono one's catching him out. He he
is he thinks that we're fab.

(51:58):
Right? So, you know, all thesejournalists trying to say, oh my
goodness. You work with them andyou work and he's like, and?
And? So so, you know, I justwanted I just wanted to tell you
guys and your viewers that he'sproud he's proud to be you know,
he will he will never say, Iagree 100% with any particular

(52:21):
group.
He's not when people say, oh,how can you work with them? He
says, of course, I work withthem, or of course, I listen to
them.

It's hard to call Nigel and reform fringe
when they are soon possibly tobe the second or

Speaker 2 (52:37):
first No. They were calling our event fringe. They
were trying to be a bit yeah.But but we but there was one
conference, there was obviouslytwo big hangers. It was huge,
actually.
And we, you, me, us, we were thebiggest, biggest panel
discussion at the whole event.People were queuing up to come

(52:58):
into our event. So there you go.

Jim Lakely (53:01):
Well, yeah, Lois, I was gonna ask you. I mean, we we
we mentioned when we hoped tohave you last week, and I'm glad
so glad to have you this week.But

Speaker 2 (53:07):
we I'm so sorry about that, Lois. No.

Jim Lakely (53:08):
There's I told you at the time, there's no need to
apologize. I know.

Speaker 2 (53:11):
I know.

Jim Lakely (53:11):
It's completely understandable. But we had gone
over a poll that we saw in thein the British press about how,
you know, British citizens arebecoming they're growing more
skeptical of climate alarmism.That the that the I I think a
50% increase in attitudes likenet zero is is a loser, that the

(53:33):
the the threat of human causedclimate change is grossly
exaggerated. All these things,all these data points that the
British people are coming closerto our side and your side of the
issue. And then I saw I had itin the show notes, but didn't
put it up on the screen.
But one of the MPs from theTories has decided to leave that

(53:54):
the concert the concert party

Speaker 2 (53:55):
and move over to reform UK. Yeah.

Jim Lakely (53:57):
So so give us a better sense of I mean, are we
winning, or is this or is thisschool's goal?

Speaker 2 (54:03):
Oh my goodness. We are winning. We are winning. So
because of us, because ofHeartland USA, because of
Heartland UK Europe, the theparty that is polling
consistently consistently in thelast 101 polls so it's not it's
not a fluke. It's not areaction.
It's not a protest vote. Theparty that is polling

(54:25):
consistently, not only ahead ofthe other parties, but today,
34%. When the other two majormain parties were on 16% each,
so 32%, obviously, were belowcombined. That party has said,
day one day one in government,they're abolishing all net zero
policies. We're winning.

(54:48):
We are winning. And thank youvery much for being able to
continue your work in The UK andEurope. So in in November and
and, Jim, I I really hope thatyou can join us, all of you. We
are doing an event in Poland,which will combine, Italy,
Romania, France, all of the allof the big European countries to

(55:11):
to to really, really challengethe whole net zero concept in
terms of specifically foragriculture. And I hope to get
certain person to come.
If I can't, I can't. If I can, Ican? But but it will be a big,
big, big event because, yes, weare winning The UK. Let let's

(55:31):
now next, let's do Europe. Let'sheart let's heartland Europe
together.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Lois, but didn't
Labour's m the MP I mean, notthe MP, the prime minister
recently have to slap down EdMiliband some of Ed Miliband's
climate plans as being tooradical?

Speaker 2 (55:54):
What? Yes.

They they they didn't get

rid them, they tempered them. Am I wrong
about that?

Speaker 2 (56:00):
Well, apparently, Kirstjarma, he of the Ukrainian,
young men Sorry. Right. So KeirStarmer wanted to fire Ed
Miliband, and Ed Milibandrefused to go, which is a
testament to the weakness of hisposition. I personally think
that there'll be a challenge tohis leadership within three to

(56:21):
six months. And it look.
I can say this because Nigelsaid this. We are semi preparing
for a general election in 2027.So, hopefully hopefully, things
will things will be normal, andlike you guys, before too long,

(56:42):
hopefully.

Jim Lakely (56:45):
That would be fantastic. I've not actually,
I've not heard of I was, youknow, six months ago, I was
optimistic that that may happen,and then I've been more
pessimistic over the lastseveral months.

Speaker 2 (56:54):
So Well, no. Just at conference, Jim. He said '20
wait. The the way you aretentatively preparing for 2027.

Jim Lakely (57:03):
That's great. Well, I mean, you've done amazing work
at Heartland UK. You can make upI mean, you've only we've only
that that organization's onlybeen stood up for about ten
months, and, you know, we you'realready

being attacked.

Speaker 2 (57:15):
Because you and James believe believe that, you know,
that it was worth the pun, and Iwanna thank you for that. Thank
you.

Jim Lakely (57:21):
Oh, well, your your success there is worth every
every minute of time, you know,that we've dedicated and and to
help stand that up over there.And, you know, you know you're
doing well when you're beingattacked by all the right
people.

Speaker 2 (57:33):
I love it. I love it. Yeah. Yeah. Bring it on.
Bring it on.

Jim Lakely (57:38):
That's great. And, I just wanna before we get into
the q and a, I also just wantedto, mention that, you can find,
Lois The Lois Perry Show. Itstreams on X. It streams on
YouTube. Is it on Rumble as wellyet, or are you gonna move move
there soon?
But it's very easy to find

Speaker 2 (57:54):
We need Rumble. We need to Rumble.

Jim Lakely (57:56):
Yeah. Yeah. And so you had, Lord Christopher
Moncton on, two months ago. Sothat was nice. I enjoyed that
show.
So definitely just search forthe Lois Perry show on X or on
YouTube and check out work.

Speaker 2 (58:08):
UK, Europe, you X every Wednesday, seven to 8PM
for for various reasons thatthat you understand I won't go
into now, but you know it wasn'ta show on the Wednesday just
gone, but there's gonna be amassive show next week. So it's
all good. All good. Fantastic.Yeah.

Jim Lakely (58:26):
Alright. Well, before we get into into the q
and a, and, again,congratulations, Lois, and
continued success, and and wehope to have you on this show
quite often to talk about thatsuccess.

Speaker 2 (58:37):
I love being on your show.

Jim Lakely (58:39):
Because we love having you. So alright. Before
we get to q and a, I want tomention that how happy we are to
have a sponsor for the ClimateRealism Show, and that sponsor
is Advisor Metals. Now, if, likeme, you listen to a lot of
conservative shows like the LoisPerry show, not necessarily that
one. But, for this idea, butbecause you don't hear them on

(59:00):
her show, but almost everyconservative show that's
streaming anywhere has pitchesfor buying gold and silver and
other precious metals, and thereare just so many companies out
there that can provide that foryou.
But we here at the ClimateRealism Show wanna tell you why
you should trust our sponsor forthis show, Advisor Metals. It is
the man who runs the company,and his name is Ira Prashatsky.

(59:21):
Ira is the managing member ofAdvisor Metals. He is not one of
those people that employs highpressure tactics and deceptive
marketing ploys like many of thefirms in so called big gold. IRA
also does not deal in so calledrare coins, which maybe are not
rare at all.
When you buy gold and otherprecious metals from Advisor
Metals, you are dealing inquality bullion, and that is so

(59:43):
much better to have in hand whenit comes time to liquidate this
very valuable physical axeasset. And when you buy from
Advisor Metals, you're gonnahave your investment sent
discreetly right to your home.And Ira, by the way, is
advertising on our programbecause he is an America first
patriot. He doesn't donate toDemocrats or their causes. He
refuses to work with proxies ofthe Chinese Communist Party, and

(01:00:07):
he, like us and Lois, abhor themachinations and schemes of the
World Economic Forum.
And so we are very proud to haveIra as a sponsor with Advisor
Metals. So if you wannadiversify your portfolio, if you
wanna back up your IRA with realphysical bullion and precious
metals, go toclimaterealismshow.com/metals.

(01:00:27):
You can leave your informationthere, and and Ira or someone on
his team, will get back to youand make this process very easy
for you. Again, that'sclimaterealismshow.com/metals,
and be sure to tell them whereyou heard about it and who sent
you because that helps us andthis program while you're
helping yourself. Thank you verymuch and for your attention to
this matter.

(01:00:48):
With that, we get to our oh,every part of the show is our
favorite. It's the q and asection. Lanea, please take it
away. Yay.

Linnea Leuken (01:01:04):
Alright. Thank you very much. Okay. So we have
a bunch of questions here. I'mgoing to start with one for
Lois, and that is from fightingZenithian.
It says, Lois, have youconsidered talking with Lewis of
TIK history? He has done greatvideos on World War two and

(01:01:25):
debunked the privatization myththat leftists have perpetuated.

Speaker 2 (01:01:31):
Right. So, no. The the answer is I haven't. But, if
he wanted to get in touch withme and I'm not entirely sure
what what that actually means,the privatization myth that left
itself perpetuated. But if if hewould like to, maybe Jim could
send forward an email, and and Ican deal directly with that.

(01:01:52):
Yeah. Okay. The answer is no.But but I'm happy to look at it.
No problem.

Alright. Our frequent viewer engineer guy
asks, who saw Steve Molloy'spost on LinkedIn regarding the
Arctic sea ice? Yeah. What wasthat about, guys? Because I
didn't see it.

Jim Lakely (01:02:12):
Oh, go ahead. Did you see it, Anthony? Yeah.

Anthony Watts (01:02:16):
I did. And now my brain has gone blank.

Speaker 2 (01:02:21):
Are you sure you have a bad cough?

Rain free from our side.

Sterling Brunnett (01:02:24):
Imagine. I think it had to do with the
Arctic sea ice not Yes. Not, youknow, not having gone down since
02/2012, thirteen years, andbillions of tons of c o two ago,
that, the c the sea ice levelswere higher this year than last
year.

Right.

But they've hovered about the same.

Yeah. He tweeted that too. And He

did tweet that too. Yeah. So, yeah, the idea of,
like, you know, that the theArctic sea ice is not
cooperating with the alarmistbecause it's not melting. Sorry,
guys.

We still don't have we still don't have a
Northwest Passage from what whatthat they dreamed of from
England to to Russia withoutgoing around, you know, either
the North or south, you know,the Cape Of Good Hope or, you

(01:03:21):
know, Straits Of Magellan. Theycan't cross the Arctic to get
there.

Alright. Our good friend Stan Goldenberg says, who
so did president Trump help pushking Charles towards climate
realism, Lois?

Speaker 2 (01:03:36):
Well, I I I've been in a pretty tricky predicament
recently because I'm an ardentmonarchist and I haven't got it
on at the moment. But I've got amassive neon in my quite old
fashioned living room. It's it's250 years old. But I've got a
massive neon saying, god savethe queen. And so it's been it's

(01:03:58):
been pretty tricky for me.
I I don't like to criticize ourking. It's more about the
institution of the king, asopposed to to a personal in to
an individual. But he hasbenefited, and you can't you
can't shy away from this fromextraordinarily extraordinary

(01:04:19):
public subsidies to offshorewind. Hundreds and hundreds of
millions of pounds every year tothe duchy when he was prince of
Wales, and now that that thatcontinues. So there's no way he
could be perceived as impartial.
However, however, there's acouple of things recently that

(01:04:41):
that has given me hope. There'sa couple of bills that went
through parliament. One of themand I'm not casting any opinion
for on behalf of the Heartlandhere at all. But there was a
particular bill that wentthrough to do with abortion, and
there was a particular bill thatwent through to do with the
assisted suicide. And he had hishis PR guy put a statement out

(01:05:04):
that said that he wasuncomfortable with signing these
bills.
Yeah? Which made me think, okay.There there is a traditional
king in there. There is there isa heart. So okay.
So so my answer to that questionis, yes. I do believe that Trump
would have an influence.Monarchies have to adapt to

(01:05:27):
survive. Maybe they previouslythought they they had to adapt
to climate, to net zero, andglobalism, and all of that jazz.
Maybe now they're feeling thatthey need to pull it back.
I'm not gonna I'm not gonna Iquite like to be a dame one day,
and I quite like my son to beknighted. So and this and what a

(01:05:51):
pussy I am, So I'm not gonnacriticize my monarchy any more
than that, but I will say thatwe are pragmatic. And and my
answer as a English person isyes. I think king I think Trump
did make it would have had aninfluence on my king.

Well, I I I'm I'm glad to hear you say that.
But when he was a before he wasthe king, he was a prince.

Speaker 2 (01:06:16):
That's right.

Prince And he did make some he did make some
claims when he was a prince.Like, in 02/2009, we have ninety
six months left to save theearth.

Speaker 2 (01:06:27):
But can I can I just say something to you? My my
personal situation as as anEnglish person, you you are a
citizen. I am a subject. Okay?Right?
I can have opinions about myking, but I'm not gonna
criticize my king. Right. Evenif I agree with every word you

(01:06:47):
say. Now if that makes me asellout and if that makes me,
you know, not a good person,then then then judge me
accordingly. But I can'tcriticize my king even if I
agree with every single word yousay.
Can you forgive can you forgiveme for that?

I'm not asking you to to to agree or
disagree with me. I'm justsaying, as a matter of fact, he
made a prediction.

Speaker 2 (01:07:10):
No. I get it.

He's he's not a climate scientist. He's not a
climate researcher. He is abovethe pay grade of everyone, and I
suspect he hasn't spent decadesstudying the issue. And he made
a prediction of ninety sixmonths. Ninety six months has
come and gone years ago, andwe're still here.
And we haven't solved theclimate crisis, which is what he

(01:07:33):
said was necessary to save us.So I'm not sure, king or not, on
this side of the pond and maybeanywhere else

Speaker 2 (01:07:42):
threw us out. That's why.

You know, how

If guys if you guys keep arguing, I'm gonna have

Speaker 2 (01:07:48):
to play this in. Insult to injury. You have a
bloody dinner about it tocelebrate it every year. I mean,
what? I mean and I've beeninvited to one.
A very, very good friend ofmine, Gary and Robin Monde,
they've invited me to theirThanksgiving dinner. So I said,
hang on a minute. So you wereinviting me to a dinner to
celebrate the fact that you hateour guts, and they said yes. I

(01:08:09):
said, oh, okay.

Well, now now the Thanksgiving the
Thanksgiving celebration is notabout getting away from England.
That was a hundred more than ahundred years before.

Speaker 2 (01:08:19):
Oh, okay. Alright. Right. That shows me how
ignorant I am. Sorry.

The thanks Thanksgiving was the pilgrims in
May, though. Surviving.

Yeah. Yeah. Don't yeah. Don't try to don't try to
take too much credit for it,Lois, because because saying,
you hate my guts. Now pass themashed potatoes.
That's a very American thing.

Speaker 2 (01:08:39):
Oh, I'm sounding ever so ignorant. I'm actually gonna
stop speaking now. No.

Okay. Alright. We're gonna shift. We're gonna
find a a science question if Ican find one here, if we have
any good ones. Oh, I do wannahighlight this comment that was
post to the chat that I reallyappreciated here from Jacob who
said, I love looking upinformation on climate realism.
Every time I see a climatealarmist headline, I look on
climate realism website on theclimate realism website to see

(01:09:09):
the facts. Thank you so much,Jacob. We love that. Alright.
Let's see.
Oh, DJ Bo asks, any news aboutthe new five star resort they'll
be building for the next climateconference?

Speaker 2 (01:09:28):
Can't make it up, can you? Can you make it up?

Yeah.

I'm sure it'll be, it'll be net zero. The
construction and the concreteand the the the diesel fuel to
run the machinery, that won'tYeah.

Speaker 2 (01:09:42):
Net net benefit for the local economy.

Alright. Dolores asks, any news on nonlithium
alternative electric batteriesthat have been reported in
production? They are claimed tonot have the fire problem.
There's a lot of alternativealternatives to lithium. A lot
of those alternatives, though,are mass from what I understand
are very much constrained byweight.

(01:10:11):
A lot of them weigh quite a bitmore than the lithium ion, which
is saying something. You know,most cars a while ago, I think
they still are mostly lead acidbatteries, which are different
too. So there's a lot ofdifferent types of batteries.
It's just it depends. IanMcMillan says that he has a his

(01:10:33):
Prius has a nickel basedbattery.
So, yeah, there's a lot ofdifferent batteries. It's just
the the lithium ion ones, atthis point, have the energy
density to weight ratio that'sbest for electric cars. And,

Speaker 2 (01:10:53):
of course, the particles that are released from
the from the weight of the carbeing so much heavier are are so
much more dangerous to healththan any perceived or fabricated
danger from c o two emissions.You know, the actual particles
from the tires from the heaviercars, it's that the whole thing

(01:11:13):
is topsy-turvy. I mean, LewisCarroll wouldn't have even been
able to imagine such atopsy-turvy Alice in Wonderland
world. He really wouldn't.

Yeah. So who knows? I mean, we might have
better, you know, mass producedbatteries in time, but it's that
time is not right now.

Well, they're they're developing sorts of all
sorts of, new batterytechnologies. Iron. What is it?
Iron something. They're all ofthem supposed to be less prone
to fire and, you know, workbetter.
But once again, they're indevelopment, it might take
years. They might never come tofruition.

Alright. Now we have this question from tech who
asks, do we even know the impactof the on the climate of
cremation? Anthony, do we know?

Well, honestly, I don't, but I'm sure whatever the
figures are, they're dead on.

Speaker 2 (01:12:10):
That's worse than one of mine. That is a proper dad
joke. That's what we call inEngland, a dad joke.

Give us that one. Alright. So we also got a
question from a viewer in email,which I can pull up from the
back chat here. But

I I have it in front of me if you want me to read it.
Sure. You can. Read it out.Yeah.
So okay. So, yeah, this comesfrom one of our viewers. So, you
know, he emailed us at theHeartland Institute. He says
he's a independent politicaleconomist and scientist, and
he's been working on climatechange issues for for a year for
a few years now, really lookingat the work of guys like doctor

(01:12:58):
Roy Spencer and other peoplethat we work with at the
Heartland Institute. And hisquestion is this.
It's kind of a technicalquestion, but, hey. You reach
out with a good question. We'regonna try to answer it, and
we'll do it on the air. So hesays here, John Tyndall made the
first experiments with c o twousing a pipe filled with c o two
that was placed horizontal tothe ground, then, Svante

(01:13:19):
Arrhenius, I'm sorry if I getthat wrong, used moonlight
measurements with the moon atvery low angles to Earth's
surface in order to estimate c otwo's absorptive properties in
Earth's atmosphere. Given thatthese two forms of measurement
by Tyndall and Arrhenius wouldgrossly overestimate c o two's
heat absorbing properties, giventhese measurements are made

(01:13:40):
horizontal to the Earth'ssurface and therefore they
eliminate the force of Earth'sgravity, which is the most
powerful force in the convectionof heat.
Is this then the point oforiginal scientific mistake that
has even been made by Tyndalland Arrhenius that has
originally misled all of theoverestimates of c o two's

(01:14:00):
temperature heating propertiestoday and even in today's
climate models. And then hefinishes up here saying, it is
always very helpful to pinpointthe specific scientific mistakes
that are made that led toscientific scientific
misinformation and thereforewaste in order to correct them.
If I am right, hopefully, thisthis can help with the coming
litigations concerning theendangerment finding. Now when I

(01:14:21):
got I got that email actuallypersonally to my email account.
I forwarded it to our climateteam, that climate team being
Anthony, Sterling, and Linea.
So, Anthony, I think you jumpedin with some answers if you
wanna address that.

Right. I did respond to that email in detail,
and so I'm gonna paraphrase someof the response, and I wrote
back that you're right toquestion whether nineteenth
century experiments by Tyndalland Hirenius could possibly
provide the basis for today'snumbers. And the answer is they
can't. Those measurements backthen were relatively crude, and

(01:14:54):
so they were really not muchbetter than estimates. But the
the fact is is that those arenot being used in the models and
calculations done today.
Those, the measurements that areused about c o two came from,
modern spectra spectroscopy, labmeasurements, and satellite

(01:15:14):
measurements. But even thoughwe've got far better
measurements today, there'sstill a great deal of
uncertainty in the whole climatecalculation process. For
example, since 1990, c o two hasbeen calculated to add about one
watt per square meter offorcing, and a doubling of c o
two is supposed to add aboutfour watts per square meters.

(01:15:37):
But those are all theoreticalnumbers and not direct
measurements of Earth's climatesystem. They come from computer
models.
And so they're only as good astheir assumptions. And that's
where the problem began. We puttoo many assumptions into
climate models. And then whenthe output comes out, people
that don't know any better latchon to that, like, you know, the

(01:15:59):
infamous RCP 8.5 that the medialove to tap, you know, where
they showed this hellish hotfuture, which is totally
impossible that there's notenough fossil fuel on the planet
available to make the RCP 8.5scenario turn out. So we got
these people chasing after thesephantoms that have been created,
you know, in the climate models.

(01:16:20):
So, you know, the real issue isthat modern climate science
leads have leans heavily onmodels and assumptions that have
known flaws and uncertaintieswhile ignoring or minimizing
biases in measurements like UHIor microsite citing issues that
make the problem look worse thanit is in the measurements that

(01:16:41):
we have. So that's why thequestion was important. The real
mistake isn't from thenineteenth century. It's how
today's climate establishmenttreats speculative model outputs
as if they were hard facts.

Yep. Thank you so much. That was great. We love
the science questions on this onthis channel. Alrighty.

Yeah. To be fair to be fair to, didn't have
the equipment to do what we dotoday. Even the equipment we do
what we do today isn'tnecessarily accurate because
it's built on, as you say, it'sit's the outputs from climate
models. But at the time that hewrote, he retracted one paper,
and what he was prettyconsistent on was that warming

(01:17:25):
would be a benefit. He thoughtthat the increase in c o two in
the atmosphere from from powerplants, we didn't have the cars
then, would benefit us bygreening the planet and doing
crop production.
And in that, he was a 100%correct. He was.

Yeah. One you know, and and two, we don't
wanna be you don't wanna be toohard on the guys who are, you
know, kind of paving the way andnot getting it quite right right
away. You know? I mean, as wewere working with what they had,
and they were doing some prettydarn good work with it. So

Yeah. And as a lay as a layman, I guess the science
wasn't settled in the nineteenthcentury just like it is settled
in the twenty first.

Speaker 2 (01:18:06):
Said so.

Yeah. Newton Newton was a pretty smart guy
even though we don't useNewtonian physics anymore.

There we go.

It was

not in everything.

Yeah. So says, has anyone tried to quantify the
c o two emissions from theUkraine war?

Speaker 2 (01:18:23):
Well, no. Of course, they haven't because the Ukraine
war is a woke thing. So so sotherefore, there won't be any
analysis whatsoever aboutanything negative to do with it.
And that doesn't mean that I'mcoming down in favor of anybody
anybody on either side, butthere's certainly vested
interests, on on the left side,hasn't there been with with the

(01:18:44):
whole, ecosystem created by thewar or or economic system, I
should say.

Well, remember, when the war at the
outset of the war, John Kerrysaid, let's not forget about the
dangers of climate change andhow the war

Speaker 2 (01:18:59):
John Kerry can do one, honestly. Does that does
anyone does anyone take anynotice of anything he says
anymore? And and I tell yousomething. Right? And I don't
wish to be ageist.
He needs to stop wearing jeans.There is a point, and I said
this to my own father, Right? Hethinks that he's cool as

(01:19:21):
anything in the entire planet.Right?

Yeah. I'd I'd rather he wear jeans

Speaker 2 (01:19:24):
No more denim. No more denim.

I'd rather he wear denim than

spandex. So

Oh. That's a shark world that you just that
you just planted and everybody's

Speaker 2 (01:19:36):
involved in him, but John Kerry is is not doing it
for me. It really isn't.

Okay. So Chris Nisbet asks, can Nigel start
discussions with fossil fuelgeneration companies even before
reform gets into power to reducelead time a little? Big lead
time for gas turbines,apparently.

Speaker 2 (01:19:56):
Oh, I've gotta be extremely careful here. All I
can say is that there's no flieson mister Farage, and any
discussions that he feels wouldbenefit The UK immediately
immediately on day one, whichcould be as soon as 2027 of his
premiership, he would be having.But I I would be if I confirmed

(01:20:22):
any any such meetings. Was thatHow dare you?

Okay. An engineer guy says, any comments for Lois,
on Trump's visit to The UK?

Speaker 2 (01:20:37):
Oh, we loved having Trump over. It was quite
interesting because there werecertain aspects of the media
that tried to paint it a certainway. It's so funny because
literally the wokeest TV channelin England did, ITV, did, did a
poll on their their channel,good, on their program, their
flagship morning program calledGood Morning Britain. And it was

(01:20:59):
the the question was, do yousupport Trump's visit to The UK?
Obviously, they were expecting adifferent result.
I think it was around 78% saidyes. So that slightly backfired.
So we were delighted to have himover here, and, you know, we
love you guys. We we really do.

They show

Speaker 2 (01:21:20):
the protesters. Thank you for giving us Trump.

They show the protesters and not the people
cheering.

Speaker 2 (01:21:26):
No. The the vast majority of ordinary oh, sorry.
Ordinary normal British peopleare chuffed to bits, with Trump
and and common sense prevailinggenerally. So thank you.

I like that phrase, chuffed to bits.

Speaker 2 (01:21:43):
We are. Is that oh, is that an English thing? I
didn't even know that. Said it?Alright.
Okay. We are yeah. We're chuffedto bits.

Definitely English. Alright.

So from a rumble viewer, CCM five nine one says
an article the article inPolitico says climate change
beyond scientific dispute,National Academy's report says.
Has anyone had a chance toreview the whole National
Academy's report?

Maybe that'll be a topic for a future show.

I haven't I haven't reviewed the entire
report. What I do know is,because I was asked about it and
I looked into it. So you have tolook at the report. It was never
gonna be an honest assessmentfrom the start of climate
change. It doesn't address thecauses, or the question.
It doesn't address the questionof is climate change happening,

(01:22:34):
and if so, what's the cause?There, they didn't it wasn't run
by any physicist. It was run bya microbiologist. And so rather
than sort of a response to thereport the DOE put out, which
was sort of comprehensive, itwas it focused on what the what
the people supposedly knew somuch about, which was biology

(01:22:55):
and the impacts on, on humans ofwarming world or worsening
worsening weather because that'smicrobiologists. There were
people in public healthauthorities.
Nobody that knew anything aboutreal climate change, but people
that knew their discipline wherethey were getting funding from
agencies, from from the federalgovernment for think tanks that

(01:23:18):
have to do with public healthand climate change. Mhmm. If
climate change goes away, theirfunding goes away.

Speaker 2 (01:23:24):
Of course it does.

So they, that's the report. Now just last
Thursday, a week from yesterday,was when they were gonna
finalize the members of thecommittee. They put out a
provisional committee list. Theyasked for public comments. I
provided public comments amongthousands of others suggesting

(01:23:46):
who they should get on thecommittee.
So less than a week less than aweek, five days, after they
supposedly received all thecomments and made decisions,
they produced a big report. Nowdoes anyone think it turns out
they'd met five times despitethe fact that we're in an
official committee yet. They'dmet five times privately. But

(01:24:08):
does anyone think that, the the12 or 15 members of this
committee wrote that report

No.

In five days, had it edited and reviewed and
produced in five days, or do youthink that maybe it was in the
bag, they had the reportalready, and it was just a
matter of them putting theirlittle signatures probably by
Autopen on it.

AutoPen. Yeah. Lois, I think that your jeans
comment was the mostcontroversial thing.

Speaker 2 (01:24:43):
It depends on the man. It depends on the man. It's
nothing to do with age. Nothingto do with age.

Alright. We have this this very, you know,
straightforward question fromKite Man Music. He says, what

are you

doing the show?

Speaker 2 (01:24:57):
It's I've got loads of enemies now.

I think I might be an admirer.

Yeah. This this is Kite Man who says, what are
you doing after the show?

Speaker 2 (01:25:07):
Oh my goodness. I'm going to bed with the with with
the hot chocolate.

That was awesome.

But thank you. And we

Maybe one more?

We can that we can leave it off on, which is
Lois, At what age, what mustsuperannuated men cease their
ridiculous jean wearing behaviorand behavior

Speaker 2 (01:25:29):
It depends on the man. It depends on the man. And
and all I can say is there's 80year olds that rock jeans, and
then there's John Kerry thatreally doesn't. There's nothing
to it it's all about attitude.

Alrighty.

Maybe there needs to be a ministry formed in The
UK on that.

Speaker 2 (01:25:51):
But having said that, if, if Nyaj tells me he's gonna
buy a pair of jeans, I'll be,you know, advising him very
delicately. That's not such agood show.

Very good. Alright. Well, thank you. Thank you very
much, Lynne, for taking usthrough q and a. That was that
was great.
I know we didn't get to get toevery single question in the in
the chat today, but we do ourbest to get to as many as we
can. I want to thank Lois Perry,the director of Hartland UK
Europe for being our veryspecial

guest today,

and we will have you back on again. I know the the
chat and the audience reallyenjoy it. And we here on the
show, we actually we enjoy itvery much as well.

Speaker 2 (01:26:31):
I'm sorry. I I lowered the tone. I apologize. I
I I I I I think I'm funny. I Ilaugh at my jokes even if nobody
else does.

Wow. We do laugh at your jokes. We do like to have a
good time here, and youdefinitely to that.

So thank

you. I also wanna thank our streaming partners,
junkscience.com, CFACT, The c otwo Coalition, Climate Depot,
What's Up With That, andHeartland UK Europe. You can
find them on all social mediaeverywhere. Just search for
their names and, give them afollow. That'd be really good to
do.
Always visit climaterealism.com,or you can see us pushing back
at climate alarmism every singleday, just about. Go to

(01:27:08):
climate@aglance.com. We have anew second edition of that book
coming out very soon, butclimate@aglance.com is where you
can get all the information youneed to push back on climate
alarmists in your life. Go toenergy@aglance for for the same
kind of information as well. Goto heartland.org where you can
subscribe to Sterling Burnett'sclimate change weekly
newsletter, which is always agreat read almost every single

(01:27:31):
Friday.
And, go to heartland.org/tcrs.Maybe put a little a couple
bucks in the tip jar to helpbring the show to the world
every single week. We will seeyou again next Friday. Bye bye.

Speaker 2 (01:27:45):
Bye, everyone. Bye. Bye.

All Episodes

Climate Realism Is HOT in the UK — The Climate Realism Show #174

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

Crime Junkie

Cardiac Cowboys

.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 Is HOT in the UK — The Climate Realism Show #174