Conference Rattles Climate Activists – The Climate Realism Show #198 - Environment and Climate News Podcast

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

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

The price of oil has been artificially elevated
to the point of insanity.
That's not how you power a modern industrial
system.

Jim Lakely (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 win forGermany. Their factories are
shutting down.

Linnea Lueken (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. This is the best
day of the week, not justbecause the weekend is almost
here, but because this is theday The Heartland Institute
broadcast the climate realismshow episode number one ninety
eight if you are scoring athome. My name is Jim Lakely. I'm
executive vice president of theHeartland Institute and the host
of this program.
The Heartland Institute is anorganization that's been around

(01:17):
for forty two years. We areknown as the leading global
think tank pushing back onclimate alarmism. Heartland and
this show bring you the data,the science, the truth that
counters the climate alarmistnarrative you've been fed every
single day of your life. Thereis nothing else quite like the
climate realism show streaminganywhere, so I hope you will
bring friends to view thislivestream every Friday at 1PM

(01:40):
eastern time. And also like,share, and subscribe, and be
sure to leave commentsunderneath this video.
We do read them. And all ofthese very simple actions help
convince YouTube's mysteriousalgorithm to smile upon this
program, and that gets the showin front of even more people.
And as a reminder, you know, BigTech and the legacy media are
not big fans of the way we coverclimate and energy on this

(02:02):
program, so Heartland's YouTubechannel remains demonetized. So
if you wanna support thisprogram, and I really hope you
do, no matter where you'rewatching in the world, please
visit heartland.org/tcrs. That'sheartland.org/tcrs, and you can
join other friends of thisprogram who help bring the show
to the world every single week.

(02:22):
We also wanna thank ourstreaming partners as we do
every episode, junkscience.com,CPACT, What's Up With That, The
c o two Coalition, and HeartlandUK Europe. We have a big show.
We're back in the saddle in ourusual places, So let's get
started. Today, we have with us,as usual, Anthony Watts. He's
senior fellow at the H.

(02:42):
R. Institute and publisher ofthe world's most viewed website
on climate change. What's upwith that? We have Sterling
Burnett, the archbishop ofRancher Berry, whose day job is
the director of the Arthur bRobinson Center for Climate and
Environmental Policy at theHeartland Institute. But Linnea

Lueken posing as Andy Singer.

Jim Lakely (03:00):
Yep. We also have Linnea Lueken, senior fellow for
energy and viral policy atHeartland, and, our wonderful
producer extraordinaire, AndySinger, behind the scenes making
sure everything looks and flowsgreat. And joining us today for
the first time, certainly notthe last, as a special guest is
Angela Wheeler. Angela isexecutive director of the c o

(03:20):
two coalition, who were thecohosts of the sixteenth
International Conference onClimate Change last week. She
was also a speaker at thatconference.
Welcome, Angela.

Angela Wheeler (03:31):
Thank you. I'm so happy to be here.

Jim Lakely (03:32):
We're happy to have you here as well. So we're gonna
get into, a little bit of whatyou talked about and other
people talked about thathappened at the, the the climate
conference last week, which westreamed live on these channels.
But before we do that, let'sstart off as we always do with
our favorite segment, the crazyclimate news of the week. Hit
it, Andy. Thank you very much,Bill Nye.

(04:05):
I've titled this one here in thesidebar there fly me to the
loon. This comes from the Timesof London. Headline, I quit as a
pilot because climate changegave me sleepless nights. Let me
read a little bit for everyone.As millions of us flew off, for
an Easter getaway, the pilotbehind the controls may have
been having second thoughtsabout how many of us really

(04:27):
needed to be in the air.
A small but growing number ofpilots are stepping away from
their 6 figure salaries asconcern grows that the aviation
industry is unable or unwillingto stop its soaring carbon
emissions. Joel Walker, aneasyJet pilot for thirteen
years, is the latest to join theranks after struggling to
reconcile his dream job withclimate anxiety. Last month, he

(04:51):
handed in his security pass atLuton Airport after after being
signed off on medical groundsdue to severe stress and
sleepless nights. Quote, therewas this dawning realization
that I might be complicit insomething that is really
irresponsible, he said. Walkerhas joined the group called Safe
Landing, a community ofconcerned current and former

(05:12):
aviation workers who advocatefor an aviation fuel tax and
frequent flyer levy to makeflying more expensive.
Safe landing says increasedtaxes would reduce demand
amongst the most pollutingfrequent flyers and enable
sufficient investment in nascenttechnologies such as hydrogen
powered planes, okay,sustainable aviation fuels,

(05:33):
which could potentially bescaled up in the coming decade.
Alright. That's enough fromthat. And, sure, that's exactly
where all the money collectedwould grow would would go.
There'd be no grift.
Right? Anthony, I think you'rethe one who pointed this out to
us this week. And if a pilot hasthis much anxiety and over a
crisis that isn't real, it'sprobably best that he has exited

(05:53):
the friendly skies. Nope. You'reon mute, Anthony.
You just pulled a gym.

Sorry about that. I, had a I'm used to coughing a
little bit. Still still dealingwith the after effects as many
of us are from travel last week.But, you know, I had the pilot
myself before my hearing causedme to not be able to continue
because I couldn't understandthe tower because those guys
talk like auctioneers sometimes.I can say this is the biggest

(06:23):
load of balderdash I've everseen out of a pilot.
Pilots are usually straight andnarrow guys. They're focused on
the mission. They're focused on,you know, quality control,
cockpit you know, keeping thecockpit sterile, all these
things. And so this gotta go offon this tangent saying, you
know, well, I can't fly anymorebecause, you know, I might be

(06:46):
damaging the planet. I mean,really?
This speaks to me like it'sreally something else, and he's
just using this for an excuse. Idon't know. Maybe maybe there's
something else in the backgroundgoing on, but no pilot that I've
ever known would talk like this.And, certainly, no pilot I've
ever known would suggest that wehave hydrogen powered airplane

(07:08):
because nothing bad could everhappen by using hydrogen in
aviation. Right?
Remember the Hindenburg? Oh my.Anyhow, it's just it's just
loony. That's all. I mean, flyto the loon?
Yeah. That's an exact aptmetaphor, Jim.

Right? Well Sorry. Sterling, you

wanna You go ahead.

Okay. Well and and to one of our viewers who
asked if my voice is back, yes,for the most part. Might have a
little crack here and there, butI'm doing much better. That was,
like, the weirdest thing that'sever happened to me because I
was I got sick when I got homeafter the conference. But while
I was there, I felt fine.
I just couldn't talk. It wasterrible. Anyway, so that was

(07:53):
very bad timing. But, yeah. No.
This is this is really kind ofinsane because why does he think
that a fuel tax would reducefrequent flyers? Why does he
think like, frequent flyers arepeople who are flying for
business and people who arewealthy enough to be able to fly
all the time instead of driving.So why why does he think that

(08:14):
they would be impacted? Whydoesn't he realize that it would
reduce the the poorer peoplefrom flying? People who fly, you
know, once every three years orsomething for a family vacation.
That's who's gonna be, you know,restricted from flying if you
make it more expensive. I just Ihave a really hard time taking
these guys seriously or thinkingthat they're earnest about this,

(08:37):
because I think that they theyhave to know. They have to know
that the only people who will beimpacted by making flying more
expensive are the people whocan't afford it already.

Jim Lakely (08:47):
You sure about that?

Yes. I am sure about that.

I I've got several desperate thoughts on
this, story. You know, my mybrother-in-law, has his own
business. He's a he's a pilot.He flies both planes and
helicopters. And, I know fromspeaking with him and from other
pilots that I know, look, that'sa high that's a high stress job.

(09:14):
I I I wouldn't want to, to havethat job. So he this guy's
already under stress, and and Iand I and I acknowledge that.
But I will say if climate changeif if the thoughts of climate
change are keeping him up atnight, it's probably good he
grounded himself. I don't wanthim helming any airplane that I

(09:41):
am on, I think his thing is a isa grift. I think you mentioned,
Jim, that he got a medical amedical leave, from his company.
Right? He's getting paid not tofly now. He's he's sitting on
the sidelines collecting thatmoney, and he's not having to do
anything for it because he's sostressed and sick. And, oh, it's

(10:04):
bad. Now at least, you know, hedidn't take the real loony
climate stress pilot option outand and fly his plane into the a
mountain, to reduce everyone'scarbon emissions.
You know, he didn't do that, soI'll give him credit for that.
But this has a grifter. And ifhe's not a grifter, he's just,

(10:30):
he's overly sensitive. For apilot, not a good thing. I'm
glad he's out of the industry.

Jim Lakely (10:40):
Yeah. Yeah. Well, you know, at least we can, at
least we can take solace on thefact that chemtrails had nothing
to do with this story. And I'llleave it there as an inside joke
for, for the people on the show.Alright.
Let's move on to our second itemhere. I call it green gaming

(11:00):
blues. This comes from ourfriends in Canada from the CBC.
Headline is Watershed Grouphopes its online games inspire
young to act on climate change.We've seen stories like this
before.
Alright. Let me read some foryou. You might think teaching
the next generation aboutclimate change would require a
visit to the forest or theocean, but an environmental

(11:22):
group is hoping to share somelessons through a new online
game. Vanessa Lakely, projectleader of the, Petit Kodiak
Watershed Alliance, says thegames aim to teach children in
Moncton and nearby communitieshow they can help fight climate
change and reduce pollution. Inthe games, students create eco
friendly neighborhoods and learnhow to make make their own

(11:44):
gardens rain gardens, whichabsorb storm water runoff from
rooftops and driveways.
They just called that a barrelat the bottom of the drain in
my, you know, my house when Iwas a kid, but oh well. Quote, a
lot of the time, you can feelyou can feel kind of helpless in
climate change. Like, what am Igoing to do on my own? It can
give them a little bit more hopeand certainty that what they're

(12:06):
doing actually can make animpact. With the game called,
with the game called Great GreenNeighborhood Showdown, which
students play independently,players created contrasting
neighborhoods, one that is ecofriendly and another that isn't.
Players start with an emptyneighborhood. The object is to
build one eco friendlyneighborhood with solar panels,

(12:28):
green roofs, vegetable gardens,buses, and parks. In the other
not so sustainable neighborhood,students can insert things such
as litter, oil spills,construction zones, and large
parking lots. Alright. Linnea,that sounds like a lot of fun,
doesn't it?
You're the gamer of the grouphere. Are you gonna give this

(12:49):
one a try?

You know what? They're they're targeting the
same audience for, like, a,like, a Animal Crossing or any
number of those, like, kind ofcute little, like, home keeping,
like, tending your garden typegames. There is an audience for
that. Not really so much me. Iplayed Animal Crossing when I
was in middle school.
Not so much now. But, I I I dothink it's funny though because

(13:14):
they're they're scaring thesekids to death with, the way that
they teach them about climatechange and stuff in school.
They're hammering them with thisstuff. You know? It's it's all
over unless the government makeshuge sweeping changes to our
entire economy and, know,globally.
And they say this over and overagain to these kids to the point
where they're just, like, intotal despair because they do

(13:34):
feel like, well, I can't doanything about that. You know,
it's up to the world governmentsto do it. So now they're trying
to, like, put a Band Aid overthis, you know, mental illness
that they've inflicted on thesekids. It's it's kind of dark
when you think about it toomuch. But it it's it's the same
old.
Yeah. As one of our ourcommenters, mentions, you know,

(13:58):
the, like, Captain Planet stuffis it's it's along the same
lines as that. It's whatever.It's just it's like, have they
not hit us hard enough at on theeducation level from television
and movies. I can't remember thelast time I saw a, like, modern
TV sitcom or something thatdidn't have some kind of a

(14:19):
climate change episode.
It's everywhere all the time.Have they not done enough? Well,
apparently not because we'rewinning, and we're gonna talk
about that later. But, it's it'sjust kind of I don't know. This
kind of thing where they'redoing like a we've made a video
game showing you how to build arain garden is cute.
I mean, that's not legal inCalifornia. So if they're in

(14:42):
California, they can't gatheryou know, they can't collect
rainwater. So, good luck withthat, I guess. But, oh, well, I
I I don't see this asparticularly harmful. It's the
base teaching that got themscared enough that they think
they need a green game like thisin the first place that's
harmful.

Yeah. You know, if I got ahold of a cop a copy
of that thing, I think I wouldhack it and change the title to
Green Acres, where the wholegoal of the game is to buy
carbon credits from misterHaney. That would be the whole
the whole scheme of it. I don'tknow if you've ever watched the
TV show Green Acres or not, butthere was this character called
mister Haney who would comearound on his traveling wagon.

(15:22):
He was basically a shyster, andso he'd be a perfect guy to buy
carbon credits from in thisgame.
He's dating Anthony's dating himself.

Jim Lakely (15:31):
Yeah. Anthony just just raised the average age of
our dedicated viewer aboutfifteen more years. That's
great. Angela, I wanna I wannago to you on this. Yeah.
I mean, it it seems to me that,you know, as Linnea had had
alluded to, it's like, you know,you put an agenda first and then
you try to make a product thatpeople will like. It seems like

(15:51):
it it fails. It's a fail it's afailing plan. It's not gonna
work.

Absolutely. Well, what would a child how
would a child or a studentrespond when they're told there
is no alternative viewpoint,that the science is settled,
that there is a climate crisis,and you're responsible for it.
And and and that's where thisanxiety is coming from. And,
yes, as Linnea said, this is itit's really an atrocity, and and

(16:18):
parents need to go to theirschool boards and and let them
know that science is not beingtaught. And I don't know if
you're ready for to discuss mymy speech from the conference
yet or not, but that's that'swhat it was about.

I I would say that they're actually not
blaming the children. They'rehaving the children blame their
parents. They're teaching thechildren that their parents and
their grandparents are to blamefor destroying the Earth, and
only they can save it. They'rethe earth's saviors.

Well, that's a good point. But, also, in all
the things that they do, like wejust talked about with the the
carbon credits and and notflying and and making them
change their lifestyleextraordinarily. So it is it is
coming, but you're you're right.We we ruined it. Now they've got
to change their entire lifestyleto try to fix it all based on

(17:11):
lies.

Jim Lakely (17:13):
Yeah. And and we're gonna get into we're gonna be
able to get into that moredeeply, later on in the show
with, with Angela because shedid speak about this at the,
sixteenth InternationalConference on Climate Change,
last week. But, let's move on toour next to our next item here.
I know, Andy, you finally foundthe game. I know.
You've looking for it for tenminutes. You finally found it.
There's some good footage of it.It's great. I know.

(17:34):
He's killing me. Alright. We dohave a lot to get to. Let's move
on. This is a big story.
This was kind of a late insert,into the show notes this week,
and this is about the fakeendangerment finding, which also
ties into Lise Eldon speaking atour climate conference last
week. This was a a big story.Headline from Fox News.

(17:55):
Unearthed emails expose howObama era EPA plotted massive
energy regulations from day one.So, yeah, follow the science.
The democrats are the party ofscience. Right? No. They're the
party of ideology and dogma overscience. And this is big, and
this will kinda lay some of thatout.

(18:16):
Reading from it. A governmentwatchdog is accusing the Obama
administration's EnvironmentalProtection Agency of
predetermining the legal basisfor its climate framework. In an
amicus filing before the NinthCircuit Court of Appeals,
Government Accountability andOversight, a nonpartisan
nonprofit, and Protect thePublic's Trust, another
government accountabilitywatchdog, unearthed

(18:37):
communications from inside theEPA in 2009. Those
communications, the GAO argued,showed that the climate minded
officials treated Obama'sendangerment finding as a
foregone conclusion and laterused it as the foundation for
vehicle emission standards,power plant regulations and
permitting restrictions. Inparticular, GAO pointed to

(18:58):
communications from LisaHeinzerling who served as the
climate policy counsel at EPA atthe time.
In a 2009 email, she claimed theright findings would create the

legal mandate for regulation (19:11):
we expect to be able to issue a
proposed finding of endangermentfor greenhouse gases within the
next one hundred days, H.Sterling wrote on February 8.
Quote, within the same document,we expect to find that certain
major categories of greenhousegases, in particular motor
vehicles, cause or contribute toair pollution which endangers

(19:32):
public health and welfare. Anendangerment finding, she added,
will trigger regulatoryobligations under the Clean Air
Act. Her email was sent just twoweeks after president Barack
Obama's inauguration.
And, and like I said, this tiesinto our climate conference last
week with our opening keynotespeaker, EPA administrator, Lee

(19:53):
Zeldin. He said that we arevindicated. He said the repeal
of the endangerment finding wasvindicated. It was a triumphant
speech. And this story that cameout, I think, while we were at
the conference, ratifies that.
Sterling, let's start with you.I mean, they cooked the books
here. It was a setup all along.

Color me shocked to find this out. You know, it's
it it it reminds me of,Casablanca when the the the the
Nazi shuts down, the Nazisympathizer shuts down gambling,
and they rush out. And he said,I'm shocked shocked to find
gambling is taking place here.And they rush out, and they say,

(20:32):
you're winning story. He goes,well, thank you very much.
Obama told you in advance. Heran on shutting down coal and
fossil fuels. He said I believeit was a San Francisco Chronicle
article, but I could be wrongabout that. But he said, if you
wanna build a coal plant, try.You're gonna bankrupt you.

(20:53):
So he knew what he was going todo, and then it was just a
matter of ginning up thejustification. And this shows
that that they were working onthat even before the so called
science was in. Like you say,this wasn't led by science. This
was a predetermined politicaloutcome, and, they tried to,

(21:16):
pretty up the science to make itappear justified. We've
challenged this, not justHeartland, but but lots of
organizations have challengedthis.
Court cases have gone on. Thecourt has routinely upheld it as
discretion of the EPA. AfterWest Virginia v the EPA,
however, there was hope that thethe enangement filing would

(21:40):
finally be overturned because ifthere's if there's a single
major question in The UnitedStates, the control of carbon
dioxide, the very air youexhale, is pretty major. It
seems to me the EPA has got tofind the justification in the
actual law where congress satdown and said, yep. We want you

(22:01):
to control people's breathing.
That's what you gotta do. Thecongress has said you must
control people's breathing.Absent that, EPO head north or

Jim Lakely (22:14):
Nope. Sterling got frozen again. There we go.
Actually, Angela, I wanna go toyou. I mean, this this is this
is about basically, you know,you write it down on a piece of
paper what you already wanted tohappen, and then you declare
carbon dioxide a pollutant, getto regulate it, and control the
entire economy.
You're the executive director ofthe c o two coalition. Your
viewpoints on carbon dioxide area little were quite a bit

(22:36):
different than the Obamaadministration's.

Yes. And and what we have to do is overturn
Massachusetts versus EPA wherewhere c o two is considered a
pollutant. They as you justmentioned, they had no there was
no science behind thatwhatsoever. And so there's been
part of the that endangermentfinding that has been has been

(23:00):
changed, but the the actual partwith c o two as a pollutant has
not. And we have to with theClean Air Act, we have to
overturn that.
That's the only way we we goforward with, being able to free
c o two. But yeah. So exactly.And this was all based on very
much something that's veryconfusing because, as you know,

(23:23):
this comes back to the IPCCsaying that c o two is the
primary driver of temperature.We can scientifically prove that
that is false.
And so all of that being said,we have the science. We have the
data to be able to overturnthis. We now have an
administration that has our earthat will will look at the data.

(23:45):
And so we're we're just veryhopeful that we're able to
present this in the court andthat we are are able to get this
overturned.

Jim Lakely (23:57):
Anthony, you wanted to jump in?

Yeah. This reminds me a lot of what's been
going on in climate science, forthe past couple of decades. You
know? They are so absolutelyconvinced that c o two is the
whole problem. They come up withthese modeling studies.
You know? They've alreadyfigured out, yeah, c o two is
the problem. So we're gonna comeup with a modeling study that
proves it. So they come up withthis this conclusion that fits

(24:20):
the premise as opposed to theother way around. But it really
mirrors how science has beendone in climate science the last
few decades.
And an unlike Sterling, I'm notshocked. I'm not shocked at all.
I'm I think it's business asusual for these folks. And
there's two two facts factionsin this whole thing. There's the

(24:42):
people that wanna regulate it,and then there's the people that
wanna save the planet.
And they're both off theirrockers in terms of how they are
approaching this. The wholeprocess is backwards. Science
should lead and investigatefirst and then come up with a
with a conclusion. These folksare doing it exactly backwards,
whether it's on the regulatoryfront or on the science front.

Speaker 2 (25:06):
Let's see.

I I guess sarcasm doesn't come through well over
the computer, because I was lessthan shocked, despite my
protestations. I I I wanna saythis. The Obama's Obama's
actions and the EPA's actionswere attribution science were

(25:29):
before attribution science wascool. We had a predetermined
conclusion, and it was now justginning up the evidence to
justify our actions. It it'sit's circular reasoning.
It's unscientific. It's notlogical. It's purely political,
and that's what consensus is allabout, purely political.

Jim Lakely (25:49):
Yeah. We've we've told people for a long time. I
mean and this is why Lee Zeldinwas justified in going through
the process, and he went throughall the steps that you have to
go through, which coincidentallyor not coincidentally, is a lot
more steps than it did for theObama administration just to
declare for itself the power, todeclare to declare carbon
dioxide a pollutant when it isnot a pollutant, and therefore,

(26:10):
the ability to regulate it underthe Clean Air Act. That was just
a declaration. And this whatthis story actually proves is
that that was gonna be theirwhat their plan when they came
into the administration beforethey even got inaugurated.
And there were not gonna be anystudies to actually justify
this. They were just going todeclare the power to do so, and
the courts allowed them and thecourts, unfortunately, allowed

(26:30):
them to do it for too long. Likeyou said, Angela, Massachusetts
versus EPA is, is really thelast you know, it's already
pretty rickety stool at thispoint. Thank god. But, that
would be be the last, the last,stool point.

Yeah. The whole process was damn the science
full speed ahead.

Jim Lakely (26:49):
Yep. So, yep. Excellent. Alright. Let's move
on.
We got a lot more to get totoday. This is another pretty
big story. This is well, we'regonna find out. Is the World
Bank gonna be dumping theirgreen agenda? This comes from an
outlet called Climate Home News.
Headline is US pressure putsWorld Bank's climate plan at

(27:11):
risk. We'll see. It says herethe World Bank's work to tackle
climate change is under threatas the Trump administration
pushes the lender to ditch itsgreen targets and step up
support for fossil fuelinfrastructure in the developing
world. With the World Bank's keyclimate policy framework set to
expire in June, closed doornegotiations between

(27:32):
shareholders and the bank'smanagement over its successor
have stalled, sources familiarwith the discussions told
Climate Home News. This throwsinto doubt the future direction
of the world's largest providerof international climate funding
to developing countries.
First introduced in 2021, theClimate Change Action Plan has
driven an expansion in the WorldBank's funding for emission

(27:55):
cutting projects and support forvulnerable communities dealing
with the growing impacts ofclimate change. The plan
embedded climate considerationsacross the bank's lending
practices and committed it todirecting a defined share of its
annual budget, now 45%, toprojects with, quote, unquote,
climate benefits. Wow. Since theplan was introduced, the World

(28:16):
Bank's climate funding nearlydoubled from 21,000,000,000 in
2021 to 39,000,000,000 in 2025.You know, again, this is where
all the money is, folks, not onour side.
Let me finish up here. Thattrajectory is now under threat.
Since Donald Trump's return tothe White House, The US, the

(28:37):
bank's largest shareholder, haswaged an aggressive campaign
against its climate commitments.US treasury secretary Scott
Bessent told said on Wednesdaythat the World Bank should
abandon its, quote,distortionary climate finance
target and claim and it sayshere in the story, claiming
without evidence that it, quote,undermines efforts to reduce

(28:57):
poverty and spur economicgrowth. Gotta love the media.
One last bit. Quote, we welcomethe coming expiration of climate
change action plan, and upon itslong overdue expiration, expect
the bank to immediately shiftits myopic myopic focus on
climate, Bessant added, at theWorld Bank spring meeting in
Washington DC this week. That'sawesome. So, anyway, Angela,

(29:21):
what do you think? I mean, thisis, it is the World Bank.
The idea you know, a lot of thea lot of the green energy
industry is all grift. Youbasically outlaw outlaw
investment in fossil fuels, andwhere else is it going to go
under this, president and underthis treasury secretary. They
have a lot of influence on theWorld Bank to put an end to that
nonsense.

Oh, absolutely. And I think it's similar to, you
know, where where Bill Gatescame out and said, you know, oh,
maybe this wasn't so bad afterall. But I think you know, I'm
from Kansas, and so my term is,I said everyone said the jig is
up. Okay. Everybody's on to us.
We're we're ever we're seeingthis. So so now, like I like,

(30:03):
this administration is is boldlyshowing that this has all been a
big lie. And so why should wetake affordable, reliable energy
away from Americans? And and Ithink the you know, institutions
like the World Bank will willfall will understand that and

(30:25):
and hopefully just abandon itand quietly walk away. That's
the hope.

Jim Lakely (30:32):
Yeah. Well, I mean, everyone else here could weigh
in, but it's like, it it there'sthe idea that something it will
it will continue forever untilit doesn't. Right? And and for a
lot of this stuff, it is it'swhen the money goes away, then
whatever is happening with itsfund, it also goes away. And if
you can pull the money out fromunder risk in other words, if

(30:52):
the whole thing is like a it'slike a it's like a self watering
plant.
You know? It just it just keepsgoing and going. But if you can
turn that cycle off, then thewhole thing falls apart because
it's not real. It's not realexcept for the money.

So two two things. I believe you said, Jim,
in the store, they did did theycreate this fund in 2021. Is
that right?

Jim Lakely (31:14):
I believe, so let's look. Let me go back up into the
notes. Yeah. The climate changeaction plan, 2021. I I think
this investment maybe that'swhat the new thing was called.
Mean, has been going on for

a while. It's been going on for a while, but
the big the big investment camein 2021 under Biden. And what
they did there, you said 45%.What's the World Bank? It was
set up as an international buybank, five different, types of
bodies underneath it for onereason.

(31:46):
One reason. Just like thetreasure just like, the the
treasury was set up for onereason not to do climate change,
or or, the World Bank was tohelp poor countries develop, not
to control the climate, not tomake sure they only develop in a
way that doesn't impact theclimate because that's

(32:07):
impossible, just to get them outof poverty. That's its sole
reason for existence. Now, TheUS is the biggest funder of the
World Bank. This is the reasonwhy they're they're in such a
tizzy is the world The US hasoutsized influence on what the

(32:27):
World Bank does because we'rethe biggest funder.
Trump could yank that money, andthey would be out of business.
So they're listening. Andgetting back to what Jim said
is, this shows what a grift itis. Every day, I read headlines
that say, green energy industrycollapsing. Everyone's trying to

(32:50):
get in their funding before themoney goes out, but jobs are
being laid up.
Oh, we're losing jobs. They'renot gonna build a factory they
were gonna build before. I'mtold I'm told regularly that
green energy is cheaper thanother energy sources, that it
can compete with fossil fuels.Then why is it going away as
soon as federal money goes away?It was a lie twenty years ago

(33:14):
when they said it.
It's a lie today. It is acreature. Wind and solar energy,
battery backup are holycreatures of government mandates
and money. And when that moneyand mandates go away, it goes
away. After twenty, nearlythirty years of support, they've
never ceased to be orphan inindustries.

(33:35):
And when you when you hear whenyou hear, as they will say, it's
cheaper than coal. It's cheaperthan gas. It's cheaper than
nuclear. Ask why nuclear plantshaven't lost, shut down due to
lack of, profitability. Why askuse were shut down because of

(33:56):
regulatory and mandates tosupport green energy, and ask
why they will continue if thatmoney is taken away, but, green
energy does not.
If it can compete, it doesn'tneed that funding. It can't, and
it dies without it.

Jim Lakely (34:13):
You sit on a throne of lies.

Sterling, I just agree with you on one point. You
said that these were holymandates of holy creatures of
government mandates or unholycreatures of government
mandates. You need to get thatright. And, you know Yeah.
Archbishop, stay in your lanethere.

I'll say this.

When it comes to the World Bank, I really do
think, you know, despite whatthey're saying now, it's the
finance companies and stuff thatwe're gonna have the most uphill
battle with, right, for the fora time for the time being. Not
just because the grift has beenso, you know, lucrative for a
lot of these companies, but alsobecause, you know, you've got
and then you've got this kindof, like, job category that

(34:58):
popped up out of nowhere acouple decades ago that where
all these, like, finance guyshave, like, a sustainability
department. And so you have abunch of people with
sustainability in their, like,job title. And they're they're
it's gonna be hard to root themout. It's gonna be really hard.

(35:19):
There's all these people who,you know, they probably they
don't really have, like, ascience background or anything,
but they found out when theywere in college or right after
they got out of college and wentinto business or something that
sustainability is like a growthindustry. So they got into it,
and they're compelled by that totry to promote it as much as

(35:40):
possible. They've really dugtheir roots in pretty deep, and
I think that it's gonna be kindahard to get them out of it.
There I will say that the bestchance of getting them out of it
is getting these guys who havesustainability in their titles
to change their LinkedIn profileto, like, artificial
intelligence something, youknow, because that seems to be
what's really driving a lot ofthe changes from the tech

(36:03):
giants. But it'll it's it'sstill I think I think the
biggest hurdle going forward isnot necessarily even gonna be to
root it out from governments,but to root it out from the
banking system.

No. Let me let me ask you, Linnea. You may have a
different opinion than me. But Iagree that it's they're
embedded. But when the money andthe mandates dry up remember,
these are creatures.
These sustainability departmentsstarted because the government
got into sustainability. Thegovernment got into mandating
this stuff. And if there'sanything that financiers know to

(36:36):
do is they go where the moneyfrom government is. When the
money from government goes away,I think they'll pivot away from
funding this crap because that'swhere the the they're gonna go
to wherever the government'sgonna be funding next because
they wanna be on the groundfloor of the grift.

Yeah. But but you have to you have to see that,
like, for a lot of these people,this has become part of their
identity even outside of money.Right? Like, that's the reason
why all the the DEI stuff wasbeing pushed and the, like,
social justice stuff was beingpushed in these, big media
companies and stuff. Wasn'tnecessarily because there was
government support behind it,although that certainly helped,

(37:15):
but because there was anideological support behind it.
So you can have companies likeDisney or something losing
millions and millions of dollarson different movies that they
put out because they're tryingto push a narrative. And they
don't mind because they have anideological backup, that banks
were funding, basically, inorder for them to push that

(37:38):
stuff. It's just it's I I thinkthat the the money side will it
will dry up, but these guysaren't going anywhere. They're
gonna keep pushing it. That'swhy I'm not saying that they're
never gonna go away.
I'm saying that it's gonna takea lot more than just having,
like, a couple years of goodrepublican governance.

I I guess Well,

that's a strong term. But, you know, you know,
less less favorable governmentconditions for them in order to
in order to root it out.

I guess I see it a different way. I just think
that the presidents of thoseorganizations look. Jeff Bezos
is no longer funding. He he hefired two thirds of the
Washington Post climate staff.Climate reporting is down in a
single year.
My feeling is that when the CEOsof banks, they're all pulling

(38:32):
out of all the green grift, netzero alliances they were part
of, all those heads ofsustainability, they will go the
way of the Washington Postclimate reporters if they can
adapt because their CEOs aren'tgoing to allow their companies
to not make money on the nextbig grift and to to keep

(38:52):
pushback. That's just mythought.

Jim Lakely (38:54):
Yeah. Angela, did you have something else we can
get in here? Yeah.

Yeah. I was just gonna mention Amazon. You know,
they have the an entire web pagebuilt around their climate
pledge. And if you've everordered anything from Amazon,
you have the no carbon the thelower c o two option. And I'm
always wanting to request tothem that I get the higher c o
two option, but it hasn'thappened yet.
But unbelievable to me, and andthat's gonna take a long time to

(39:21):
for them to to back away from.

Jim Lakely (39:24):
Yeah. Well, I mean, one of we can we can wrap it up
here. Don't don't put that upjust yet. There we go. Yeah.
I got some fan mail we're gonnago over here. But, no. The look.
So called green energy,renewable energy, it's it's not
reliable enough. It's notscalable enough to actually work
on any in any grand scale.
Anybody with two eyes and earsand watches this show knows that

(39:46):
to be true. The only wayinvestment in that technology on
a broad scale makes sense is ifgovernments mandate the
investment into it, and that isit. And once governments stop
mandating that or, you know,Donald Trump and Scott Besson
putting pressure on the WorldBank to stop putting their thumb
heavily on the scale in thatfavor, it will end. And I just

(40:06):
wanted to say one one last thingbecause it it bothered me in
this story that Scott Bessantsaid he claimed, quote, unquote,
without evidence that greeninvestment, quote, undermines
efforts to reduce poverty andspur economic growth. Without
evidence.
The evidence itself evident. Ifyou are investing if you are
trying to make developing,countries in Africa raise their

(40:29):
standard of living through solarpanels and, and windmills, you
are undermining efforts toreduce poverty and, spur
economic growth. Because theonly way out of poverty and the
only way to spur real economicgrowth is through the use of
fossil fuels for energy andelectricity, period. You cannot
do it with what the, what whatthe green weenies want us to do

(40:49):
globally. That is you don't needevidence.
You need eyes. You need tounderstand basic economic.

And I know we've talked about this, but what just
for like, with the data centers,I think one of the best thing
that's that has happened is thedata centers because they know
they could not get their energyfrom wind and solar.

Jim Lakely (41:11):
Exactly.

And so this has just made it so obvious. And so
that's one that's one good thingthat came from that.

Jim Lakely (41:20):
For sure. Alright. Thank you very much. I think
that was a wonderful examinationof that story. We're gonna get
into our main, main topic today,kinda talking a little bit more
about the climate conferencethat, c o two coalition's
cohost, with the HeartlandInstitute and CFACT and what's
up with that at, in WashingtonDC last week.

(41:41):
We, There were some incidents.There was, an interruption of
our panel on, bringing youthinto the climate realism fold.
In other words, deprogrammingtheir alarmist brains. We're
gonna get to that in a minute aswell. But I also wanted to share
a little bit of fan mail that Igot, from somebody who watched

(42:01):
the conference.
Let's see, if we could bringthat up. There we go. So, Steve,
I, I'm not gonna share your lastname, Steve. I'm also not going
to share your email addressbecause that would be doxing and
that would be wrong, so I'm notgoing to do that. But this this
came into my personal emailaccount, which I can say out
loud because it's public.
It's on Heartland's website.It's jlakely@heartland.org.

(42:25):
That's where this person foundme. And he said, what? In the
subject line, you don't believein climate change?
You are a stupid, uneducatedpiece of crap moron. Idiots like
you are why humanity was sostupid that it pooped in its own
bed.

Well, gosh, Jim.

Jim Lakely (42:45):
I just made you a star. That actually made my
week. I really appreciate thatvery much. So thank you, Steve,
for that.

You know, it's funny. It's it's this is so
typical of just about everyemail any of us ever received
from people on the other side.It's all I mean, these guys put
the archbishop of Rattlesbury toshame. They do a much better job
of ranting than Sterling couldever do. And, you know, it's
always the same.
You're stupid. You're anti, youknow, science. You're on the

(43:14):
take of big oil. Any of thosethings are always almost always
in the process of theircommunications. It's they they
just never do anything beyondscream and yell and rant.
They never engage in a factual,truthful way.
Ad hominem is their is their, their

(43:34):
foundation.

I love it when they I love it when they say you
don't believe in climate change.Well, yes, I believe in climate
change. Climate is alwayschanging.

We had

a whole conference. Believe it. Yeah. Go
ahead.

No. No. You're right. Climate's always changed,
and we had a whole conferencethat said that.

Exactly. Yep.

Jim Lakely (43:53):
Yeah. Yeah. Well, you know, we had we have clips
of it. We have clips of thepeople who disrupted our our
conference on on the last,afternoon. And the speakers up
on stage said, you know, it's ashame they didn't stick around
and listen a little bit more.
They would have learnedsomething and maybe not have
been so angry and ignorant, butthat's what you get. We do the
best we can. You can, lead ahorse to water, can't make him

(44:14):
drink. But so let's get into alittle bit of the recap here of
the conference. And, Angela, Iwanted to talk specifically to
get started about what you hadtalked about.
You can everybody watching andlistening to this show can go to
heartland.org. The first twofeatures on the on the web page
will bring you to all of thecoverage that we have. All the

(44:35):
videos are there. We are in theprocess with Andy and and others
to be cutting those up into moreinto easier bites. You can get
all of the presentations plusmost of the PowerPoints if you
want them as we move along.
It takes some time, but bepatient, you can go to
heartland.org and get right overthere. Angela, your presentation
was very interesting. It wastitled The State of Science

(44:57):
Education in Restoring theScientific Method. Why don't you
take this opportunity to kind ofsummarize your presentation and
why you thought that was animportant one to give the
audience?

Sure. I think that people are typically pretty
amazed when I what I would sayrestoring the scientific method
because they say, what what doyou mean restoring the
scientific method? But in 2013,the, the federal the, you know,
the, our federal governmentdecided that we should have

(45:29):
standards for science as we didfor math in common core, and so
they offered next generationscience standards. So states
have the option to to opt in ornot. But as of now, 49 states
have opted in to next generationscience standards.
And what they didn't realizethat is that the the standards

(45:50):
removed the traditionalscientific method. There is no
traditional scientific method inthose standards. So here we are.
That was 2013. Here we aretwenty twenty six.
And and we wonder why do all ofthese students and these young
adults think that there's aclimate crisis and that it's

(46:10):
settled? It's because they havenot been taught to think
critically. They have they thinkthat they're that science is
settled. They believe thatscience is consensus, and and
that's problematic. And that wasthe the core of of my of my
speech was to just say that wehave full on indoctrination, and

(46:31):
science is not the topic thatyou would think we would have
indoctrination.
It's supposed to be open opendiscourse. It's supposed to be
open communication and testingeverything, and we do not have
that in schools in America, andmost people don't know that.

Well, it's it's not an output. Science is a
process, and the process is,trying to discover. You you try
and, you have a phenomena youwant to explain that we don't
understand, and you try andexplain it through the pros the
scientific method. You propose ahypothesis.

Yep.

Jim Lakely (47:08):
Nope. Sterling got frozen again.

Terrible terrible thing that that

Speaker 2 (47:15):
keeps saying.

I've got everything else turned off. So
it's this is all spectrum. This

is Yeah. You

propose a hypothesis, and then you have
the the test. You say, my theorymakes these predictions. And the
more those predictions arecoming true, you test it, the
more likely it is to be right.But the less those predictions
are coming true, the less likelyit is to be right. And when you
test climate the the climatealarm narrative against that,

(47:45):
it's very unlikely to be rightbecause all of its predictions
are wrong.
And, yet, like you say, theyjettisoned the scientific
method. They made it aboutresults, the things that we
supposedly know in consensus,agreement. Scientists in the

(48:06):
next generation sciencestandards, it talks about
agreement. What's important isagreement. No.
It's not that's not what'simportant. What's important is
results that are proven.

Yes. And so students are really being taught
what to think instead of how tothink.

That's right.

And and if you rely on models and you rely on
consensus, then you can you canlead it them into thinking
anything. And we know that we'veled them to think that there's a
climate crisis, and that isfalse.

Jim Lakely (48:39):
And it's not, Angela, it's not as if the some
of the basic physics of the waythe atmosphere works and
greenhouse gases work andparticularly because you're with
the c o two coalition, theability of carbon dioxide to to
its warming capacity or itswarming ability decreases as it
increases in the in theatmosphere. So while there may

(49:00):
be quite a bit of warming from,say, 100 parts per million to
300 parts per million, theamount of warming from 300 to
400 is a lot lower. The theamount from 400 to 800 is even
lower than that. It's almost bebe insignificant. That is not a
difficult concept to teach amiddle schooler.
But if you tell them the truthabout carbon dioxide, that it is

(49:21):
the it is the gas of life, thatit is not a pollutant, that it
is not causing runaway globalwarming with all of these
potential and faraway andmodeled accelerating effects,
that that is not if you tellthem that, then the entire
indoctrination of global warmingis is it's your fault, and we're

(49:44):
ruining the planet goes away.

Yeah. And that it's plant food, you know, by
the way.

Yeah. That that we're we're eating better than
ever before in history becauseof in part because of c o two.
Yeah. I I wanna
put Angela's presentation in context. You
know, we had this panel. Whatwas the panel? The big the
biggest challenges that remaingoing forward on climate change,
and she saw education as her topissue. And I think she's right.

Yep. Anthony, you're jump in. About it. Oh,
sorry. Go ahead.
Oh, well, if you don't mind me,I one of the things that I have
often say to people, if even ifwe are able to overturn
Massachusetts versus EPA, whichwhich would be a mere would be
not a miracle, but it'd bewonderful, we still have to

(50:37):
unindoctrinate a a couple ofgenerations of people. You know?
We we have to show them thetruth. And the the one thing
that I feel very hopeful aboutis that we do have truth on our
side. We have we have data andscience and truth.
And when people are arepresented the facts, if they're

(50:59):
willing to consider it, that'swhen we'll win.

Jim Lakely (51:06):
Absolutely. And that's

what and that's what the youth panel is kind of
aimed towards too. Right? Like,how do we undo some of that? And
I really think that part of thatis that the the alarmist
themselves are undoing some ofthat because they've really
overplayed their hand. And Ican't remember who it was that
that made this commentary, andit's killing me that I cannot
remember whose talk at ourconference it was that made this

(51:29):
point.
But we we really have, like,Anthony Fauci to thank for the
current unwinding. Who was itthat

That was Mark Marano. No.

That was Mark Marano. That's right. Mhmm.
Anthony Fauci to thank for theunwinding of, you know,
people's, kind of compulsivebelief in the establishment
scientific you know, thescientific establishment. Right?
Because we all saw that theywere just, like, making stuff up
as they went along in order topursue a particular political

(51:58):
narrative that they wanted. Youknow, masks work. Masks don't
work. It all just depended onwhat they wanted the people to
do. And I think that that reallywoke a lot of people up.
Maybe not as many, maybe not asmany young people as we would
like, but I think that the thesuffering that they underwent in
school and stuff, over that thattime period also helped to kind

(52:22):
of make them realize, like,okay. You know, the authorities
don't exactly have my bestinterest in mind. Maybe I should
take another look at whatthey're telling me.

I think I think Mark Moreno is the one that
brought up Anthony Fauci iscalling him the the the biggest,
destroyer of climate alarm.

Jim Lakely (52:41):
Yeah. I'm gonna take this opportunity to kinda go
around the horn and talk alittle bit more broadly about
maybe some of the favorite partsand things that people should be
looking for, at least in theirown personal opinion when they
go toclimateconference.heartland.org
or just heartland.org and checkout this stuff. Anthony, you
know, you gave a wonderfulpresentation. You can't pick
your own presentation. But wasthere part of the was there part

(53:02):
of the conference that youreally would recommend to people
that really stuck out to you?

I'm sorry. I missed that last part.

Jim Lakely (53:09):
Is there a part of the conference that, you know,
not including your ownpresentation, which is people
should check out, but it wasthere was there a part or a
presentation of the conferencethat you would recommend, people
check out because you really,found a lot of value?

Well, yeah, first of all, I really enjoyed the
disruption because, you know, itjust puts it puts their
silliness on display, but that'sthat's irrelevant to the whole,
you know, mission of theconference. But I think that the
presentation that was done, byour Nobel, physicist, doctor

(53:42):
Clauser, was really interesting.Even though it went a little bit
long and it was technicallydeep, he basically showed how
the pee under the thimble, youknow, kept getting switched in
the way that they were doingscience. And, we've had a series
of post on WhatsApp with thattalking about that particular
presentation. And so I thinkthat was probably the big

(54:05):
standout for me.

Jim Lakely (54:09):
Angela, what about you?

Yeah. So I'm very biased. Doctor Klauser is
is on our board. And so but Iwas going to say the same.
Doctor Hapur, doctor Clauser,Jim Steele, who's also one of
our our board directors, theybrought the science.
And, I mean, a lot of peoplebrought the science, but they
they brought the science. Andthat is exactly what we need.

(54:33):
And and then also I just wannasay hope. I I looked around that
room, and I saw the hope withwith everyone there that that we
can we can beat this. And andthen we'll have to move on to
the next power grab and then andthen and the next and the next
thing.
But but we're we're close to toreally showing everyone that

(54:53):
there's no climate crisis. Andthen, like Linnea was talking
about with the anxiety, then wewill we will move beyond that.

Jim Lakely (55:04):
Yeah. Sterling?

Well, you know, everyone's said Clauser, so I
won't repeat that. I I thoughthe was president. It was great.
I thought the best thing abouthis presentation was how he used
their own words to contradictwhat people are saying that they
say, that that they theyundermine their own fear their
own beliefs with their ownwords. Well, I love the youth
panel.

(55:26):
I was, you know, behind settingthat one up. I think that's just
critically important.Unfortunately, you know, as a
moderator for a number ofpanels, I couldn't be in all the
panels, so I didn't seeeveryone. But I always think,
Mark Marano's presentations arefantastic. I thought Anthony's
presentation was fantastic.

(55:49):
They they bring the, sort of thethe history of this scam into
light and expose one thing afterthe other, how they were wrong
here, how they were wrong here,and how they persist in the same
wrong beliefs. And they do it inan entertaining way. The the

(56:12):
best takeaway from theconference for me personally was
the enthusiasm that I saw at theconference. Everybody was
joyful. Everybody fought.
You know, we they said they saida resurgence that that some of
them said, oh, there's aresurgence of skeps I as I said
once, I'd like to know when thefirst surge was because I I I

(56:35):
didn't know we had that thatperiod of time where we were
winning before. But we'rewinning now, and everybody's
happy about it. And that showedat the conference. So my 2¢.

Yeah. That was kind of the same perspective
that I came away with. I wasvery heartened by the number of
people who came up to me, and Iapologize. Anyone who's watching
who is there and came up to meand talked to me, and I kind of
just had to, like, smile and nodbecause I I could not whistle
out a word because my my voicewas just gone. But I did enjoy

(57:09):
talking to all of you.
And all of the enthusiasm andpeople were so heartened and and
glad by, like, the the amount ofscientific rigor that we had
represented there as well as,you know, policymakers, all
sorts of stuff. I like JasonIsaac's presentation. I also

(57:30):
liked to counterbalance our ourextreme and and merited
optimism. I always appreciateSteve Molloy's, panels, and I
was kinda joking like, man,you'd think that, the, the
victory was won already exceptthen you go to Steve's panel,
and it's kind of, like, keepingour feet on the ground and our

(57:51):
head out of the clouds a littlebit because he's like, look.
This can all fall back again ifwe don't keep up the momentum
here and get some really goodand important, you know,
tactical victories at the, atthe judicial level.
Right?

Jim Lakely (58:06):
Yeah.

So I thought that that balance at the conference
was really good.

Jim Lakely (58:12):
Yes. Steve Steve is a frequent, guest on this
program. We love him. And, yeah,he's kind of the, the prince of
darkness on some of this stuffas we try to get in a good mood.
He brings us back to reality,all that sort of stuff.

But he's alright. You know? Oh, he's right. He's
totally right. If we didn't havehim, we'd be in trouble, I
think.

Jim Lakely (58:28):
For sure. In fact, that's why he won the, the
dauntless purveyor of climatetruth award from the cohost
CFAC, as a matter of fact. Socongratulations to Steve on
that. Nobody else here said it.It's in our thumbnail.
I'm gonna say it. I think LeeZeldin, leading off the entire
conference, the sittingadministrator for the
Environmental Protection Agency,coming to speak to us to a,

(58:50):
obviously, a friendly audience,and to tell the audience, you've
been vindicated. I've beenvindicated. C o two is not a
pollutant. The endangermentfinding was BS, and we are proud
that we went through the stepsto take take care of it.
And he said, you shouldcelebrate, and we did celebrate.
He got a standing ovation whenhe got on the stage. He got an

(59:11):
even louder standing ovationwhen he left the stage. We were
very honored and pleased to haveLise Eldon come to the most
prominent climate conference forpeople who do not believe humans
are causing a crisis. The onlyclimate climate conference,
frankly, where you will havereal scientists presenting real
science to not just people inthe in the in the hall who know

(59:34):
this stuff because they're alsoscientists, but in ways that are
absorbable by the masses, it'sstreamed, thousands and
thousands of views.
I I think it's a tribute to theway we've all put on this,
conference together, the c o twocoalition, CFAC, the Heartland
Institute. What's up with that?That Lee Zeldin would be you
know, was honored to come andand kick the whole thing off.

(59:55):
And the thing that pleases me somuch as the director of
communications and executivevice president of Heartland is
that it drove the media crazy,and they had to write stories.
The New York Times had to writea story.
AP had to write a story. TheGuardian it made global news. It
was fantastic. It was theperfect way to to kick it off.
And I will also just, I'm gonnaplay play two videos here for us

(01:00:15):
in a minute, but I will alsoreiterate what everyone else on
this, show has said today, thesense of joy.
You know, this is our sixteenthconference. Sometimes the mood
is not quite as joyous. It's alittle dour because as Sterling
just said, if this is aresurgence, when was the first
surge? We haven't had it. But,you know so there was palpable

(01:00:40):
joy.
There were lots of smiles. But,you know, as Linnea pointed out,
and we all know, you know,there's no permanent victory in
politics. You have to keepfighting and fighting and
fighting, which we will continueto do. And as you said, Angela,
we have the science on our side,and that is a huge advantage.
But it's nice to have our side,you know, kind of at the
forefront right now for as longas it may last.

Anthony Watts (01:01:02):
And to be recognized, as you say, to be
recognized by Zelda. That was Iwalked out of there going, gosh.
It's nice that he vindicates,all of our work for thirty years
now. I wanted to say, Jim, Isort of thought you were gonna
violate your own rule and toutthe live climate realism show
that we did at the conference, Ithought that came off pretty

(01:01:25):
well. So

Jim Lakely (01:01:26):
Well, somebody had to say it. I was hoping somebody
would say it. But, yes, the liveversion of our show on stage was
pretty fun. That was reallygreat. Alright.
Let me we're gonna get to q anda here in a minute. Let me just
play. So I mentioned before, andI promised these videos that we
were protested. I think the theorganization was something
called climate defiance. Theyentered the ballroom for that

(01:01:48):
breakout session on how to bringyouth into the climate realism
fold.
Our first clip, this is from thephone of Guardian reporter,
Darna Noor, who says she wastotally unaware. Leftist
communist publication. She wastotally unaware this was going
to happen, she said. Alright.Let's play that video, please,
Andy.
Protest. Howdy go? Now I I Ijust wanna say here, the the

(01:02:58):
person escorting that young manout is 86 year old physicist
Will Happer. That guy should notbe sharing that video on social
media. He got manhandled by an86 year old man.
That's pretty embarrassing. So

Yeah. Chris Mart commented on Twitter, what kind
of a wuss do you have to be toget thrown out of a conference
by an 86 year old guy? Yes.

So, anyway, they they they try to come in and
have some fun. And this nextclip, I'm gonna play real quick.
Anthony, you may wanna mentionsomething here. See in the notes
that you might wanna dosomething. But here's the second
one.
This is our this is the this isthe highlight clip. Somebody on
the left put together of theentire incident.

Speaker 2 (01:03:38):
Yeah. While they're getting that set up, I I have an
announcement to make. We havebrochures for the Will Happer
Security Company on the tablesoutside. Yeah. That's the I'm
gonna go outside.
I see. We we we had them made upduring the time it took

for this panel to happen.

Speaker 2 (01:03:56):
So his his motto is he thought he takes direct
action against soy boys whointerrupt smart people.

Linnea Lueken (01:04:05):
Oh my gosh. So ridiculous. Alright.

Speaker 2 (01:04:08):
Well so, again, the thank you. Thank you. Wait.
Let's have a round of applausefor the entire panel for this
I'm speaking. I'm speaking.
You are fake news, quitefrankly.

Hey. I know that guy.

Yeah. I know that guy.

Speaker 2 (01:04:29):
You're a total disgrace. Total disgrace. This
is when you know Oh. Oh. Thiswhen you know that you're
winning.
Is when you

Angela Wheeler (01:04:43):
Wow.

Speaker 2 (01:04:47):
I'm so honored.

What freaks?

Speaker 2 (01:05:03):
Thanks, guys. Who are those losers? Those

losers are climate defiance, and as they can see,
they didn't deep dampen ourspirits. That that panel was was
Emma Arnes from CFAC. That wasLucy Biggers right there. Annika
Sweetland was also there. Linneawas on that panel.
Her voice was gone. I had tospeak for her. So it was a youth
panel with this old man up therein the beginning. And and also
the great the great Chris Martz,who Chris Martz, by the way,

(01:05:32):
gave a fantastic keynotepresentation at the final dinner
about, about temperature, abouttemperature across and and
weather. You must see that one.
That was one of my favoritepresentations. Sorry. It was
really fun.

No. If you wanna know who funds client climate
defiance, you can go toinfluence watch, and you can
find out who funds them. Andthat's good information to know.

Alright. Maybe Andy will do that while we're going
through the q and a. But, yeah,Anthony, you said you wanted
maybe to mention some breakingnews. Yep.

Yes. I just got word that a supreme court
decision was handed down in thecase of Chevron USA in versus
L'Aquimines Parish in Louisiana.Basically, this lawsuit was
about the fact that someactivists got a hold of these
people in this parish inLouisiana and decided to push a

(01:06:26):
lawsuit saying that becauseChevron, made aviation fuel
during World War two, it causeda whole kickoff of climate
disaster and damage andeverything. And it's been going
on for over a year now. Andfinally, there was a ruling
today, and the ruling basicallythrew it out.
And justice Thomas delivered theopinion of the court, and I'm

(01:06:47):
gonna read it to you. Congresshas long authorized federal
officers and their agents toremove suits brought against
them in state court the federalcourt. The federal officer
removal statute authorizes anofficer or person acting under
that officer to remove statesuits for relating to any act
under color of such office andso forth. Chevron argued that

(01:07:08):
the suit was removable becauseit implicates Chevron's crude
oil production during the secondworld war when Chevron was also
refining crude oil into aviationgasoline for the US military. No
party disputes that they didthat.
We thus decide only whether thesuit, implicates Chevron's
wartime production of crude oil,relates to Chevron's wartime

(01:07:30):
aviation gasoline refining forthe military. We hold that it
does. Basically, they threw thewhole lawsuit out. It was just
another win that we're getting,in the whole climate arena.
These lawsuits that these peoplekeep coming up with are beyond
ridiculous.
I mean, imagine going back toWorld War two and saying because

(01:07:51):
Chevron made Avgas to keep, youknow, our allies and and our
country safe from the Nazis, youknow, the climate damage was
was, you know, terrible. And sotherefore, we have to choose
Chevron. What kind of whack jobsdo you have to be to come up
with this idea in the firstplace?
Anthony, let me ask you. Did they throw out the
lawsuit, or did they just removeit to federal court? I thought

(01:08:15):
they removed it to federalcourt.
Well, I can't be clear on that based on my
reading right now. I'm surethat'll shake out. But in any
event, they lost, at the supremecourt, and that's the big deal.
Yep.

Cool. Alright. Well, you know how you know where you
will not lose? You will not loseby visiting the sponsor of this
program, and that is AdvisorMetals. You know, if you listen
to a lot of conservative shows,you hear tons of pitches for
buying gold and silver and otherprecious metals.
There are a ton of companies outthere, We wanna tell you why you
should trust our sponsor,Advisor Metals, and that's the

(01:08:52):
man who runs the company, andhis name is Ira Brashatsky. Ira
is the managing member ofAdvisor Metals, and he doesn't
employ the high pressure tacticsor deceptive marketing ploys you
get for many in big gold. Healso doesn't deal in so called
rare coins. When you buy goldand other precious metals from
Advisor Metals, you're dealingin quality bullion, and that is
so much better for you when youwanna liquidate this very

(01:09:14):
valuable physical asset. Andwhen you buy from Advisor
Metals, you will have thatinvestment sent discreetly and
directly to your home.
I also wanna mention that Ira isadvertising on our program
because he is an America firstpatriot. He does not donate to
Democrats or organizations likeClimate Defiance. He refuses to
work with the proxies of theChinese Communist Party, and he,

(01:09:36):
like us, abhors the machinationsand schemes of the World
Economic Forum, and I wouldimagine, also the lending
practices of the World Bank. Sowe are proud to have IRA and
Advisor Metals as a sponsor. Soif you wanna diversify your
portfolio or if you wanna backup your IRA with real physical
bullion of precious metals, goto
climaterealismshow.com/metals.

(01:09:58):
You can leave your informationthere, and Ira will make the
process very easy for you. Go toclimaterealismshow.com/metals,
and be sure to tell them whosent you because that helps this
show while you're helping yourfinancial future. Thank you for
your attention to this matter.We are ready now for q and a.
Take it away, Linnea.

I'm gonna

start it off with this oops. Oh, I was taken out
of the chat. I'm gonna startwith this really brief answer to
a a question that has nothing todo with the stream, which is
from Paula Brown who says Brownwho says, what's Animal
Crossing? Animal Crossing is aNintendo game. It's it's not
anything nefarious.

(01:10:47):
It's just a Nintendo game. Chriswhoop. Okay. What is going on
with our layouts here? ChrisNesbitt says the eco zone will
need to cover a 100% of the landwith solar panels.
Just have no electricity atnighttime. Do the batteries go
in the dirty zone in that game?I would I would assume so. I
think they just kinda, like,magically generate. We'll move

(01:11:10):
on here.
Let's see. Okay. This is fromClimate Bell. I'm gonna pitch it
to whoever wants this one. TheIPCC will never pull the plug on
their grift.
After thirty three years,they're still fumbling the ball
of uncertainty when it is adeterministic computation. Is
this incompetence or corruption?Why not both?

Yeah. Why not both?

Why not both? Since

Anthony is not here, I'll I'll give my
thoughts. I'm not convinced thatIPCC will be around for in
another decade as a body.Remember, we pulled out of
UNFCCC. That's the one thatfunds most of it. Other
countries are are stepping awayfrom their commitments.

(01:12:01):
If they keep having conferenceslike they did in Berlin where
they come out with nothing andthey are embarrassed, I I think
pretty you know, in a decade,even if they have conferences,
half the countries won't showup. It'll be a joke. No one will
cover it. And when the coveragestops, the IPCC ceases to have a
reason for existence becausethey've never gotten some of the

(01:12:25):
science is pretty good. Some ofthe science in the large
documents is pretty good.
But their summary forpolicymakers are written by
policymakers for policymakersand have always been politicized
and often don't reflect theunderlying science in the
reports.

Absolutely. Anthony, do you have anything to
add to this one?

No. Actually, I don't. I've been, reading up on
this, I apologize. Been readingup on this lawsuit thing, so I
missed most of that.

That's alright. Okay. We do have a a little bit
of a critic in the in theaudience, so I want to bring up
their comment. Missus miss BlueOcean says, breaking news. The
Heartland Institute are thethink tank of human extinction.
I think I mean, I'm gonna I'mgonna assume that this person is
earnest and they're not justtrolling. But I think you'll

(01:13:18):
find that even your, IPCCdoesn't believe the stuff that
you're saying to the extent thatyou're claiming it. In addition,
you also say okay. Question. Areyou cheering this on?
The US Senate approves a bill toallow mining near the Boundary
Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. Idon't know. I would have to read

(01:13:40):
up on that. Sterling?

Well, I'd I'd have to see the bill. I've read
my constitution. Have you seenanywhere in the constitution
where the federal government isallowed to set up wilderness
areas? I haven't seen it. Idon't see the words in the
constitution.
As far as mining, if it can bedone safely, especially if it's

(01:14:05):
rare earth mining, minerals thatwe need for national security, I
think that we have to go aboutit. But I haven't seen the bill,
so, you know, I'm not gonna sayI'm cheering it on. I I see her
stream. You know, she's got astream of of comments. And, you
know, look.
We we are the we are the groupthat's in favor of human

(01:14:30):
prosperity, not extinction. Thepolicies that she promotes would
lead to extinction, would leadto less food, billions of people
dying of hunger. They're alreadyin energy poverty, more people
dying from airborne illnesses,indoor airborne illnesses as
they burn wooden dung ratherthan rely on electricity from
clean plants. She's the one onthe side of extinction as are

(01:14:55):
many as are many climatealarmists who are really more
about population control thanthey are about protecting the
environment.

I also strongly doubt that this individual has
ever read any of the, like, thethe IPCC AR six report or
anything like it. But they didsay that they thought that the
IPCC is too conservative. Somaybe they're just anti science
themselves and, aren'tinterested in data anyway.

Well, one thing I'd like to say to miss Blue
Ocean, when I when I talk topeople at con conventions that
we attend that, you know, don'twanna have a discussion. They
just wanted to preach at it. AndI say, you may if this is your
religion and you tell me this isyour religion, I'll respect
that. You have a right to yourreligion, but you cannot tell me

(01:15:46):
it's science because yourarguments are not based in
science.

Absolutely. Alright. So we have a question.
Oh, Anthony, sorry. Go ahead.

Well, I wanna address this lady, miss Blue
Ocean. You know, you're sayingthat we're killing that the
planet. Have you looked aroundat all other than just simply
reading headlines? You know, ifyou go back and look at history
and you look at what's beenhappening to the planet in the
last one hundred years, youwould find if you bothered to
read history that we are in amuch cleaner state than we ever

(01:16:18):
were. You know, we had theEnvironmental Protection Agency
formed in 1970 because thingslike Lake Erie were catching
fire due to pollution on the topof the of the surface of the
water.
Things like that. We had smogeverywhere in Los Angeles,
Chicago, New York. We werebreathing dirty air. We were
drinking dirty water. Thosethings have all been solved and

(01:16:42):
we are living in a much cleanertime than we ever had in the
past.
And the fact that it's gotten alittle warmer due to some
increased carbon dioxide, well,boo hoo. We are looking at
agricultural productivity thathas jumped, skyrocketed. We are
looking at human health that hasgotten way better. And the fact
is is that cold kills morepeople than warmth when you look

(01:17:05):
at studies like what come out ofthe lancet. Yeah.
We are not living in a time ofdestruction of our planet. We
are living in a golden age. Soget with the program.
And, yeah, and beyond the benefits of all this
for human health and welfare,you know, we're we're we're
richer than ever. We have fewerpeople dying of hunger than
ever. We have fewer people dyingfrom from, weather related,

(01:17:30):
events. The earth itself isgreening. It's benefiting.
The expansion of the greening ofthe earth is remarkable. And if
she does if she doesn'tacknowledge that, then she
really doesn't follow thescience.
Yep.

Alright. Got a question here from Walter Jab
Jakubrowsk. Sorry, Walter. Ialways mess you up. Who says,
what email address, do we sendour fan mail to?

You can send it to me. It's mine. Uh-huh.
There you go.

Okay. There was Andy. Thank you, Andy. Alright.
Or you can send it to Jim.
Whatever you wanna do. Alright.Wheelman says, I suggest all to
see if you can bring on doctorJohn Robson for an interview,
please. I don't know who thatis, so I don't, Angela, do you
know?

Nope. He runs a website called Climate
Discussion Nexus.
Oh.

Okay. Alrighty. It is I two says, Jim, you
idiot. You don't believe inclimate change. I think we're
gonna make that a tagline of theshow.
Could be.

It could be. I I I do believe in climate change,
and that is actually has norelation to whether or not I'm
an idiot. That's completelyseparate quest.

It reminds me of the Wizard of Oz with the
cowardly lion.

Speaker 7 (01:18:54):
I do believe in climate change. I do believe in
climate change. Everybody knowsyou never go full retarded.

Alright.

My husband's gonna love that.

Alright. So, Mike Gat u s o Gatuso, says, how do
we get schools to change whatthey teach? How many good
textbooks are available? How dowe flood the market and block
out the stupid, Angela?

That's an excellent point. And one good
thing is that a lot of thetextbooks are going digital now.
It used to take sometimes adecade to try to make a change
in a textbook. Now we don't havethat problem. Now I do realize
that they the school boards haveto vote on it, and we go through
that process.
But we do have moreopportunities, and so we do need

(01:19:43):
to be reaching out to schoolboards. And and we're actually
putting together some programsright now at the c o two
coalition to so that we can bereaching out from the from the
youngest level to stop thisindoctrination.

Yeah. Heartland Heartland and our allies have,
have testified in differentstates on their, because,
typically, school boards don'tjust willy nilly get to choose
the books. Their state educationagencies decide what's
acceptable, and we've testifiedon textbooks in those states. We
also and I'm sure Angela hasdone this as well, and CFACT

(01:20:18):
certainly does this. We've sentmaterials directly to the
schools.
Climate at a glance was sent toeducators, 7,000 educators
around the country. Why climatewhy scientists disagree was sent
to over 200,000. So you try andget to them directly, circumvent

(01:20:38):
the, the bureaucracy. Noteveryone uses our material. Some
people throw it away, but othershave written us back saying nice
things about what we've gotten,and they wouldn't have known
that they wouldn't have beenable to supply that had we not
provided it.

Yep. Thank you very much.

Oh, and one thing, if you don't mind me
noting real quick that weattended six we we attended six
homeschool conferences lastyear, and we're attending three
this year plus two charterschool conferences. And we offer
our materials at no cost tohomeschool groups and and also
to schools that are all donorfunded. And that's one way we're

(01:21:14):
getting our materials. They allhave lesson plans written by
doctor Sharon Camp. They're verycomprehensive.
And that's one another waybecause the homeschool families,
they are taking this into theirown hands. They don't want their
children to be indoctrinated,and so we're making sure that
they get the the correctscientific based materials.

Yeah. Very good. Yeah. You guys have done great
work on that over the years. Goto co2coalition.org.
You can get more information.

Absolutely. Alrighty. Let's see. Tech has
kind of a complicated question,but, I'm gonna see if anyone can
do it. Can someone summarizedoctor Happers energy imbalance
argument?

That takes more time than we have. I I

don't really think I could

go through that.

But you can No.

We are not able to do it. No. But you can go to the
and you can see the whole WillHapper presentation for
yourself. No summary needed.

And at co2coalition.org, they also have
kind of, like, summary versionsof a lot of doctor Happers
papers and stuff. So that wouldbe a good place to look as well.
Alrighty. Now and again from JayWester says, is there a site
with a quick sum up of the mostimportant scientific data that

(01:22:38):
disproves climate alarmists?Anthony?

Yes. Go to, you got two websites to choose from.
You've got climate@aglance.com,which has all the different
arguments that we have laid outone by one with the science,
with hard data, and you can usethat to dispute almost anything
they say. That's number one.Number two, climaterealism.com,

(01:23:02):
where every day we dispute somecrazy story in the media where
they're making grand claimsabout, you know, the earth is
falling or the the sky isfalling, you know, the earth is
burning up, all this kind ofstuff.
So use those two resources. And,of course, my own website, Watts
up with that, where we've gotlots of stuff going on multiple
times a day. Those threeresources are your best bet for,

(01:23:26):
pushing back on any climatealarmism. And particularly, if
you cite Watts up with that,that will make them crazy. So do
the go choose that.

Also, I should note that we have a an excellent
publication called ChallengingNet Zero with Science

Realist. On And she doesn't get paid by the
fossil fuel industry, neither do

we. Oh,

I'm sorry. Did I play that again? I'm saying that
we have something in commonfound with miss Blue Ocean. She
said she's a climate realist,and she doesn't get paid by the
fossil fuel industry, neither dowe. Second, I would say Climate
at a Glance is probably the bestquick source for this stuff.
But if you want really, reallydetailed, really, really

(01:24:10):
detailed, lengthy examinationsof climate science from a
realist perspective, peerreviewed hundreds, if not
thousands of footnotes, go toclimate change reconsidered, the
series of books called climatechange reconsidered, that are on
the Internet.

Sorry about that, Angela. I think Sterling's,
stuff got, kinda lagged there.But what were you saying?

Oh, sure. No. We did we have a report called
challenging net zero withscience, and it's very it it's
it's got the it's got the deepscience, but it's laid out in a
way that's easy to understand.And so that's at
co2coalition.org. And there's,of course, many, many other
things.
We have things on methane andnitrous oxide, and and there's

(01:24:59):
so many resources. But a greatplace to start is challenging
net zero with science.

Alrighty. Thank you very much. Oh, a good
question from our friend, Luke,who says, what are your thoughts
on Elon Musk and Tesla or SpaceXbringing technology and
manufacturing that otherwisewould be made in China to The
United States? It seems likeMusk's companies are positive
for The United States. Yeah.
I would agree with that. And Ialso would say that anything
that makes it, less likely thatproducts that we use are being

(01:25:30):
made with slave labor is a verygood thing.

Agreed.

Sterling, do you have any comments on this one?

Well, you know, I've long had mixed feelings
about Musk. The the idea that weneed to subsidize electric
vehicles through a tax credit, Ithought was stupid and through
carbon credit sales. You know,he made a lot of money on that.
That's great for him. And forthe wealthy people that were
subsidized, most people whodrive electric vehicles aren't

(01:26:02):
in the last lowest two quintilesof of income.
The other thing is he does a lotof contract work. And to the
extent he does contract work,like all of his SpaceX stuff,
it's pay for play. He has toproduce. And by gosh, he
produces like nobody else insatellites, in space travel.

(01:26:24):
He's

Speaker 2 (01:26:25):
the man,

and I've gotta admire him for that. Anything
that gets us as Linnea said,anything that weeds us off
Chinese dependent technology,100% in favor.

Absolutely. And a question from Bogus who says,
was the disruption the onlything the leftist reporter
posted online or in theirpublication? If so, they
definitely lied about notknowing in advance. Jim?

I I only saw it on, the reporters, x account,
Twitter account, which actuallyisn't followed by that many
people, to be honest. So, Ididn't see that they did a story
on it. So you know? I mean,look. She was in the room.
She got up. She put her phoneup. I mean, that happens. She
had nothing to do with it. I hadno idea who those people were.

I have to tell you something awesome, though.
So they actually put a pictureof our banner, which is good
news. There is no climatecrisis. They had a picture of
our stress ball that said, don'tstress. There is no climate
crisis.
And our our little little platewith lifesavers with our sign
that said c o two is alifesaver. We got a lot of

(01:27:30):
attention, showing some of theswag that we brought, and that
that made us really happy.

Certainly, they had their own people there
filming because I, I helpedblock the filming. I started
blocking the filming when shewas holding up her camera trying
to film, and she's having to gether get around my hands going up
to block it. At first, I thoughtwhen they stood up, I thought it
was a gimmick that, Lucy wasdoing. I thought it was part of

(01:27:59):
her presentation. And once I I Ididn't realize it wasn't until
the filming started, and I triedto block that.
And then when the secondprotester came out, I walked her
I just stood in front of her andwalked her out.

Yeah. I I there's a little bit more information
about this I could share. Idon't think it's really worth
doing it right now, but, I havesome information in reserve just
in case we need it. That's allI'm gonna say.

But wouldn't it be great if they were really
there to actually learnsomething? Wouldn't that be
great? But we know we know thatthey're not.

We know. And, you know, we we get people we just
put, you know, miss Blue Oceanup here. We get people that
don't agree with our ourviewpoints on these topics that
show up to this show. We havemore than a thousand people
watching this livestream today,which is pretty amazing. And we
put their questions up, and weanswer them.
We wanna engage in a debate.There's very few on the left
that wanna engage in any debate,and there's a reason for that.

(01:28:48):
And as you mentioned it, Angela,the science is on our side, so
they're left with very fewplaces to perch.

Absolutely. Well, that's all the questions I've
got there. So I'm gonna hand itback to you, Jim.

Alright. Well, that will do over. There's the music.
I just muted up. So it is timefor us to go.
I wanna thank everyone for beinghere on the show today,
especially the people in thevery engaging chat as usual, but
also very special guest today,Angela Wheeler, executive
director of the c o two Polish.And thanks so much. We will sure

(01:29:19):
to have you on again. That was alot of fun today. I wanna thank
our streaming partners,jumpscience.com, CPAC, that very
same c o two coalition, ClimateDepot, what's up with that, and
Heartland, UK, Europe.
Thank you Linnea. Very much,Sterling. Thank Thank you,
Angela. Thank you, AnthonyWatts, who had you know, right
away, he couldn't stay till thevery end. So we will all be here

(01:29:41):
again because we're back in ourregular routine next Friday at
1PM eastern time.
Please like, share, andsubscribe. Bring people to watch
this show. It's a lot of fun,and the more the merrier. That's
all we have for today, and wewill talk to you next week. Bye
bye.

All Episodes

Conference Rattles Climate Activists – The Climate Realism Show #198

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

Crime Junkie

.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;}Conference Rattles Climate Activists – The Climate Realism Show #198