EPA Returning ‘Gold Bars’ to Taxpayers - The Climate Realism Show #145 - Environment and Climate News Podcast

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Joe Biden (00:03):
And that's what climate change is about. It is
literally not figuratively aclear and present danger.

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

Jim Lakely (00:13):
The ability of c o two to do the heavy work of
creating a climate catastropheis almost nil at this point.

Anthony Watts (00:20):
The price of oil has been artificially elevated
to the point of insanity.

Stering Burnett (00:24):
That's not how you power a modern industrial
system.

Andy Singer (00:27):
The ultimate goal of this renewable energy, you
know, plan is to reach the exactsame point 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 Lueken (00:43):
They really do act like weather didn't happen
prior to, like, 1910. Today isFriday.

Jim Lakely (00:54):
That's right, Greta. It is Friday. It is the best day
of the week, not just becausethe weekend is almost here, but
because it is the day theHeartland Institute broadcast
the Climate Realism Show. Myname is Jim Lakeley. I am your
host.
I am also the vice president ofthe Heartland Institute. You
know, there's nothing else likethe Climate Realism Show
streaming anywhere, so I hopethat you will like, share, and

(01:16):
subscribe, and leave yourcomments under underneath this
video. All of these very easy todo actions help convince
YouTube's algorithm to smileupon this program, and that gets
it shown in front of morepeople. And a reminder, because
big tech and the legacy media donot approve of the way we cover
climate and energy on thisprogram, the Heartland
Institute's YouTube channel hasbeen demonetized. So if you you

(01:38):
wanna support this program, andI really hope you do, please
visit heartland.org/tcrs.
That'sheartland.heartland.org/tcrs.
You can also pull out your phoneand scan that QR code right here
on the screen, and that can helpus make sure this show happens
every single week. Any supportyou can give is warmly welcome
and greatly appreciated. And wealso wanna thank our streaming

(02:01):
partners today, that being, ourfriends at, junkscience.com,
CFACT, Climate Depot, what's upwith that, and the c o two
coalition. So, let's getstarted.
You know, we have a lot to goover today. I I almost
completely threw out the usualformat of this show, but we're
gonna try to fit it all inanyway. But we have a lot of

(02:23):
stuff to do, so let's just getto introducing our panel. We
have with us, as always, AnthonyWatts. He's a senior fellow for
the Hartle Institute andpublisher of the most
influential climate website inthe world.
What's up with that? We alsohave h. Joanne Burnett. He's the
director of the Arthur bRobinson Center on Climate and
Environmental Policy at theHeartland Institute, and Linnea

(02:43):
Lukin, research fellow forenergy and environment policy at
the Heartland Institute.Welcome, guys.
Happy Friday. Happy Valentine'sDay as a matter of fact.

Yeah. Well, Sterling and I tried to be
festive, but you guys you guysdidn't even try.

Well, Jim

Jim's got his, statutorily required, flannel
check shirt for the winter. Yes.

Jim Lakely (03:10):
It is quite cold here in Northern Illinois. Woke
up to about five degrees, andnow it's, 14 degrees. Oh, nice
and balmy. That's our high fortoday. And I know that we have a
big polar vortex coming.
So, winter, after being verynice in the Upper Midwest, is
now becoming very normal in theUpper Midwest. Before we get
rolling, and, I will apologizeto our audience here getting to

(03:33):
start here. Andy, our regularsuper producer, is, taking a day
off today, and our backupproducer, who is normally
available, is also not availabletoday. So I'm gonna be trying to
host and do all the goodproduction stuff at the same
time. Linnea is handling thecomments as usual.
Before we get rolling, I wantedto, see if you guys saw this

(03:53):
today. Let me see if I can shareit on the screen. Yeah. So this
was, today. I didn't really itneeds to be.
There we go. Zoomed in a littlebit. So, today, Friday, our new
vice president, JD Vance, gavehis first big international

(04:13):
address. And, it apparently wasa a real great address, and
we're gonna be looking forwardto seeing it, I think after the
show, because he talked about alot of things and was very, very
strong pro America and the kindof talking to the European
elites have not gotten in quitea while. And so, but one thing
that relates to this show thatcaught my eye, was that he took

(04:36):
a shot at Greta, who we kindatake a gentle jive at at the
beginning of every show.
And, so, you know, the EuropeanUnion is really complaining, and
they wanna go after Elon Musk,and they don't like what is
happening here in The UnitedStates. And, JD Vance said this.
He said, trust me and I say thiswith all humor. If American
democracy can survive ten yearsof Greta Thunberg's scolding,

(04:59):
you guys can survive a fewmonths of Elon Musk. But what no
democracy, American, German, orEuropean, will survive is
telling millions of voters thattheir thoughts and concerns,
their aspirations, their pleatheir pleas for relief are
invalid or unworthy of evenbeing considered.
And, basically, that was himtalking about the idea of free
speech, which is, which ispretty important. So, you know,

(05:22):
boom. Gauntlet thrown at the atthe European elites.

Yeah. Well, I mean, I know he, he took some
good jabs at, Germany duringthat speech because they have
been actively suppressing one oftheir, right wing parties, and
it's not even a far right party.It would it would probably
almost barely count asconservative in The United
States. So it's it's pretty badover there, and he rightfully,
took him to task for it.

Jim Lakely (05:49):
Yep. Alright. Well, there he is. Anthony Watts is
coming back. Could have been anemergency.
These things happen. Alright.Welcome back, Anthony.

Sorry about that.

Jim Lakely (06:03):
No worries. We're a live show. These things happen.
Alright. Well, we can, getstarted.
Like I said, we have a reallybig show to to we have a lot of
stuff to go over, especially ourmain topic of, well, our new EPA
administrator, Lee Zeldin,trying to claw back from the,
gold bars that were thrown offthe Titanic as was said by a, a

(06:25):
departing a departing EPA, guyfor for Joe Biden. So, we are
going to go ahead and getstarted with our show. And, man,
I don't have a producer. I'mgonna have to hit the button
myself. Here it is.

(06:49):
Alright. So thank you, Bill Nye,for our crazy crazy climate news
of the week. Our first, ourfirst item will be, this I don't
know. What what do you guys sentthis to me this week? It was
pretty funny.
But, apparently, there is,controversy, I suppose, over

(07:11):
over the proper forestmanagement in the state of
Washington. And so, of course,when anything good is going to
happen, direct action isrequired by the environmental
left. And so, well, they decidedto do a coyote die in to protest
this, and here we go. So so,guys, I know that's a little

(08:07):
that's more than a little silly,but, you know, this, you know,
this is what happens when youput theater kids in charge of
anything. And, do any of youguys think this actually has any
effect on, on on the world andon on policy?

I think yeah. I think it has this effect. It it
it, turns people off to theirmessage. As I commented earlier
in the week when I saw it, Iknow coyotes. I have shot
coyotes.
These are not coyotes. And ifthey think that logging, which
is what some of this forest planactually allows, if if they

(08:46):
think coyotes like out ofcontrol wildfires any more than
any other wildlife does, thatdestroys their habitat, that
destroys their dens with theiryoung, you know, that that kills
them if they can't get out, thenthey're just stupid and dead
wrong.

Yeah. This comment from, Samot. I'm not
sure how to pronounce that. Ihad the same first reaction. I
said someone needs to get animalcontrol in there because if they
wanna if they wanna larp ascoyotes, they can they can larp
as coyotes on their way to the,wildlife rehabilitation center.

Jim Lakely (09:21):
I actually I only give them about, you know, seven
out of 10 for this one becausenobody's wearing, like, a furry
outfit. You know? So it reallyYeah. To me, I don't think they
really commit, so I'm just notgonna do what they want. You
know?

It would be it would have to be a faux fur
outfit, mind you.

Yeah. But this is this is environmentalism
personified right here in thisvideo. This one video pretty
much says everything aboutenvironmentalism today, whether
it's on the climate side, thetrees, the water, the bugs,
animals, whatever it is. It'sall about emotions. It's not
about logic or facts.

When I was a kid when I was a kid, and
probably still today, I I don'thave any children, but, you
know, tantrums were thrown. Andyou fall on the floor and you
go, no. I don't wanna don'twanna I don't wanna. And, now my
my parents had a swift answer tothat, which to grab me by the
arm and swap my butt prettypretty good, and and the tantrum

(10:19):
ended pretty quickly. So that'swhat these people need is, swift
butt kicking and being locked ina public being locked out of
public meetings.

Jim Lakely (10:31):
Yeah. Well,

Sterling, I I think you should go out and do
that.

Jim Lakely (10:36):
Well, you know. Well, I I I like how the adults
in the room decided, alright.Enough. We've had enough. We're
out of here.
This is this is dumb. I'm out.And as one of our commenters
pointed out, this is how youactually lose the argument.
Whatever point you're trying tomake, it you're you're such an
absurd person that you're notgonna be listened to. In fact,
it is you're incentivizing theperson to take the opposite way

(10:57):
and not get your way.
So, anyway, keep it up, guys.Fantastic news. Alright. Second
item for this week. This comesfrom, this was well, we all had
this idea.
We keep an eye we keep an eye onthis. Oops. Did I put the wrong
put the wrong no. I did put thewrong thing up. So we don't need
this up right now.
Pardon me. Just one moment,everyone. Alright. So our second

(11:21):
item is that, Paris. Has Parisfallen?
Have they done the, have theydone a Paris has fallen movie?
They did they did Olympus hasfallen. They did a Paris has
fallen. Okay. I thought they

did that. They did that. They did back in, you
know, like, I think the sixtiesor seventies. They did one
called Has Paris Fallen, whichwas, you know, about, the
Germans and and, people saying,you know, have have they taken
over Paris as as it, so I don'tknow if they've made

Jim Lakely (11:52):
a new one. Those those those recent,

Those current action movies. Yeah.

Jim Lakely (11:57):
I don't know about that. All and all this stuff.
Anyway anyway, it doesn'tmatter. Paris has fallen. Now,
Sterling, you wanted to hit onthis, briefly.
So, you know, you had mentioned,to me this week that almost all
the countries in the ParisClimate Agreement didn't even
bother submitting their emissioncuts, commitments by the latest
deadline. And then this comes onthe heels of two studies that

(12:17):
CNN reported on. One was inNature Climate Change that said
there was a 60 to 80% chancethat the Paris threshold of 1.5
degrees Celsius has already beenbreached. And second, that James
Hansen is saying that we'vealready blown past 1.5 degrees c
and that we're likely to get totwo degrees c and higher the
next couple of decades. So,Sterling, you know, I ask you,

(12:40):
has the world just given up,and, is that a good thing?

Yeah. You know, I don't care about the science
crap that Hansen's spewing orthe other or the other study
because we breached it. It'sbeen breached, folks. 1.5 wasn't
actually the target. It was twotwo point zero.

We're having all sorts of technical fun today.

Jim Lakely (13:06):
Sure. We are having a great technical fun today.
Somebody's got to go off. Goahead, Sterling. Yeah.

But, the important point here is that a
variety by by a variety ofmeasures look. Paris was a
failure from day one. The inkwasn't dry. When I predicted, it
was a failure. It did nothingfor China.
It did nothing for India. Theywere growing emissions, and

(13:33):
nothing we could do in the Westwould reverse that. And, even
the people at the time said,well, this is sort of a paper
tiger because all the reductionsare voluntary. Everyone submits
their own voluntary, and thenthey're expected to do it, but
it had no teeth. And guess what?

(13:54):
I was right. I I don't get tosay that often enough, but it
I'm saying it today. And, youknow, we have had everyone talk
about Paris. Oh, Paris. They'rethey're they're failing to meet
Paris.
Okay, folks. We've had climateagreements, including a treaty
since 1990. Twenty somethingyears of climate agreements. We

(14:19):
had the initial agreement thatsaid, we will reach nineteen
ninety levels of carbonemissions by the year February.
We had the Kyoto Treaty thatsaid we will reach 7% below
nineteen ninety levels by theyear, I think it was the year

(14:42):
2015.
Yeah. Twenty fifteen. We've hadother dozens of agreements has
been signed, much pontificating,many speeches, very public.
Everyone, not just Paris, everytreaty that's been signed, every
agreement they've inked, not asingle part has been met.

(15:05):
Funding mechanisms haven't beenfunded to the degree they said
they would fund.
Emission cuts haven't been hit.The Paris agreement's no
different. Kyoto failed. Thefirst agreement failed, which
was actually a treaty. We signedit.
They haven't hit one. Paris isjust the latest in a long string

(15:26):
of failures, which tells youthey really don't take it that
seriously because the worldhasn't ended despite, at every
one of these meetings, themsaying, if we don't do it by x
date, it's too late. Well, theyset goals in Paris to have
emissions reductions by 2020.Nobody's met those emissions

(15:47):
reductions. They were supposedto, every five years after that,
submit goals for making stricteremissions reductions.
And this year, 2025, '10 out ofthe 200 nations submitted their
updated emissions goals. And ofthose nations, none of them met
their emissions goals in thelast round. So, oh, we're gonna

(16:08):
be tough this time. Oomph. We weknow we missed, but we're
meeting our commitment to setnew emissions goals that we will
subsequently not meet.

Jim Lakely (16:21):
You're muted, Anthony.

I got him. I I unmuted him. Anthony, we missed
your joke. You were muted.

No. Actually, I think it's a problem. How about
now? Yep. We can hear you go.
Can hear you. Okay. Great. Yeah.That when I got that errant
Skype call coming in, itswitched the audio around, so
I'll, that happened.
Anyway, I've turned off Skype sothat won't happen again. But,
what I'd like to point out here,and Chris Marks points this out,

(16:50):
that, yeah, this 1.5 degreescentigrade target was really
picked out of thin air, and itwas just a convenient target to
choose for something that wasattainable supposedly. Right?
You know, they could have justas easily chosen two degrees
centigrade, but they thoughtthis one was one that they could
capture the public's imaginationwith. You know?

(17:10):
And then remember all thestories that we were seeing in
the press about what's going tohappen when we get to 1.5
degrees c. You know? All thesebad things were supposed to
happen to the climate, to the tothe globe. You know? We're gonna
get worse tornadoes, worsehurricanes, worse everything.
Weather is going to be moreviolent, all that stuff. But the

(17:30):
opposite has happened. Weatherhas become less violent. We've
had less tornadoes. We've hadless hurricanes.
You know? And so all of the thepronouncements they made based
on this 1.5 degree arbitrarylimit have not come true. And
now they're they're pushingtowards, you know, two degrees
centigrade. Well, it's reallygonna happen at two. We were
wrong about 1.5.

(17:51):
You know, it's always moving thegoalpost with these people. The
other thing is is that that 1.5degrees c breach only happened
because we had a combination ofa double whammy spike between a
a bunch of extra water vaporinjected into the stratosphere
by the Hunga Tonga volcaniceruption plus an El Nino. Those

(18:14):
two things combined to give abig spike. Well, guess what?
It's coming down now.
The latest UAH satellite datashowed that the temperature is
dropping globally. So what arethey gonna do when it goes back
below 1.5 degrees centigrade?You know, they're gonna look
pretty dumb.

What they're gonna do is take credit. They're
gonna say, oh, if we hadn't putall those emissions reductions
in the, you know, that thatwe've done, we wouldn't have,
halted the rise in temperatures.In the end, you know, you've
written about this repeatedly,Anthony. If you look at the
longest history, of consistenttemperature data, We've exceeded

(18:53):
two a long time ago. So, 1.52,set your supposed made up
because global averagetemperature is made up.
There is no thermometer youstick in the Earth's mouth and
say, oh, yep. That's thetemperature, and this is where
it should be. It doesn't exist.We make it up. That was breached

(19:14):
a long time ago, and futuretemperatures will be breached,
and the world won't end.

DJ Beau makes a great comment here on Rumble. He
says, of course, Paris failed.If they don't fail, they can't
make new agreements to fail at.And we kinda chuckle at it, but
I think that's actually justcorrect. That's, you know Yeah.
It's the same with every,government agency. Right? If
they don't have a new problem tosolve, then their problem is
over, and, they're over. So theyhave to come up with a new

(19:43):
problem to solve.

Jim Lakely (19:44):
Yeah. I agree. I I was at that Paris Cup, and they
did pull 1.5 degrees c out ofthe air. Some people wanted 1.7.
Others wanted 1.3, and theypretty much just compromised at
1.5.
And, you know, there was allthis discussion. It's like
there's no scientific basis toit at all. It's this arbitrary
plucked out of the air, as Chrissaid, political number that is

(20:08):
used to, you know, set astandard so that, you know, that
can't be achieved, but isplausibly achieved. I guess
that's what they were going forso that they can control all of
our energy and lives. Mhmm.

Yeah. I would point out that in The United
States, when we look at the datafrom the Climate Reference
Network, we've seen spikes oftemperature as high as four to
five degrees, and nothing hashappened. You know? The The
United States hasn't winked outof existence due to the spike in
temperature.

Jim Lakely (20:37):
No. Indeed. Alright. Our our next item up on here is
going to be the one I brought upaccidentally too soon, and that
is our EV failure update. Welike to to, you know, check-in
here from time to time, see howthings are going, and this is a
story from Breitbart, so on howwell, it explains itself.

(20:58):
So BMW has a concerted approachto EV adoption, investing in
platforms that can accommodateinternal combustion, hybrid, and
electric powertrains, and is nowpaying off as the company
navigates the uncertaintransition, say the least, to
electronic to electric vehicles.Joakim Goler, a BMW board
member, recently acknowledgedthe uncertainty surrounding the

(21:20):
shift to electrificationstating, quote, I think it would
be naive to believe that themove towards electrification is
a one way road. It'll be aroller coaster ride. This
sentiment underscores theimportance of BMW's diversified
approach, which includescontinued investment in modern
combustion engines. That's aregular gas power powered car to
you and me, plug in hybrids,alongside the rollout of new

(21:42):
electric models.
BMW's strategy has positionedthe company well in terms of the
global EV market share. In 2024,the automaker sold a record
426,594 EVs worldwide,representing approximately 17%
of its total sales. Surprised bythat, actually. When combined
with hybrid and otherelectrified vehicle sales, this
figure raises to around 25%.This balanced mix has allowed

(22:06):
BMW to meet EU emission targetswithout resorting to heavy
incentives to drive EV sales,another very important point.
So that approach by BMW, and youhave to applaud them, is a lot
smarter than Ford. Theyannounced that they expect to
lose $5,500,000,000 on EVs thisyear. By the way, they lost
$5,000,000,000 in 2024, '4 point'7 billion in 2023. Do you see a

(22:32):
trend here, guys? And the FordCEO, Jim Farley, said this week
that thousands of jobs are atrisk now if Trump cancels all of
the EV subsidies in theInflation Reduction Act.
Now, Linnea, I guess credit toBMW for trying to form a
workable business plan in theface of the EU and The US,

(22:52):
trying to direct the autoindustry's future, not in a way
that the market wants or caresabout, but, you know, just the
way it wants. And that it seemsto me that Ford has has just
been gobsmackingly stupid. Didthey really think, really think,
that the American people aregonna subsidize billions and
billions in losses forever?

Yes.

Yes. They did.

Absolutely. They did. And they don't have any
reason not to because the, USgovernment has bankrolled, our
major car manufacturers makingmassive mistakes with their
investments before. So there'sno reason for them to not expect
that that would happen,especially since at the same
time the government was pushingall of these emission standards
and everything that were goingto make it, more difficult to

(23:37):
produce combustion engine carslegally, in the first place.
Right?
So, yeah, they had no reason.And I'm I'm probably the least
hard on EVs out of this panel. Ithink, in general, I think the
technology is improving. I thinkthat, there's no reason why we

(23:57):
shouldn't be, you know,investing in it just because
it's a it's an interestingtechnology. I don't think, I
should be investing when it withmy tax dollars.
Of course. I don't think that Ishould be forced to pick up the
tab for people's lifestylechoices, especially since right
now, EVs are still mostly aluxury lifestyle choice. It's

(24:19):
kinda crazy to be, contributingto helping people buy luxury
goods. The, yeah, the BMW thingis interesting. It was a good
plan.
I think Toyota has also beendoing the same thing. They've
been focusing a lot more ontheir hybrids, which one seem to
be a better technology ingeneral, and two, they seem to

(24:40):
be a lot more popular. Iremember my mom I recall that my
mom had a had a hybrid at onepoint, and she liked it. She did
went back to combustion engine,because I think it was expensive
and frustrating to replace eventhe hybrid battery. But it's a
it's a it's an interestingsituation all the time, all

(25:00):
around the, the companies thatare doing the worst on this, I
think, tragically, are companiesthat have a history of, you
know, spectacular vehicles likeJaguar or what is it, Jaguar for
our British friends.
They, they, they've recentlyrolled out, like, concept art
for new EV line. I think they'retalking about going all EV. I

(25:23):
think it's gonna be a major,mistake for them. I don't think
they'll ever recover from this.Something in my eye.
So, yeah, it's it's aninteresting situation all
around. I hope that, the Trumpadministration just nukes the
CAFE standards and stuff, sothat we can get a little bit
more market realism into the carmarket, but we'll see.

Jim Lakely (25:47):
The

the EV thing is driven entirely not by
technology, but by governmentsupport and subsidies. Ford, was
taking its marching orders fromthe federal government. The the
truth is you will save thousandsof car makers car, workers'

(26:12):
jobs, auto workers' jobs if youmove away from EVs Because
people, by and large, don't wantthem. And when government
support stops, sales willlargely stop. You have, I
believe it's Rivian, but it maybe Fisker.
Yes. Fisker does still existdespite bankrupting twice.

That's fair.

That recently received another lifeline from
the federal government underBiden. They have they have
failed repeatedly, and Bidensays, oh, let's just throw
another billion dollars down theblack a couple of billion
dollars down the black holebecause we like the technology
even if the public doesn't.Well, the carmaker should be

(26:55):
like an Ayn Rand character. Theyshould say, you know what? We
make a product for a profit.
That means satisfying theconsumers. We simply aren't
gonna make EVs. Not that we'regonna make not that we're gonna
accept these governmentsubsidies. We're not gonna make
them because we lose money. Andif the government wants to say,

(27:18):
you can no longer buy a g well,we've mandated it, so you can't
sell GM or the government wouldcollapse if they could no longer
sell cars in this country.
They certainly wouldn't say,okay. Well, we'll just import
all our cars. You think Trumpwill allow the import of all
those cars and the thebankruptcy of every automaker?
No. Do you think Biden wouldhave really allowed that?

(27:40):
No. If they just said no. We'renot gonna do it. We're gonna
follow what the public wants,not what the politicians want.
They they would they would havelost all this money if they
hadn't gone down this path,thinking somehow the government
support would be enough to makethem profitable.
The the the technology you know,Lynnae is right. If people want
the technology, that's fine. Butnot only should we not have to

(28:01):
pay for it, we shouldn't pretendthat, that that it would exist
otherwise. I'll I'll tell youprivately. My mother well, not
privately.
I'm online. My mother's sort ofa scuff law. She has had a, a,
hybrid for, about a decade and ahalf now, and she liked it. And

(28:29):
the battery went out about twoyears ago, three years ago. And
she found out how much it wasgonna cost to replace the
battery, and now she runs itonly on gasoline.
She can't get it inspected, sothe inspection is a little out
of date, folks, because theywanted the batteries in it and
it running. But the point is soshe's running on a very

(28:52):
efficient a very inefficientgasoline engine in a hybrid.
These things are messes. Busmanufacturers are going under.
Truck manufacturers are goingunder.
If the market doesn't supportit, then it shouldn't be forced
onto the market. Anthony?

Yeah. I guess, really, it boils down to this.
EV or not EV? That is thequestion.

Jim Lakely (29:27):
Before we get to the rest of this podcast, I wanted
to let you know about twofantastic live podcasts
Heartland produces every week.We'd love for you to join us
every Thursday at 1PM eastern,noon central, live for our
flagship in the tank podcast.You can watch on the stopping
socialism TV channel on YouTubewhere you can participate in the
show in the chat with other fansand also ask questions that

(29:50):
we'll address on the air and putup on the screen. And every
Friday, also at 1PM eastern andnoon central time, you can go to
Heartland's main YouTubechannel. Just search for the
Heartland Institute on YouTubefor the new Climate Realism
Show.
Heartland's climate team ofAnthony Watts, Sterling Burnett,
and Linnea Lukin cover the crazyclimate news of the week, debunk
mainstream media myths about theso called climate crisis, dig

(30:13):
into energy policy, and muchmore. The show often features
guests that include some of theleading climate scientists and
energy policy experts anywherein the world. There is no show
like it, so become regular liveviewers of both of these
programs if you are interestedin smart, lively, fun, and
interactive conversations. Wehope to see you there every

(30:34):
Thursday and Friday afternoonsat 1PM eastern and noon central
at the stopping socialism TV andthe Heartland Institute channels
on YouTube. Oh, yeah.
We're also on Rumble. See youthere. Alright. Boo.

Boo. I know. So that was

perhaps that was perhaps Anthony's wittiest
comment with all the time he'sbeen on here.

Jim Lakely (31:00):
That was top half for sure. Okay. Alright. Let's
move on to our to our thirdcrazy climate news item of the
week. And it's really not crazy.
It's just something that we do,around here a lot, and that is,
climate fact checks. Did I getthe right thing up? Okay. And,

(31:22):
so we oop. Here we go.
Climate fact check of January.So so the Heartland Institute,
our friends over at, theCompetitive Enterprise
Institute, Steve Malloy over atJunk Science. We put together if
you go to climaterealism.com, weput together every month a

(31:43):
climate fact check. And, we justreleased the January 2025
edition of the Climate FactCheck, and its purpose is to,
well, we scan that's what thekind of the purpose of the
entire Climate Realism site. Wekeep an eye on the news.
We see climate lies, and we, andmisrepresentations, and we
correct them. And so in January,it says here, counter narrative

(32:06):
reality versus counter realitynarrative. It was a busy January
keeping track of presidentTrump's first steps towards
dismantling of the federalgovernment's climate leviathan.
It was also a very cold January,and that's what this edition of
climate fact climate fact checkwill cover. So per the
relatively unmanipulated NASAsatellite satellite data,

(32:29):
January 2025 is estimated tohave witnessed a substantial
drop of 34, point I'm sorry,0.34 degrees c from last January
with with respect to the made upmetric, as, Sterling just
mentioned, of average globaltemperature.
This is despite that atmosphericcarbon dioxide has increased
from about 422 parts per millionin January of last year to 426

(32:52):
parts per million in January2025. That that four part per
million increase in c o two isworth about 70,000,000,000 tons
of emissions. Therefore,78,000,000,000 more tons of c o
two in the atmosphere resulted.And in January, that was 0.34
degrees Celsius cooler than theprevious January. So that is an

(33:15):
idea of kind of what the climatefact check is here.
And, Anthony, on this, I knowSterling, you're the one who
posted this on our on ourwebsite. But you can see there
and let me see if I can, I canadd to the stage a, a chart that
looks a little a little easierto read? There we go. So, you
can see here from this chartthat January 2024, you know,

(33:38):
point zero eight degreesCelsius, above the anomaly, and
then boom. You can see thatJanuary 2025 is a big dip, from
there.
Anthony, you wanna take usthrough, some of this?

Yeah. It's basically a transient response
in the atmosphere to two events,like I said before. And El Nino,
big one in The Pacific, combinedwith the extra water vapor, the
most powerful greenhouse gasejected by the Hunga Tonga
Volcano up into the stratospherewhere billions and billions of
tons of extra water vapor wereinjected into the atmosphere.

(34:11):
Now we talked about this monthsago that this was gonna start
coming down and boom, here'shere it is.

Speaker 5 (34:18):
Mhmm.

Jim Lakely (34:18):
You

know? That basically what what we've got
here is we've got a better trackrecord talking about this and
all these peer reviewednumbskulls out there that are
saying, you know, it's, youknow, danger danger Will
Robinson and all this stuff.It's just basically the
atmosphere doing what theatmosphere is gonna do when it's
when it's pushed a little bit.So, you know, the Earth self

(34:41):
stabilized here. And this is agood point about not having
runaway greenhouse effect.
We get this big push from watervapor, you know, and El Nino
combined. And what happened?Well, we didn't go into runaway
greenhouse like they talkedabout years ago. The Earth
stabilized itself. The Earth isa self regulating mechanism for
temperature.

Jim Lakely (35:03):
Absolutely. Absolutely. Very good points.
You know, I was gonna pop upthe, you you had written about
it this week. This story heresaid no to CNN because I was
gonna ask, you know, I thought2024 was the hottest year on
record and all that stuff.
And so you say no. CNN and BBCtwenty twenty four wasn't the
hottest year on record when allavailable evidence is

(35:24):
considered. You know, that's yetanother fact check that we
provide here atclimaterealism.com and the
Climate Realism Show. Why whywas it not? What what what's the
extra data or the what's thefuller picture that does not
make 2024 the hottest year onrecord, Anthony?

Well, you know, it's all kind of things going
into this. You know, first ofall, the the the claim is coming
from Copernicus. Now this is aa, a modeled temperature system
coming out of Europe wherethey're using, you know, what
they call resampled data. And soit's not exactly an absolute

(36:02):
temperature measurement of theEarth. It's it's more of an
estimate than an actualmeasurement, and so there's
that.
And then I will point out thefact that, you know, we've had
these other two things happen,you know, the water vapor from
the Hunga Tonga and also for theEl Nino. So you combine that,
along with the fact that we'vegot so much bias in the surface

(36:23):
temperature measurement system,you know, it's just basically
not surprising at all that theywould make these claims. But
when you look at the UAH data,it's not as high, the the
satellite data. But, of course,they don't like to look at the
satellite data. Here's thecraziest thing.
NASA, Goddard Institute forSpace Studies won't even

(36:46):
recognize the satellite data. Infact, Gavin Schmidt, the guy who
runs it now after James Hansenretired, would not even appear
on stage with, doctor RoySpencer who runs the satellite
record because he wouldn't hedidn't wanna acknowledge its
validity. So NASA, who doessatellites, won't even

(37:07):
acknowledge the validity of asatellite temperature. How crazy
is that?

I'm I'm not I don't I don't think Gavin's
still there. Under Gavin, whatthey did was not just not
acknowledge it. They have awhole unit set up at, Alabama
Huntsville that managed, NASAsatellites, that calibrated
them, that that that set themup, that that, made sure they
were in good order. And underGavin Schmidt, they jettisoned

(37:35):
all that after decades ofinvestment and said we're gonna
use a private party satellites.Why?
Because the private partystarted to skew their satellite
data to adjust it upward.

Yeah. That's RSS.

That's the RSS feed. But in recent years, even
the RSS feed has come down. So,

Jim Lakely (37:54):
you know,

NASA's NASA's stuck. They are trying to
massage the data, basically witha with a meat cleaver. And and
the people who are the, keepersof the data, they're saying,

(38:15):
well, even we can't be stretchedthat far. Sorry. Even even we
can't go along with you.
And so I my suspicion is thatNASA's got about to go back when
the contract's up to UAH becauseRSS is not giving them what they
need.

Jim Lakely (38:29):
Right. Right. And, you know, there there was
there's so much climate andenergy and environment news to
cover this week that

Yeah.

Jim Lakely (38:36):
A leading contender was that Elon Musk's Doge team,
headed into the offices of Noahthis week and that employees at
Noah are are shaking with fear,of what may happen to them in
their careers and and to all ofthis stuff. So, we are keeping
an eye on that. That might be agood topic for next week. But,
it's a new day, and we're hopingand, watching that science and

(39:00):
not politics will start to, bethe pre the predominant thought
process in in some of these,very important federal agencies.
So

If you if you have any sense of of mercy or
humanity, you hope that Noah'smain buildings are not very tall
and that all of their windowsare locked and can't be opened
when Noah goes in there.

Jim Lakely (39:21):
Yeah. That's true. Alright. We'll leave that we'll
leave that there. I wanna get onto our main topic today, which
which, the more I looked intothis this, this this week, the
the angrier I got.
I'm not trying to I'm not tryingto induce global anger or even
anger just in our little circleof friends here, but goodness

(39:42):
gracious, I got a little upset.So as you may have heard,
actually, because it was coveredhere on this show, not, too long
ago, And that actually was onDecember 6 that we covered the
undercover Project Veritas,expose in which an EPA employee

(40:03):
under Biden, whoseresponsibility it was to shovel
money out of EPA to all theseNGOs and all these things that
were that were happening. Theywere happening for years in our
government. But the Americanpublic was completely ignorant
of it. We had no idea this washappening.
And so, you know, he talkedabout, you know, throwing what

(40:23):
he considered throwing gold bargold bars off the Titanic
before, you know, a real captaincame in and took the wheel. And,
well, we have some good news onthat front. You may have seen
this video. I've I've clipped alittle bit little bit of it, but
this is our new EPAadministrator, Lee Zeldin, and,
he's not gonna take it anymore.Well, let me roll this video for

(40:44):
everybody.

Speaker 5 (40:45):
An extremely disturbing video circulated two
months ago featuring a Biden EPApolitical appointee talking
about how they were tossing goldbars off the Titanic, rushing to
get billions of your tax dollarsout the door before inauguration
day. The gold bars were taxdollars, and tossing them off

(41:07):
the Titanic meant the Bidenadministration knew they were
wasting it. Fortunately, myawesome team at EPA has found
the gold bars. Shockingly,roughly 20,000,000,000 of your
tax dollars were parked at anoutside financial institution by
the Biden EPA. This scheme wasthe first of its kind in EPA

(41:29):
history, history, and it waspurposefully designed to
obligate all of the money in arush job with reduced oversight.
Even further, this pot of$20,000,000,000 was awarded to
just eight entities that werethen responsible for doling out
your money to NGOs and others attheir discretion with far less

(41:50):
transparency. Just under$7,000,000,000 was sent to one
entity called the Climate UnitedFund. I'm sure you and I now
have some of the same questions.How do these organizations
decide how to allocate funding?How much money have they given
out so far and to whom?

(42:10):
Are there any former Biden EPAstaffers who are now working at
these entities? The financialagent agreement with the bank
needs to be instantlyterminated, and the bank must
immediately return all of thegold bars that the Biden
administration tossed off theTitanic. EPA needs to reassume
responsibility for all of thesefunds. We will review every

(42:35):
penny that has gone out thedoor. I will be referring this
matter to the inspectorgeneral's office, and we'll work
with the justice department aswell.
The days of irresponsiblyshoveling boatloads of cash to
far left activist groups in thename of environmental justice
and climate equity are over areover.

Yeah.

Jim Lakely (42:58):
Yeah. We should be so lucky. And I apologize to the
viewers, and the listeners. The,audio was apparently kind of
low. I didn't mean it to be thatlow.
I thought I boosted it, butthank goodness I put captions so
that you could all read what wasgoing on there. But you may have
you may have heard there thatand I actually had to listen to
this twice, because I thoughtthis can't be right. This can't
be right. That, that they theygave 7,000,000 doll billion

(43:21):
billion with a b. I'm sorry.
This is like like I said, Icouldn't believe it.
$7,000,000,000 to one outfit,and that outfit is called the,
climate it's called ClimateUnited. And I actually went to
their website. I have it here onscreen. It reads, leveraging its
$6,970,000,000 award from theEnvironmental Protection

(43:44):
Agency's National Clean CleanInvestment Fund.
So that's the gold bars thatwere being shoveled out of, off
the deck of the Titanic becausethis grant was awarded in,
November after the election.Climate United is launching this
new innovative program toprovide up to 30,000,000 in
technical assistance andplanning support for community
led projects that increaseenergy independence, resiliency,

(44:06):
reduce greenhouse gas emissionsand pollution, and save money.
Predevelopment grants of up to$300,000 will be awarded over
the course of multipleapplication rounds. The first
round of Climate United Nextgrants will support clean energy
products in native communitiesand will be open to nonprofit
organizations, state and localentities, Indian tribes, and

(44:27):
institutes of higher education.And the deadline to apply for
the first round of ClimateUnited Next grants is 02/24/2025
with the announcements plannedfor late February.
So we missed out, guys. Wemissed out on this. Now let me
what's really remarkable aboutthis and something I you know, a
little bit of research I did,Climate United was founded in
2023, and they instantly getaccess to literally billions of

(44:53):
our taxpayer dollars. And Ilooked at their, twenty twenty
three nine ninety form. Theyhad, total revenues in their
first year of, 555 I'm sorry,$557,000.
And then by the end of thefollowing year, they're awarded
a grant of $6,700,000,000 withno record of good governance or

(45:14):
even competence in this field.That is insane, people. That is
insane. Now I've this is a longsetup, but you guys are gonna
get to go crazy because I'mgonna get to go crazy now. So I
have No.

It's it's it's Go ahead. Projection on the left.
You know, the pro they're alwayssaying about us, you know, like,
these these these folks over at,you know, some of these
different outfits that slam usall the time. Oh, know, the
Heartland Institute, they're theevil ones. They're getting
millions of dollars from bigoil.
Billions.

Jim Lakely (45:46):
Billions.

Yeah. You know? We're they're getting billions.
Right?

Jim Lakely (45:50):
Literally billions.

Imagine what we could do with a million dollars.
We don't even have that.

Jim Lakely (45:55):
Right. It's it's it's crazy. And so here I have
on the screen our our friend,Stephen McIntyre, and you
probably a lot of our listenersand viewers that I know
everybody on this panelrecognizes that name. He, along
with, Ross McKittrick exposedthe fraud. I that's what I said,
Michael Mann, the fraud of thehockey stick, with with without
a doubt.
He notes that the Climate UnitedFund, in in which Biden appears

(46:18):
to have parked 6,970,000,000.00of our dollars, is a coalition
of three five zero one c threeorganizations, Calvert Impact
Capital, Community PreservationCorporation, and Self Help
Credit Union. That's perfect.They are helping themselves, as
Steve Malloy joked on x, to ourmoney. He looked very quickly at
the financial statements, did,Steven McIntyre, at each of

(46:42):
these three participants.Calvert impact shows a 2023
balance sheet of $520,000,000portfolio investments and a
hundred and $54,000,000 in cash.
Now if they have that kind ofmoney, why aren't they spending
their money to do all of thesegood these good things for the
environment instead of taking$7,000,000,000 of our money? And

(47:02):
this is just one entity that gotfunds. Who knows how many there
are? And and and how many shellgroups are out there to make it
get making it hard, to track themoney. And I just wanna go
ahead.
You're I got more, but go ahead.I got more good stuff.

Criticism is totally unwarranted because
these people are saving theplanet, and that's all that
matters. You know,

Jim Lakely (47:25):
they're they're saving nothing, and they're
they're filling their pockets.

I want yeah. I wonder what the overhead is like
at these NGOs.

Well, now you you you know you now know what
the overhead is like. CharityNavigator would give these guys
a zero, a a a negative star. Howdo you know that?
6,700,000,000.0. They're gonnaspend 30 or what it was either
30 or 300,000,000 helping,people get clean green homes.

(47:54):
What happened the other$6,697,000,000 that you
received? That's like theoverhead there is, like, 99%.
It's it's it's we're keeping itfor ourselves, but we're gonna
give a little, you know, we'regonna give a little bit to the
to help the poor and thenatives, put solar panels on
their homes. But we gottasteward the rest of that, you

(48:16):
know, for for climate changeover time.

Wow.

Jim Lakely (48:20):
Yeah. That's

that's that's gall, man. That's gall to
receive $6,700,000,000

Jim Lakely (48:24):
and say you're gonna spend less than 1%. The the idea
that it is remotely appropriateto give $7,000,000,000 to one
NGO that incorporated two noteven two years ago is so
absolutely crazy. It's like youwould you would have to if there

(48:45):
was a smidge of an instinct forgood governance in The United
States, somebody would raisetheir hand and go, are we sure
about that? I mean Notransparency. Literally just
went into business, like, onThursday, and we're gonna give
them $7,000,000,000.
And, again, this money, theymake their little announcement
of what we're gonna do, applyfor your grants. Is there any
oversight about that? Is anybodyauditing this? Is anybody

(49:06):
saying, hey. You are nowdispersing $7,000,000,000 of our
tax money.
Is anybody watching andwondering where it's going, who
it's for, what is happening? No.There's no auditing of any of
this. So which is why all thiskind of nonsense has to stop.
One more example that kind of,you know, made me go crazy.
It's not at the scale of$7,000,000,000. It's only

(49:29):
$20,000,000. So everybody justcalm down. This is fine. Right?
So $20,000,000. Our friend SteveMalloy at junk science on x,
alerted me to this. There's anonprofit called Democracy
Green. Democracy Green was wasformed in twenty in twenty
eighteen, according to itswebsite, but it only actually

(49:52):
got its proper five zero one cthree nonprofit status, which
the Heartland Institute has hadsince 1984, so forty years. They
only got their five zero one cnonprofit status.
They only bothered gettingaround to it in 2023. It doesn't
have a nine ninety form on itswebsite, like you can find on
heartland.org. And it but itrecorded no it reported no

(50:12):
income at all at all in 2023.And then the next year, the very
next year, it gets a $20,000,000grant from e from Biden's EPA to
pursue, quote, unquote, climatejustice. That is insane.
That is wasteful. This thisoutfit, nobody knows what

(50:33):
they're doing, why why they'redoing it. You know, their there,
there there's things says like,you you can read it up on the
screen here. Let me see if I canbring it up full fuller screen
so it's easy to read. Yeah.
It says, as we stand on thebrink of transformative change
for our communities, this grantof $20,000,000, from US EPA

(50:53):
represents not just funding, buta profound commitment to
justice, resilience, andsustainability. And this, they
apparently got $20,000,000 bypitching to EPA a, quote,
unquote, clean water is safewater initiative. Well, no
kidding. Clean water is safewater. You you're supposed to

(51:15):
give someone $20,000,000 becausethey can write that sentence.
I mean, this is, guys, this isthe tip of the iceberg of the
amount of graft that theenvironmental left gets, from
us, the taxpayers. We we therewe give no consent to the use of
our tax money, our hard earnedmoney for this sort of stuff.
And then as as Anthony, as youpointed out earlier, the

(51:35):
converse is true oforganizations like the Heartland
Institute and CFACT and CEI and,you know, other, you know,
climate realism groups. We arenot swimming in in endless
millions and dollars, maybe evenbillions of dollars of money.
All of the money, all of themoney in any real sense of the

(51:56):
term, goes to the environmentalleft.
And they've been using it tosuppress our speech, to to
impose, terrible policies in TheUnited States and around the
world. And now, thank you, ElonMusk is exposing this for the
first time in detail to theworld. I'm my rant's over. Go
ahead.

Yeah. So no transparency, no accountability
because they didn't draw upcontracts. You know, normally,
when you have a contractor, yousay, oh, well, we'll give you
this money, but here are thethings you have to meet, and
we're gonna do do your audits.Biden didn't go through any of
that. They they just shoveled itout the door.
They didn't have time to. Thisisn't the first round they've

(52:35):
done it. They did it last yearas well, with with groups that
had just formed. One of them wasworking out of their, like,
their mother's basement or hisbedroom. He'd had $2,500 in
income the previous year.
Got hundreds of millions ofdollars. It's it's it's madness.
And as much as I expressedconcern last week, like my dog

(52:57):
is expressing now Your

Jim Lakely (52:59):
your dog's more upset than you are.

Yeah. Well, she sees somebody somewhere in the
horizon. The, about Doge and thetreasury, whatever else whatever
else you say about Elon Musk andDoge and what's going on there,
they are complaining. The demsare complaining about, what Doge
is doing, not about what Doge isfinding. And the largest, the

(53:28):
benefit the the biggest benefitthat will come from Doge is all
the transparency, all the truththat is coming out.
We have had inspectors generalwho have reported on this crap
before, and they were routinelyignored by congress. He has the
megaphone, and he's put it outthere, and it's gonna be hard to
ignore. So, you know, kudos toDoge for that, exposing this

(53:54):
crap. I hope they can claw backthat $20,000,000,000.

Jim Lakely (53:57):
It's not a done deal.

I hope they can claw well, you say done deal. If
it's in the pockets, go to courtand see if you can take it back.

Jim Lakely (54:04):
That's right.

You say done deal, I say the courts will have
a say in that.

Yeah. Every party that was sent out illegally, so
it should be a legal matter toget Well,

right now, you say sent out illegally, they
will say there's a congressionalthere was a inflation reduction
act that had this spending, andBiden spent it under the
inflation reduction act. I mean,look. I just don't think it's
gonna be as simple as we allhope. Whatever's money is in
that bank, maybe they can getthat back, but, they spent

(54:35):
$7,000,000,000 to somebody. It'sit's in their bank account.
And what they'd say ispossession is nine tenths of the
law. So let the lawsuits befiled. We'll see how much we get
back. I hope they can claw itall back. Anything that's not
spent.
We already know they've stoppedspending on the EV, charging
stations. That's a blessing. Wespent billions of dollars on EV

(54:58):
charging stations and got 58whole chargers at about 16
stations around the country.What a what a waste that has
been. Most expensive chargingstations, ex in existence.
So Doge is is doing the thecountry a service, whether it's

(55:20):
democracy in action, whetherit's being legal, you know, done
done properly. I can't speak tothat. What I can say is they're
showing they're opening people'seyes to just how badly their
government function andmisspends their hard earned
money.

Jim Lakely (55:36):
Yeah.

Well, I mean, what more could you could I add?
I I just what people shouldrealize about this is that this
isn't like a new thing that juststarted under Biden. This isn't
just a new thing even thatstarted under Obama. This has
been how our government hasworked for decades. There's
billions and trillions ofdollars at play, and it just

(55:58):
goes,

Jim Lakely (56:00):
I don't know,

it goes somewhere. It just evaporates
into the wind as far as we'reconcerned. I mean

Except I think to one extent, you're wrong. I
think this last batch of fundingthat Biden just at the the gold
bars they were shovelingTitanic, it wasn't done in a
normal way.

No. This was particularly egregious. But I'm
saying in terms of the overall,like, where do our tax tax
sellers go, especially when itcomes to, you know, the the
climate related funding. We'vebeen talking about on this show
for a long time, the fact thatit's very likely that a vast

(56:40):
majority of climate spending isactually just like, thinly
veiled money laundering forpeople's personal projects.

Jim Lakely (56:47):
Yeah. I mean, what when when the Biden
administration says we are goingto invest in climate justice,
people will know or whatever.This is what they're doing.
They're sending millions ofdollars to non to non
governmental organizations thatseem to be entirely funded by
the government, which does notactually make them then a non
governmental organization. But,you know, outfits that literally

(57:07):
propped up yesterday.

They did

Jim Lakely (57:09):
it's in it's in it's unbelievable. Look, we're in the
nonprofit world. It isunbelievable to to establish a
five zero one c three nonprofitone year, and then the next year
have 30,000,000, 20 million, youknow, then in one case,
$7,000,000,000 in your pocket.It's impossible. The the the
five zero one c threes thatactually operate under the

(57:31):
charity of the people, take ayou know, work very hard and and
cherish every dollar that isdonated to them.
These groups, they just get yourmoney from the taxpayer. And who
knows what this group, you know,climate democracy you put the
word democracy in your five zeroone c three and there's a
democrat in office, good foryou. You're probably gonna get
some government money. Butdemocracy green just pops up out

(57:54):
of nowhere and gets $20,000,000.I mean, I don't mean to pick on
them.
Alright. I do mean to pick onthem because they are a great
example of how this scam works.What what could they possibly
do? What expertise do they haveto properly spend 20,
$20,000,000 to make the watercleaner in in rural North

(58:14):
Carolina?

Let's be I've

never heard of water treatment plants over
there or something.

Let's be clear. Republicans are should be on the
record right now. We should holdthem accountable. This is
getting exposed. Any Republicanthat defends the spending that
doesn't say we're clawing thisback, we're stopping it.
It will never happen again atthis stage. They're on the other
side. They are your enemy.They're not your friend no

(58:39):
matter what they say when theyrun for election the next time.
Oh, I'm a conservative.
They're not conservative if theydon't end this craziness. Now,
you you you just can't have thatkind of, of of madness. I was
gonna say something about the20,000,000, but it was like it's

(58:59):
like just no accountability. Ican't imagine what they would,
spend this on, exceptconservatives used to rail used
to rail about the welfare,mother who drove the Cadillac
and had the the cell phone.Small potatoes, folks.
This lady is the is the biggestyou know, not just this lady,

(59:22):
but the other group, the the$6,700,000,000. You think
they're gonna be driving,subcompacts? The their offices
aren't expanding dramatically.They're getting all new upgraded
computer systems. They're youknow, these are the welfare
mothers of the modern age.
It's all green. And if and ifwe're not gonna if if

(59:44):
conservatives aren't willing toattack that, you know, when they
went after these little, youknow, these these these poor
people in the slums who had a aCadillac, a large screen TV, and
a cell phone, then theRepublicans are just
illegitimate as well.

Anthony Watts (01:00:01):
You know, listening to all this, I wanna
say this has been the most ranttastic episode ever.

Stering Burnett (01:00:09):
Well, I am the archbishop of Ranterbury, I
believe. Yeah.

I don't

know. Give you I'm gonna give you one of those
hats after your comment last

week. Hat.

Jim Lakely (01:00:19):
Alright. Let's go let's go on to q and a, Lynnea.
We're, we're already running alittle late, but we have a lot
of comments.

Linnea Lueken (01:00:24):
Sure thing. Yes. We sure do. I'm gonna put this
up here for a second. This isfrom David Voigt who says, do we
get to judge the rants fromtoday's show?

Yeah. Maybe we can put up some kind of meter or
something. You know? Rant ometer.

Yeah. Okay. And then this comment that just came
up from data twelve on, Rumble.I thought he was this question
says, how many artifacts arerecorded with University of
Wyoming located from the stateof Wyoming? How many millions?
One to 2,000,000? And, I wasn'treally sure what you were
talking about at first, and Iwas about to get excited because
I thought you were talkingabout, like, the University of
Wyoming's, fossil museum. And Iwas gonna say they're almost all

(01:01:01):
from Wyoming. But the millionsdoesn't make any sense at all.
And then you clarified.
You said how many of theartifacts show global climate
change? I'm not sure whatartifacts we're talking about.
Are like temperature artifacts?I I don't really know. You might
wanna clarify this question abit more data, and we'll get
back to you.

(01:01:22):
Let's go to questions from thebeginning of the show. As
always, we have at least onegrand solar minimum question. He
says Ted Clark says, pleaseaddress the upcoming grand solar
minimum. I think, Anthony, youcan take that one. But I think
basically the answer is gonna bewe don't we don't really know

(01:01:45):
when the grand solar minimum isgonna be.

So It it I mean, it's

a fact that it hasn't occurred, and so it's
it's a non thing. It it itdoesn't exist yet.

Yep. So we can't really it's it's very, very it's
a way more difficult to predictspace weather than it is to
predict earth weather, andthat's already pretty hard. So
alright. Brian says, do youthink the c the the CRs will be
remonetized anytime soon giventhe way that the government has
gone, I assume. I think that'sasking about us.

(01:02:15):
Are we gonna be remonetized,Jim?

Oh my gosh. The no. I don't I don't anticipate it.
You know, we're gonna keepapplying, but I you know, it
would be nice. It's not evenjust look.
We didn't make hardly any money,like, on Superchats. We do
appreciate everyone who did giveus a Superchat back in the day
when we were monetized. That'snot really the most valuable
part of being monetized. Beingmonetized puts you kind of,
like, on the upper levels, youknow, on the top shelf of shows

(01:02:40):
and channels. Because if you'redemonetized, the algorithm
thinks that you're not as goodor maybe shady.
And so, you know, that's why wewere demonetized. It wasn't
because we were making so muchmoney or anything like that. It
was to get us off of thepreferred part of the algorithm,
and so that's why we wanna getback to it. And we will keep
applying, but, you know, you youyou keep you keep trying and it

(01:03:00):
doesn't work, and you start tonot try to get your hopes up.

So You gotta you gotta remember you gotta
remember that, where we weredemonetized, which is YouTube,
isn't owned by Musk. Right.That's owned by one of the
people who's not cavingimmediately and as much to the
Trump administration or workingwith them as much. YouTube is
owned, I believe, by Bezos',Google.

Bezos does own Google. Bezos is Amazon, but
it's it's owned by Google.Right? Yeah. Yeah.
Yeah. Yeah. And we're on Rumble.You you could we're you know,
you can, you know, put a few afew coins in the in the tin can
for us on Rumble if you like.But, you know, YouTube is where
most of our viewers are, and sowe like to get that fully up.
We'll see.

Yep. Yeah. And Charles Rotter says, how's
Rumble doing? Rumble is Rumbleis okay, Charles, for the, you
know, 100 people that use it.It's it's, you know, it doesn't
have quite the base built up yetfor this kind of content.
Who knows? Maybe it will in thefuture. For now, YouTube and x
seem to be where it's at. Sowe're gonna stick around on all

(01:04:02):
of the accounts that we can, foras long as we can. Alright.
Here's a question from ourfriend Chris in New Zealand who
says, question regarding Paris.What sanctions, if any, will USA
suffer due to withdrawing fromParis? New Zealand Government is
fearful that we will suffersomehow if we withdraw.

Well, gosh. The UN will say bad things about us.
That's about it.

You gotta remember, Paris had no
penalties. Paris had no, therethere was no legal mechanism to
enforce it. It was the Parisagreement was go back to your
countries, develop your ownclimate goals in line with
keeping it to 1.5, but it wasall voluntary. And so you can't

(01:04:50):
be punished for not meeting avoluntary goal.

Yep. Absolutely. Thank you very much. Okay. I'm
gonna hit this question fromDavid Voigt again who says,
didn't we have worseningtornadoes, hurricanes,
earthquakes, and wildfires?
No. Any any any additionalinformation? So no, guys.
Despite the increase in mediacover, a lot of this is gonna be
a media coverage kind ofartifact that we're seeing when

(01:05:17):
it comes to how it feels likehurricanes and tornadoes and
earthquakes and wildfires aregetting worse. They're actually
not, you know, when you look atthe data.
So, no, climate change is notcausing an increase in these
events. And also geoengineeringis not causing an increase in
these events. They're notincreasing.

What geoengineering?

Well, what I'm saying, Anthony, is that that
there's there is a there issomething that's floating around
out there right now where peopleare saying there's an increase
in these extreme weather eventsbecause the government is doing
it or because some Oh, yeah.

I don't know.

I don't know. I

don't know.

I don't know.

I don't know.

I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I
don't know. I don't know.
I don't know. Is doing it.

Crazy cloud.

But but what I'm saying is if if that was the
case, you would see it in thedata, and it's not in the data.
So Right. No. It's it's just nothappening. Alright.
Let's go to Chris. Oh, wealready got one from Chris. Hang
on. Sorry, Chris. We're gonnaget someone else before we get
to you again.
Alright. Above us only, Skyeasks, how much of it of the heat

(01:06:13):
from El Nino and stuff lastyear, was absorbed by the
oceans? And, also, I think,solar and

Are you talking about carbon dioxide or money?

Well, who knows? I think this is

throwing the bars off the Titanic. Right? You
know? How much are absorbed bythe ocean?

I think I think this question above us only,
Skye can, clarify in thecomments if he's still
listening. But, I

think I would point out, folks. When you make
a comment, it may be obvious toyou, but it's not obvious to us.
So please elaborate just alittle bit.

Yeah. Because we can only get to these kind of
towards the end of the show. Itry to bring them up if I can
live, but it's a lot easier forus to do it during q and a. So
if you can add just a little bitof context to your question when
you put it in, that helps. But Ithink that this comment came up
while we were talking about thethe extreme the, climate fact

(01:07:13):
check section, with last yearbeing a good little spike on the
temperature chart.
So, Anthony, you got anythingfor this?

I'm sorry. I don't have the context to
answer. I I really don't. I'mnot trying to be facetious.

I don't know. Here's above us only sky is
clarifying the c o two. Ifthere's how much c o two was is
gonna be absorbed by the oceans?

Alright. The oceans are the big kahuna of c o
two sinks on the planet, andthey are outgassing right now
because the the planet isgetting warmer naturally. We've
had a natural variation thatoccurred since around 1850.
Planet has gradually gottenwarmer, and so there's been some
outgassing of c o two from ornot some, a lot of outgassing of

(01:08:01):
c o two from the ocean. And thereason for this is because the
warmer it gets, the less c o twosolubility there is in water.
And you can prove this toyourself, if you, want to take
this risk. Get yourself a sodapop bottle and put it in your
car under the sun, and then tryto open it, and it'll right? But

(01:08:24):
if you do the same thing and putit outside in the winter where
it gets down to, like, you know,below freezing and open it, it's
not gonna do anything. Andthat's the whole premise of CO
two solubility.

The other the other thing to think about,
though, is is that as theoutgassing has occurred, the
earth has greened, and, even theoceans are in some places
getting, you know, more, fecundwith algae and microalgae and,
you know, the systems of life inthe oceans that start start at

(01:08:58):
the smallest, levels, and thenthe food chain starts. And some
of that is captured back in theoceans, but the outgassing
should assuage some of theconcern about ocean
acidification turning the oceansinto an acid bath because if c o
two is being emitted, then, it'snot being absorbed in the oceans

(01:09:19):
and turning them, you know,alkaline.

Right. Okay. Yeah.

That's what

I was looking for. Thank you.

From Florida Bartfest, we have, can we look
forward to Gore and Kerry inhandcuffs after Doge
investigates climate funds?

Unless those guys have actually thrown some money
out illegally or done somethingunderhandedly illegally,
probably not because all theseguys are generally are just blow
arts.

I'm I'm not even sure if they were found to
have done that, that Trumpwould, prosecute. Remember, he
he's letting Eric Adams off thehook. He's, letting Blagojevich
off the hook. He was convictedof of doing this stuff and and
admits, you know, has hasultimately admitted he did some
of that stuff. So Trump is notdoing political prosecutions.

(01:10:15):
I don't think that he would doit for, Gore and Kerry as much
as I'd like to see it if if theydid something wrong. He let
Hillary off

the hook. So, you know, he's not

I mean, you know, he's he's not unlike the
people that have gone after him,he's not an overly vindictive
guy for people in power.

Yep. Yeah. And and to those, fans of his who
are a little bit vindictive,they're pretty frustrated with
it too.

Oh, yeah. Yeah. Well, look. He's got he's got,
he's got the former senatorfrom, from New Jersey going, I
hope Trump will now issue me apardon. Right?
You're talking about gold barsoff the Titanic. He had them in
his closet. Yeah. But, he's he'sangry with their pardon, and I
won't be surprised if he getsone.

Alright. Let's get a few more in here.

Okay. Let's, let me look for some having to do
with our okay. Here's a goodquestion. I'm gonna hit Chris
again here, because this is agood question actually, that
I've seen come up quite a bitrecently. Why is NASA interested
in global air temperatures atall?
Well, NASA runs a lot of ourwell, they run our satellites.
They run our space program. NASAhas a whole lot of satellites up

(01:11:23):
having to do with, earthmonitoring, different types of
earth monitoring, remote sensingsystems. Anthony probably has a
bit more detail to add to this,but they do collect this kind of
data all the time anyway. So Ithink the problem comes in where
they're trying to interpret orskew the data that they're

(01:11:43):
collecting in order to pushnarratives.
They're they're interested inglobal air temperatures because
they're basically testing oursatellites on the Earth so that
they can use that data to lookat other planets, other bodies
in space and be able to makecomparisons. But, yeah, as far

(01:12:03):
as climate stuff goes, that'sreally not their job.

No. It's not. And I will say this, that NASA got
an institute for space studieswould not exist today if they
didn't go down the path of, youknow, global temperatures for
climate. They were an Apolloprogram, appointment, creation.
And when the Apollo programended and, you know, all these
different missions that they'dplanned ended because back then,

(01:12:29):
they had this idea that, gosh,we're spending way too much
money on sending things intospace.
We need to focus on Earth alittle bit. You know? And so
James Hansen went before NASA inJune 1988 and said, we have a
crisis. We have a crisis. Theworld the world's getting
warmer, and it's carbon dioxide.
And here's my graph, and here'smy projections. And that was

(01:12:49):
basically the whole beginning ofit all. And then, you know, it
just well, just right afterthat.

Well, and if you've ever you know, if you're
a space nerd or whatever andyou're looking at a lot of
NASA's products that they putout for Earth monitoring related
stuff, it is really interesting.And, I mean, obviously, the
photographs that they've gotten,are spectacular. It's it's very,
very good technology, and it'svery, very good data. It's just
the way that they're using it iscrooked. Okay.

(01:13:15):
Real quick. Mark Cadesso asks,what's in the cup? I have Earl
Grey tea in this cup, and it'sone of my favorite cups. It
says. It's great.
If you're from the North, youunderstand. Okay. Now we have
let's go. Female KC Royals fan,who hasn't asked a question in a

(01:13:40):
while, so I'm happy to hear fromyou, says, doesn't a lot of
government overspending lead toinflation issues? I'm gonna
pitch that to you, Sterling.

Well, yeah, inflation is always a monetary
issue. And when the governmentputs more money into the economy
and there's no more production,prices rise. You know? When when
they print whether it's printingmoney, which they're always
which which they're always doingwhen they're spending. Remember,

(01:14:09):
we don't bring in tax dollarssufficient to meet our spending
any year.
In any year since I'm sure therewere some when I was young. You
know, after the Vietnam War,there might have been a brief
period where we, taxes, exceededspending, but, not for decades.

(01:14:31):
And, all that money being putinto the economy when it's not
going to productive uses, whenit's not creating products, when
it's not creating jobs, marketoriented jobs, not government
oriented jobs because they'retax drains, not tax, revenue
producers. Basically, it's it'sbad dollars, and that causes

(01:14:57):
inflation.

Yep.

More spending, you know, more dollars than
there is production increasesprices because people want more.
Look. If you give me if if yougive me free money, I'm gonna
wanna spend it, but that doesn'tmean that the production is out
there. So the prices rise. Thisis economics one zero one.

(01:15:20):
Process will rise to meetdemand. Well, we have time we
only have time for

one or two more questions, but what I'm gonna do
is I'm gonna take the ones wehave next, which are all related
and kind of combine them intoone. But I'm gonna read them off
in rapid fashion, and then we'rejust going to kind of pitch it
to the group to comment on thegeneral theme here. Okay. From
Albert, says, will DOGE lookinto Climate United funding? Bob

(01:15:45):
Johnson says, how many newSolyndra's are out there?
Albert asks again, why isn'tthis trending in the news
regarding the, you know, thegold bars issue? And then above
us only, Skye, how come the MSMmissed this?

Well, I would say because the media is complicit
in the funding. For example, theAssociated Press gets all these
subscriptions from thegovernment, you know, through
USAID and all that stuff. Sothey're complicit, and it's and
they have they have talked aboutthe grants that they get in the
Associated Press to write aboutthe climate crisis. No. They are

(01:16:23):
not gonna write about theclimate not happening.
They're gonna write about theclimate crisis because they're
paid to do that. And there's allthis this money that's being
thrown like this into thesesubscriptions. And this is an
old scam in the left where, youknow, they would do it with
books, for example. They wouldbuy, you know, a thousand copies
of somebody's book to give themfunding, you know, and then

(01:16:44):
they'd sit in a warehousesomewhere, like at the end of
the Raiders with the Lost Ark.So the whole thing is just as
one big money scam.
And, you know, I've beenthinking that inflation
reduction act, given what we'veseen from it so far, should be
renamed to the inflationinflation act. Exactly what

(01:17:04):
happened.

The inflation production act.

Yeah.

The the the stuff about this subscription
you know, there are some,publications that probably
wouldn't exist but for thegovernment subscriptions. I
suspect that if these are cutoff as Trump has said they will
be done and and has directed itto do, institutions like
Politico will shrink in sizeconsiderably. They will close

(01:17:31):
publications because they won'tbe kept afloat by government
dollars. And, as far as, youknow, what Doge will go after, I
hope they go after you know, Ihope that they point out all of
it and the Republicans inCongress then go after it. Cause
that's ultimately, who's goingto have to do a lot of this
stuff.

(01:17:51):
Maybe the justice department canplay a role. But, well, that's
enough for me.

Well, I I'll just put a cap on it. I mean, Abel
Windsor just put on there thatthe USAID funding to the
Associated Press is now$52,000,000 in climbing. Anthony
mentioned that the AssociatedPress is given donations
specifically to report on theclimate crisis. That is in
addition to all thesubscriptions that the thousands
of bureaucrats are having paidfor with your money, but there

(01:18:22):
are not they they arenongovernmental, nonprofits out
there that are just giving moneydirectly to the AP. Use this to
hire climate alarmist reportersand to write a climate alarmist
story every hour, on the hour,for weeks on end.
Where do you think now what Ithink we what we may find is
where are those those nonprofitsout there that are paying the

(01:18:44):
the, AP to write these storiesgetting their funding? I would
bet dollars to doughnuts that alot of that is USAID being
funneled through a second step.And so this this perpetual
funding machine that is being,hopefully, being brought to an
end, thanks to Doge I mean,Albert, you said, will Doge look
into Climate United funding?Well, they kind of already have.
They've they've exposed thatthey got $20,000,000, and that's

(01:19:08):
the point.
There is Joe's doesn't have anypower over their internal,
accounting. You are supposed tobe audited every year as a five
zero one c three to ensure thatyou still earn and deserve your
nonprofit status. The HeartlandInstitute is every year
independently audited to makesure that we are on the up and
up and not, you know, misusingthe funds that the people that

(01:19:31):
are generous enough to give tothe Heartland Institute give us.
And so are these places beingaudited? Well, they just went
into business, like, on, youknow, four weeks ago, so they
probably haven't been auditedyet.
So the good news is thatfinally, as as the saying goes,
sunlight is the bestdisinfectant. We finally, after
decades of this kind of scamminggoing on, have sunlight upon the

(01:19:55):
whole scheme, and it's going tobe very interesting to see how
it develops from here on out.Because the other side is now in
the position of defending,basically, theft and fraud and
money laundering and, you know,nest feathering with your own
tax dollars. Good luck to youout there. I'd rather be on this

(01:20:15):
side of the argument wonderingwhy our money is being wasted to
advance climate alarmism and abunch of other stuff.

To the extent that they're covering this at
all, the in the mainstreammedia, not not in in the
blogosphere, is they're coveringthat Doge is doing this. That
why is Doge over here? Why isDoge over there? Well, they're
not a government agent. They'renot covering the substance of
what Doge is discovering.
They're critiquing the the thestructure and the method of

(01:20:43):
doing it, and that's that'sbecause they're benefiting from
it.

Yep.

Alright. That's all that's all we got.

That's all we got, and that is our that is our exit
music for today. Gosh. What awhat a great show today. I wanna
thank the, what? We had 1,700 atleast people watching on all
sorts of streaming services thisFriday, February 14.
We wanna thank everyone whowatched us live and, of course,
all those who were gonna watchit on tape later on our places

(01:21:15):
where it is, on x, on YouTube,and on Rumble. I wanna thank our
three regular panelists, LinneaAnthony and Sterling Burnett. I
wanna thank our streamingpartners, Climate Realism,
Climate at a Glance, What's UpWith That? And the c o two
coalition. Always visitheartland.org.
Always visit What's Up WithThat. Always come back to this

(01:21:38):
year's show every Friday at 1PM,eastern time. Well, PM, central
time. Thank you all forwatching, and we will talk to
you next week.

All Episodes

EPA Returning ‘Gold Bars’ to Taxpayers - The Climate Realism Show #145

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Dateline NBC

24/7 News: The Latest

Therapy Gecko

.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;}EPA Returning ‘Gold Bars’ to Taxpayers - The Climate Realism Show #145