Has the World Given Up on Fighting Climate Change? — The Climate Realism Show #176 - Environment and Climate News Podcast

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

Linnea Lueken (00:11):
We are in the beginning of a mass extinction.

Jim Lakely (00:14):
The ability of c o two to do the heavy work of
creating a climate catastropheis almost nil at this point.

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

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

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 trying that? Germany. Seven
straight days of no wind forGermany. Their factories are
shutting down.

They really do act like weather didn't happen
prior to, like, 1910. Today isFriday.

Jim Lakely (00:55):
That's right, Greta. It is Friday, and this is the
best day of the week, not justbecause the weekend is almost
here, but it's also the day thatthe Heartland Institute
broadcasts the climate realismshow. My name is Jim Lakeley. I
am vice president of theHeartland Institute. We are an
organization that has beenaround for forty one years, and
we are known as the leadingglobal think tank pushing back
on climate alarmism.

(01:16):
Heartland and this show bringyou the data, the science, the
facts, and the truth To counterthe climax alarmist narrative
you've been fed every day ofyour life, there is nothing else
quite like the climate realismshow streaming anywhere. So I
hope you will bring friends toview this livestream every
Friday at 1PM eastern time. Andalso like, share, and subscribe.
Be And sure to leave yourcomments underneath this video.

(01:37):
All of these very simple actionsconvince YouTube's very
mysterious algorithm to smileupon this program, and that gets
the show in front of even morepeople.
And as a reminder, big tech andthe legacy media do not really
approve of the way we coverclimate and energy policy on
this program, so Heartland'sYouTube channel has
unfortunately been demonetizedon YouTube. So if you wanna

(01:58):
support this program, and Ireally hope you do, please visit
heartland.org/tcrs. That'sheartland.org/tcrs, and you can
join other friends of thisprogram who give tax deductible
donations to help bring thisshow to the world every single
week. We also wanna thank ourstreaming partners,
junkscience.com, CFACT. What'sUp With That, The c o two

(02:20):
Coalition, and Heartland UKEurope.
We have a very big show today,so let's get started. We have
with us, as usual, AnthonyWatts, senior fellow at The
Heartland Institute andpublisher of the world's most
viewed website on climatechange. What's up with that? We
have Sterling Burnett, thearchbishop of Rancherbury, also
known professionally as thedirector of the Arthur b

(02:41):
Robinson Center on climate andenvironmental policy at the
Heartland Institute, and LaneaLucan, research fellow for
energy and environment policy atHeartland. And, of course, as
always, we have our producer,Andy Singer, behind the curtain,
making sure this show looks andflows great.
And we are very welcome towelcome we're very happy to
welcome back to the programJames Taylor. He's my boss. He
is the president of theHeartland Institute. James,

(03:02):
welcome back to the show. It'sgonna be a a good one, I think.

James Taylor (03:05):
Yeah. Great to be here, Jim. Hello, everybody.

Jim Lakely (03:10):
Excellent. Yes. People in the comments, Sterling
we had to do some audio testingwith Sterling today. So he was
in the studio very early, notused not used to having him in
the in the studio half an hourearly. But he was remarking
about how there were so manypeople already in the chat
waiting, for the show to beginand already starting to chat.
So, one of those people thatwere chatting in there is our
friend, engineer. His his nameis Bob. It's okay. I'll I'll say

(03:34):
your name, Bob. But he hadmentioned that in Chicago, we're
going to set a new, probably seta new record.
It's gonna be almost 90 degrees,I think, tomorrow on this
weekend. So reminder that that'scalled weather, not climate.

What? What?

Yep. That is correct. I like the fact that
they're taking bets on youpulling a gym, Jim.

Jim Lakely (03:55):
Yeah. Yeah. Pulling a gym is leaving my mute button
on by mistake. Alright. There itis.
2.5 times. That's the overunder. Alright. We'll see how it
goes. Alright.
But we will start the show offas we always do with our
favorite segment. It's calledthe crazy climate news of the
week. Hit it, Andy. Thank youvery much, Bill Nye. You are

(04:29):
unpaid contributor to thisprogram, and we enjoy it every
week.
Alright. Our first story today,it, I've titled it in the
rundown there on the side of thescreen, shutting down the green
new deal. And this has to dowith the government shutdown
that's going on right now andmay it last a lot longer. This
is from CNBC. Trumpadministration cancels nearly

(04:49):
$8,000,000,000 in climatefunding to blue states.
Let me read a little bit from ithere, this of this very happy
news. The Trump administrationhas canceled nearly
$8,000,000,000 in funding forclimate related projects in
primarily Democratic controlledstates, a top administration
official said on Wednesday.Quote, nearly $8,000,000,000 in
green news scam funding to fuelthe left's climate agenda is

(05:12):
being canceled, wrote, Russellbought Vote, who I believe heads
OMB. He wrote that on a on thesocial media side x, the same
day that the federal governmentshut down after congress did not
pass the stopgap funding bill.Vogt said the projects affected
by the decision are inCalifornia, Colorado,
Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii,Illinois, Maryland,

(05:33):
Massachusetts, Minnesota, NewHampshire, New Jersey, New
Mexico, New York, Oregon,Vermont, and Washington state.
Hey. That's kinda weird. Thoseare all blue states. Linea, we
talked about this a little bityesterday on the In the Tank
podcast, which is every Thursdayat 1PM eastern time where we
stream this on X Rumble andYouTube. To me, I think this is

(05:55):
a pretty good start, but there'sprobably a lot more to go.

Oh, yeah. Well and and the crazy thing is some
of this money was going to stufflike trying to prop up, you
know, failing wind and solarcompanies and doing all sorts of
little studies and and DEIprograms, all sorts of stuff. So
nobody wanted any of this. I Isaw a report that said that a
huge portion of this money wasgoing towards, like, carbon

(06:20):
capture and clean hydrogen andstuff. So, you know, a lot of
people are going to jump on thisand say, look.
The, you know, the president isgoing after you know, he's in
the pocket of big oil and stuff,and he's going after all these
other companies. But in reality,you know, big oil is making some
money off of carbon capture andall of that and, you know,

(06:41):
storage. So I'm sure thatthey're not too happy with a lot
of these cuts either.

I You know? Sorry.

I was just thinking that, carbon capture, a
good use for it as much as it'sit's pretty pointless. A good
use for it would be torecarbonate my beer when I don't
drink it fast enough, but then Irealized the better solution is
just to drink it fast

enough. That

Jim Lakely (07:06):
was mixed for me. When it's

not subsidized and used to for productive means
like oil production, fromdeclining wells, it makes sense,
but it didn't need the subsidiesfor that. They were just the oil
companies just decided, oh, ifyou're gonna subsidize it, we
should get our share too. I Iwill say I was a little
surprised at this story becauseI'm surprised there's still

(07:29):
$8,000,000,000 in green newsscam funding available to be
cut. They've you know, the Trumpadministration in in its nine
months in office has has beencutting left and right. Pretty
soon, you think they'd have hitbone, and there would be except
where congress explicitly forcesthem to spend the money, the

(07:50):
discretionary stuff that theycan cut should be done.
Then it's just a matter of goingback and ending old, bad
programs.

Jim Lakely (08:02):
Yep. Uh-oh. Yeah. You lost James Taylor
apparently, but go ahead.

Yeah. I mean, it's it's good to see that
they're that they're continuingalong with this. It's it's
definitely I mean, the the mainpoint of our or the main topic
of our show today is is theclimate war over. And it
certainly has to feel like thebell's tolling every single time
one of these major cuts is made.You know, it's it's gotta be

(08:29):
panic mode right now all acrossthe green scam universe.
So we'll see.

It it will be interesting to see at the end of
the year, what the budget comesin like, you know, how much
money we actually spent, how howmuch the deficit grew or didn't
grow with all the cuts that havebeen made and jobs that have
been cut. Not all of them thatgot cut initially are still cut,
but, many of them are, and moreare being cut as the government

(08:58):
shuts down. It'll also beinteresting to see how many
regulations are taken off thebooks as opposed to new
regulations being, being put on.I think they're right now,
they're on a pace to take 10regulations off for everyone,
every new one they're doing. Sothat is, that should be some
relief for Americans, theAmerican economy.

Jim Lakely (09:20):
Yeah. I mean, the shutdown is a is a is a once
really, maybe even once in alifetime opportunity to really,
basically dismantle these thethis the green scam. The this is
all a grift, you know, and tojust take the money away from
projects and, an agenda thatcannot survive on its own in the
marketplace. So, this is a goodstart. I hope they do a lot

(09:43):
better and keep going.

I think the Democrats really stepped into it
with this shutdown.

Yeah. Yeah. They Alright.

Jim Lakely (09:50):
Let's move on to our second one. This is, it's gonna
be a doozy. I've titled thisone, the pope climate justice
and holy ice. Sterling sharedthis one with us from the
Hindustan Times with theheadline, pope Leo mocked for
blessing block of ice at climatejustice conference. Will it
become holy water?

(10:12):
I don't know. But anyway, soPope Leo, the sick the the
fourteenth, blessed a block ofice at the Raising Hope for
Climate Justice Conference thatwas held near Rome. Now instead
of reading more from this story,and there's there's been a lot
of chatter about this on X, Ithought it was good to just put
this entire thing in context byplaying the whole thing. So no.

(10:34):
Not the whole thing, but aboutthree minutes of this ceremony
that Pope Leo participated in.
So go ahead and hit play, Andy.

Speaker 6 (10:53):
Lord of life, bless this water. May it awaken our
hearts, cleanse ourindifference, soothe our grief,
and renew our hope throughChrist our Lord. Amen. Lord,

(11:18):
bless this assembly, thisconference. May the dialogue we
engage in contain respect forall gathered here and the entire
earth community.
May we work towards aflourishing of all creation held
in being by our creator throughChrist our Lord.

Speaker 7 (11:43):
Creation awaits our conversion. We commit to raising
hope and to continuing to unfolda river of hope. We move from
tears to hope, from grief toaction. Let us speak our
pledges. Each help us to unfoldthis river of hope.

(12:09):
After each pledge, we invite youto sing the refrain,

Speaker 8 (12:35):
We will raise hope by demanding that leaders act with
courage, not delay. Will youjoin with us?

We

Speaker 7 (12:51):
will raise hope by standing with communities most
at risk. Will you join us?

Speaker 9 (12:57):
One

Speaker 8 (13:03):
minute. We will raise hope by opening spaces for
dialogue, creative energy, andsolutions that we haven't yet
dreamed of. Will you join us?

Jim Lakely (13:23):
Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Speaker 6 (13:24):
May these voices of hope rise as one. May they echo
beyond this gathering and intoevery corner of the earth. Amen.

Jim Lakely (13:37):
Amen. Amen. Stop. Stop.

Turn it off.

Jim Lakely (13:42):
Yeah. Well, let me start with you, Sterling.

Fortenegger was being true to himself. You know,
this is Greenland ice whichrefreezes every summer. He could
just simply say, it will bebock.

You know? Sure. If it's green on the ice,
then, a, they've removed it fromGreenland, and I don't think
it's gonna make it back. So thatwon't be refreezy. Yeah.
You know, I had I had hoped thisthe new pope may not be as
active in the climate space asthe old pope. He's unlikely to

(14:18):
issue an encyclical like the oldpope did, But it it it is still
a little sad that he has dippedhis toes in this water. In this
case, maybe getting frostbite, ablessing, this block of ice. In

(14:39):
the end, it it just seems to mea bit like, we're spending the
creation, not the creator. Thebible warned about that.
They talk about, renewing, youknow, energy that we hadn't
thought of. We've got goodenergy. And, the restrictions

(15:00):
that, the Catholic pope and thethe the past pope had wanted on
fossil fuels was harming hisvery flock. They want to, worry
about those most affected byclimate or weather. They're the
ones that will benefit the mostfrom increased use of fossil

(15:21):
fuels.
We've already reached a levelof, wealth. We don't wanna go
backwards, but they're still farbehind. They need what we have.
The pope is not the only oneweighing in on climate change
this week. It turns out the headof the church of England has
joined some Tories and, the thelabor party over in Britain in

(15:49):
condemning a call from one ofthe, Tory leaders to withdraw
from the climate act, England'sclimate act.
It it's always troubling to mewhen, religious leaders that are
supposed to be worried aboutpeople's souls, bringing people
to Christ for salvation, andteaching them to love one

(16:12):
another as ourselves insteadweigh in on these geopolitical
matters of which they reallyhave little limited
understanding. And, when theydo, they come in on the
socialist side. Socialism is nota friend of religion, but they
support the, proposals, thepolicies that socialists propose

(16:38):
to control the economy, tocontrol people's lives, and that
is troubling to me. Why shouldthey be making making a common
cause with communist China orCastro? They haven't been good
to Christians.

You know, it's

it's really interesting. Thanks, Anthony.
It's really interesting lookingat the visuals here. They have
on this pedestal, this litpedestal, like, if it's a holy
relic, this block of ice thatwas captured from a fjord in
Greenland and then brought forthis event, which I imagine if

(17:17):
they're going to bring it therewithout it melting, they're
going to have to bring it insome refrigerated frozen device
container that, of course, ispowered by fossil fuels emitting
carbon dioxide into theatmosphere for this visual. But
here's the thing.
This ice that the pope is isdarn near worshiping, the ice

(17:38):
that formed in Greenland, theice that advanced seven hundred
years ago at the end of themedieval warm period destroyed
villages, drove entiresettlements into extinction,
killed off not just people, butthe the, the cattle, the sheep,

(17:59):
I guess not cattle, the sheep,that that the that the
settlements had. It broughtdeath and desolation, not life.
And I would think that speaking,on behalf of the church, the
pope would be celebrating life.And it also calls to mind that
whenever a pope, this pope,Francis before him, delves into

(18:24):
matters that don't have anythingto do with religion, what he is
doing is dividing Christians,potential Christians. The
central focus of the church, Ihave always taught, was to lead
people to salvation throughChrist.
How is it that by gettinginvolved in this secular topic

(18:47):
for which, by the way, he's onthe side of intellectual
bananas, How is that going toadvance the mission? It's sad to
see. And, boy, I mean, he's justopening himself up to a mocking
of himself in the church, andthat's very unfortunate.

Yeah. It's it's bizarre. You know, here's the
only thing I can think of. Youknow, the socialist might not
like this, but here's the thing.Is pope Leo now an ICE agent of
god?

Jim Lakely (19:22):
Alright. Yeah. I know Lynette, I know I I'd want
you to kinda weigh in here ifyou if you feel like it. But,
you know, one of the things as Iput this clip together was that,
you know, I I know thatPublioz's heart is in the right
place and his spirit is in theright place, at least I believe
that, but there just seems to besomething about him
participating in this ceremonywith those particularly

(19:44):
assembled people that justdidn't really sit right with me
because he's being used for PRpropaganda. This is a huge coup
for PR for them by people attheir at their COP conferences
and other places basically dopagan rituals, you know, for for
Gaia at their other at theirother things.

(20:05):
And then here here is, you know,Pope Leo lending the enormous
weight of the Catholic churchbehind this nonsense among
people who, frankly, are not arenot worthy of that kind of good
PR.

Well, I'm I I certainly agree that it

Speaker 10 (20:23):
was

imprudent. I I I would give a little bit of
pushback on the idea that thisisn't the realm of the church. I
think that he's wrong on thescience, and he's wrong on the
politics to fix it even if hewasn't wrong on the science. But
I do think it's appropriate forthe leader of the church to, you

(20:48):
know, talk about potentialthreats to the planet. If
climate change was actuallythreatening the existence of the
planet or whatever, I don'tthink it would be inappropriate
to encourage some kind of actionor at least prayer in in regards
to that.
Of course, he's wrong on thescience here. But I also I was

(21:10):
everyone was making fun of mefor kind of laughing a little
bit while I was watching it. Andit just kind of it just kinda
reminds me of, like, every ifyou've ever been to, like, a a
not so good mass or, you know,like a like a mass where they
bring out the tambourines orsomething and and you're just
like, oh, boy. Here we go. Youknow?

(21:31):
Some, like, you get a couple of,like, hippie people in charge of
the music department, and theythey make the whole thing, like,
very uncomfortable to sitthrough. It just was reminding
me of that. And I'm justchuckling watching it imagining
some of my, like, Latin massattending friends watching it
and imagining the the, like,pain that it would cause in a

(21:57):
funny way, not in a in a badway. But, like, it's just it's
the the typical, like, sixties,seventies hippie presentation
thing. But, no, I mean, he's notworshiping the ice.
Right. Giving something likethat a blessing is completely
normal in the Catholic church.We've had I mean, previous popes

(22:17):
have blessed, the trees and themountains or whatever when they
go on, you know, trips todifferent countries and whatnot.
That's pretty standard for theCatholic church. But, yeah, I
think the whole thing is veryimprudent because of the
divisive nature of this subject.

(22:39):
But on the other hand, you know,there's nothing there's nothing
in the bible that promises, youknow, happy unity with
everything all the time. So it'sit's very

a particular climate or there promises a
particular climate. You know? Inin the end, when they were
singing, I couldn't help butflashing back to Monty Python's
and thinking every iceberg issacred.

Jim Lakely (23:05):
Sacred. Yeah. I mean, look. You know, look. I'm
I'm you know, Priest bless theNotre Dame football team before
they take the field.
I mean, this is not exactly, youknow, revolutionary stuff here.
But I just wanna make make onemore quick note because we
didn't have time to play theclip of it. But you did see
Arnold Schwarzenegger therehelping to flap whatever that
was that they were holding itdown the, down the aisle. He

(23:26):
said he got on the stage too. Sohe's sharing the stage with pope
with pope Leo, and he said hewas very glad to be on the
stage.
He called pope an action hero,and he's and he and he was happy
that the pope could now use thepower of the church. And he
mentioned specifically the1,400,000,000 Catholics, the
400,000 priests, the 600,000nuns, the 200,000 churches, and

(23:48):
use that for the climate causeas envisioned, promoted, enacted
by, you know, the global elitesand the climate alarmists at the
United Nations. That's you know,I I had my thoughts on this
before I heard that aboutSchwarzenegger, but that, to me,
kinda makes it not so great.

Yeah. Well, Schwarzenegger is pretty
terrible. So I'm not I I havenothing nice to say about him,
honestly. But, yeah, good luckwith that, I would say to him.
You know, the pope can supportthis stuff, but it doesn't bind
the faithful to supporting anyparticular politics.

Jim Lakely (24:24):
For sure. Alright. Let's move on to Anthony Watts'
favorite story of the week. AndI've titled this, Pen is down
one pompous man. And this comesfrom Anthony's What's Up With
That Website headline, doctorMichael Mann finally gets his
comeuppance.
Now, Anthony, you wrote this onthe website. I wanna read some
of it for our audience because Iknow that some just listen to

(24:46):
the show and don't watch it onYouTube for video. And then you
can run some victory laps afterthat. So just get limbered up.
Here we go.
Anthony starts. Humpty Dumptysat on a wall. Humpty Dumpty had
a great fall, and all the king'shorses and all the king's men
couldn't put Humpty togetheragain. For years, doctor Michael
Mann has strutted across theclimate stage with an air of

(25:06):
untouchable figure with an airof an untouchable figure, a self
proclaimed champion of sciencewho never missed an opportunity
to brand his critics as deniers,drag them into court, or bask in
the limelight of a sympatheticpress. But now, at long last,
reality has tapped him on theshoulder.
After less than a year, theUniversity of Pennsylvania's

(25:26):
first vice provost for climatescience policy and action,
Michael Mann has been forced toresign. The reason, his own
mouth. According to the DailyPennsylvanian, that's the
student newspaper there at Penn,Mann stepped down after his
partisan behavior clashed withPenn's new policy of, quote,
institutional neutrality. Hisresignation came on the heels of

(25:48):
controversy surrounding hissocial media posts, including a
since deleted comment about thedeath of conservative activist
Charlie Kirk. That was enough todraw the attention of senator
Dave McCormick, a Republican ofPennsylvania, who publicly
pressed the university to act.
Recently, Mann reposted commentscalling Charlie Kirk the, quote,
head of Trump's Hitler youth.Here's a quote from the story

(26:11):
that Anthony has. In a September29 announcement made on his
personal website, Mann statedthat his scientific advocacy
work conflicts with Penn's,quote, established institutional
neutrality policy. Particularlyat this moment in time, I don't
feel I can forsake the publicscholarship and advocacy that I
am doing and have thus decidedto step down from the VPC role,

(26:34):
unquote. In other words, writesAnthony, Mann wanted the perks
of authority without therestraints of responsibility.
When the university reminded himthat administrators are supposed
to represent everyone, not justhis chosen cause, Mann packed up
and left. And he just left theprovost position because he's
apparently staying on asprofessor at Penn. So, anyway,
Anthony, as you said, Mann, thisis a person who could be fairly

(26:57):
described as cruel, and now hehas had his just comeuppance. So
enjoy.

Yeah. You know, it's it's really interesting. I
you know, I thinkcongratulations are really in
order to doctor Mann because noteveryone can boast of being the
first vice provost of climatescience at Penn and then also
the first provost of climatescience to get taken out in less
than a year. Now that takes somereal talent to pull that off.

(27:24):
You know?
But, you know, what'sinteresting about doctor Mann is
that unlike climate models,based on his behavior, his
outcomes are far morepredictable than climate models
are. Right.

Jim Lakely (27:42):
Yeah. Yeah. I mean, you don't like to see it's it's
sad. I mean, we we talk aboutMichael Mann from time to time
when he hits the news for doingterrible things, but we try to
be especially just after we justtalk about the pope and faith
and all of that and being a goodperson. I try not to enjoy the,
you know, the misery or themisfortune of anybody, but

(28:04):
Michael Mann really is ahorrible person.
He's a terrible human being.Yep. He has no charity in his
heart. He has no understandingin his heart, and he has gone
out of his way to try to attackand destroy anybody who just
committed the sin of disagreeingwith him. And he is relentless
in that in that pursuit and hasbeen for for decades, James

(28:25):
Taylor.

Yeah. Well, I I don't think there's any misery
or misfortune. I like you, Jim,it does pain me even when people
who I disagree with, who I thinkare pursuing evil objectives.
Nevertheless, when personal harmcomes to them, I mean, I don't I
don't revel in that. On theother hand, I don't think this
is really misery or misfortune.
I my understanding is that Pennsays you can't do this anymore.

(28:48):
And Michael Mann says, well, I'mstill going to do it. Well, if
you do, you're gonna have tostep down or lose your position.
Well, I choose to do that. Itshows what a radical this guy
is.
And if you follow what he postson blue sky and whatever else, I
mean, it's just it's just fullof hatred. It's full of venomous
I don't know if partisanship'sthe right word because it's not

(29:10):
really political party. It'sjust from from the far left
ideology, and it is it's funnybecause he clearly wishes harm
on people who he disagrees with.But I think most people like
you, like me, Jim, we don't wishharm on him, but we are glad
that he is not able to have allthese perks and benefits at a

(29:32):
university, which is supposedto, be encouraging open thought
disagreement. But if youdisagree with Michael Mann, be
prepared to get slapped with alawsuit.
My goodness.

I, you know, I've met him. I've I've dined
with him. I spent two or threedays with him at a conference
hosted by the Social Philosophyand Policy Center. We actually
published in the same journal.And, we had he he then converse

(30:02):
with me a couple of times, and,we had a couple of interesting
conversations.
But, you know, look. He's aliar. He lied about winning the
Nobel Prize for two decades. Hefinally got called out for it
directly in court, and he's hadto say, well, yeah. No.
I didn't win. Yeah. Yeah. Theysaid that I didn't win it. You

(30:23):
know, he he what I what I findinteresting about this whole
affair is what they said abouthis resignation is they said he
wasn't forced out, but they'resaving face, and they're saving
face for him there.
But they said because he wantedto pursue what was it? His his

(30:44):
role as a public intellectual orsomething like that. They were
basically saying that what hewas saying is is is,
academically justified, that hehe's this public person who does
intellectual things. And, yeah,they may clash with our
neutrality, but it's stilllegitimate stuff. And I just

(31:05):
thought that that was like, comeon.
This isn't kind of intellectual.Saying that about Kirk is not
intellectual. Thing saying thethings he says about other
people is not, an active debateor discussion like like
colleagues, like academicsshould be doing. It's straight
activism. He he long ago leftacademia and became, an activist

(31:29):
for the climate cause, and theyshouldn't pretend otherwise.
He shouldn't have had a job.They shouldn't have poached him
from Penn State at UPenn. Itthey I think they were looking
for research dollars, and heprobably brought in and
delivered research dollars.Because the government likes to
fund people who argue for worseclimate and bigger government

(31:54):
role in your lives.

Yeah. It's amazing watching him. You know,
I've been called every name inthe book by doctor Michael Mann.
I've been called a denier. I'vebeen called a carnival barker
for climate science.
I've been called, idiotic. Imean, the guy has no scruples
whatsoever about dissing people,and that's what got him in
trouble, his own mouth. Youknow? Plus that his science

(32:20):
ain't that good either. Right?
Right.

Totally agree. In fact, it's so bad that he should
be in the state pen.

Oh, goodness. Here we go.

Jim Lakely (32:32):
That's that's what that's what got Mark Stein sued,
James. That's what got MarkStein sued. Thank you very much.
That's fantastic. Thank

you. Should be in a steak pen. I'll say it again.

You should get a caramel Barker hat. Since I've
got the, MITRE, you should get acaramel Barker hat and a striped
shirt and a megaphone.

Yeah. Speaking of megaphones, where there was a
great video that came out rightafter Climate Gate in 02/2009,
and I thought it would beappropriate if we play it again
since many of our viewers maynever have seen this. Hit it,
Andy.

Speaker 9 (33:19):
Day by day. Ignoring the snow and the cold in a
downward line.

Speaker 11 (33:29):
Hide the decline.

Speaker 9 (33:34):
Michael Mann thinks he's so smart. Totally inventing
the hockey stick chart. Ignoringthe snow and the cold in a
downward night.

Speaker 11 (33:50):
Hide to decline. Hide to decline. The climate I

(34:16):
had to decline. I had todecline.

Speaker 9 (34:25):
Tearing dad, it was very thin. You should have
chopped more trees instead ofhugging them. Ignoring the snow
and the cold in a downward line.

Speaker 11 (34:42):
I had to

Speaker 9 (34:57):
fate. I hope you do a

Speaker 11 (35:00):
lot of time

Speaker 9 (35:02):
because what you did was such a crime.

Speaker 11 (35:07):
I had to decline. I had to decline.

Jim Lakely (35:41):
Nice.

I never decided that.

Jim Lakely (35:44):
Yep. That was from 02/2009. Imagine that that was
not an easy video to make backin 02/2009. You could do that
you could do that in anafternoon today. That took some
time.
That was Minnesotans for GlobalWarming, which is a
fantastically named group aswell. So good call, Anthony.
Good call.

Yeah. It's probably the best parody video
on climate ever made.

Jim Lakely (36:04):
Yep. Yep. That's fantastic. Alright. We're gonna
get to our main topic here in asecond, but, you know, once in a
while, we have a segment on thisshow.
We we call it the meme of theweek or the cartoon of the week.
Alright. Well, this isn't ameme, but I I saw this morning
that Heartland and our, settingup of Heartland UK Europe as
well as this Here Very Show werementioned in a story published

(36:26):
in the Observer over there inThe UK. Let me read a bit from
it here, and and I know Andy hasit on the screen. Reform hosted
the Reform Party UK, that is,hosted the Chicago based climate
science denial group, theHeartland Institute, at its
party's annual conference inBirmingham last month.
Lois Perry, director ofHeartland UK Europe, told the
conference that the governmentwanted to get the public to use

(36:48):
electric cars, which could becontrolled and disabled
remotely. Not a conspiracy, LoisPerry said. These cars can be
shut down. The Hartle Institutedescribes the climate crisis as
a sham. Farage was a guest ofhonor at the launch of the
institute's UK and European armlast December, and Perry said on
a podcast last month, that'sthis year podcast, that Faraj is

(37:09):
proud to work with the instituteand considers it fab.
Congratulations, James Taylor.This is pretty good coverage for
us, I think.

Yeah. Can we hire them as our PR firm? I mean,
this is fantastic. It's alltrue. But, no.
Thank you for calling attentionto that mainstream media. Love
to see it. It's amazing what weare seeing in The UK, throughout
Europe, and increasingly aroundthe world, and that is people
are waking up to the fact thatthe so called climate crisis is

(37:39):
a sham, is a scam, is a hoax.Call it whatever you want. And
it's wonderful to see that it'sdriving the establishment media
crazy that this is happening andthat the Hartman Institute is
driving that change.
I love it.

Jim Lakely (37:57):
Yeah. It's great. That's actually a very good
segue into our main topic fortoday, and that is the question
of whether the climate war isover. Maybe it is. We touched on
this a little bit last week.
This is from the New York Times.They had a headline that says,
has the world given up onfighting climate change? David

(38:17):
David Wallace Wells is at theNew York Times. They put on an
event called climate forward atthe New York Times, and he,
David Wallace Wells, lamentedthat all the momentum of the
climate alarmist social controlmovement seems to have stalled.
And then, you know, since manyin this audience may not
regularly follow Climate Forwardand the podcast that he has over

(38:38):
there at the New York Times, I Ithought we would play some of
this so that you can get a sensefor how the other side is
thinking and feeling these daysabout the global climate debate.
So try not to enjoy this toomuch. No smiling completely
throughout, but I've done threeclips, and we could play them
one at a time. Play that firstone for us. Andy?

Speaker 12 (38:59):
Obama had won the Nobel Priest Prize sort of just
for coming into office, and heseemed to many people in the
global elite like just the kindof cool headed post ideological
technocratic liberal who shouldbe in charge. Yeah. Paris showed

(39:19):
us what that might look like,what kind of future it might
point to. The agreement wasn'tmeant to be a one shot solution.
Other steps, it was assumed,would follow towards faster
climate action, yes, but alsotowards greater global
cooperation, mutual obligation,solidarity, in part because of

(39:41):
what climate action implied andin part because of what a
growing sense of climate justiceseemed to demand.
That was all ten years ago, andnow we are living in a very
different world. Paris doesn'tlook like the future anymore. It

(40:02):
looks a lot more like the past,like the last gasp of an end of
history fantasy, kind ofnineteen nineties liberal
internationalism imported intothe twenty tens and set to crash
upon the rocks of history.

Jim Lakely (40:19):
Alright. I told everyone not to smile, and I
couldn't stop smiling thatentire time. So, yeah, it seems
like the the last line you hadthere, James, was that, it seems
like the climate, the globalclimate agenda is crashing upon
the rocks of history.

Oh my goodness. Such drama. I mean, I I I was
keeping my smiles to myselfuntil that last line was just so
over the top. But, anyway no.He, you know, he hit it on the
head when he talked about howthe bringing together the world

(40:53):
under one he didn't use the termgovernment, but nevertheless,
coming together would berequired to fight climate
change, and that really has beenthe vehicle, climate change,
that is the preferred mechanismof the globalist left to bring
the world together under theirvision.
We have to do this united haveto have this united front to

(41:14):
fight climate change. Everynation must be involved. And by
the way, people like BarackObama and the ideology of the
left, will lead it. It'swonderful to see that the
climate alarmist movement isfaltering. But lest we celebrate
too much, you know, many peoplethought the same thing in 2016
after Donald Trump was elected.

(41:36):
Here, we have the repudiation ofmany things from the left,
including climate change. Butthen under four years of the
Biden administration, we hadtremendous resurgence in climate
alarmism in governments, butalso from and and not just from
Democrats, from manyRepublicans. Some of the
American public started buyinginto it. But we've been fighting

(41:56):
this. We've been fighting thisat the Heartland Institute for
twenty years.
We will keep fighting it. Rightnow, over the past few years,
we've beaten it back to thepoint where the left is so
distraught that here you have,you have the New York Times
presiding over the funeral ofclimate change or climate
activism. So it's it's wonderfulthat we are winning this war. I

(42:18):
remember many people saying tome, James, why should I even
care? Why should I contribute tothe cause?
We've lost this battle. Theclimate alarmists have won. No.
No. We've turned it around.
And for now, we're beating thetar out of them. But they will
never go away, and there will betimes when they will take
advantage of circumstances totry to bring this back because
it truly is their best mechanismfor bringing in global

(42:39):
socialism. Everybody cares aboutthe environment. I care about
the environment. And if youconvince people that carbon
dioxide emissions are thebiggest threat to the
environment rather than the windturbines that kill millions of
birds and bats each and everyyear, including many endangered
species, rather than the rareearth mining that destroys
entire entire sectors of theenvironment, that pollutes the

(43:00):
water, pollutes the soil.
Well, you know, there you haveit. Okay. Then we have to have
this one world government basedon climate change. We are
winning. We are winning, but wehave to keep fighting this
battle.
So stick it to you, New YorkTimes.

I like what I what I thought was really
telling actually came at thebeginning of it. He admitted
that, Obama didn't win the NobelPrize for anything. He got
elected. Oh, well, let's givehim a peace prize because he got
elected. He'd noaccomplishments.

(43:35):
And secondly, he said he wasgreeted by the global elite. He
the the elite. Yeah. He was oneof their own. He he was an
insider, and they wanted someonelike him, the the as the face of
the global elite, who impose,their policies, which give that

(43:58):
that same global eliteexemptions from, you know,
dispensations for the climateharm that they do while imposing
policies that, restrict thefreedoms of the rest of us.
They'll take their private jets,indulgence. We can't fly.
They'll have their their Teslatrucks. Don't get a lot of

(44:24):
actually aren't great for theenvironment as far as miles per
gallon, if you wanna cash it outin that way. But we're told to
take public transit or stay homeor drive less.
He was representative of thatthat group and their goals.

(44:44):
Global imposition, more powerfor governments over people's
lives. And the New York Timesadmitted it. That's who he
represented. That's who had hopein him.

Yep. There's big money in climate no matter how
you look at it, whether it'ssubsidies, whether it's, you
know, government funding,private funding. It's all about
the money. It's really justlike, you know, Watergate,
follow the money. That's allclimate is about today.
It's all about who's got

How dare you? Well,

yeah. Right. It is. I'm sorry. That's the bottom
line.
It used to be at the verybeginning when Hansen announced
it in 1988, it was sort of aboutscience, but even he had to
fudge it because, you know, whenhe went to the went to the
senate and made thatpresentation in June 1988, you
know, his science wasn't quitestrong enough. So he had to make
some stagecraft. He had to putin, you know, the fact that he

(45:41):
opened the the windows andcalled the weather bureau to
find out what the hottest day ofthe month is gonna be for the
forecast. So everybody in thathearing room was sweating in
front of the cameras to make thepoint. And so that after that,
every it stopped being aboutscience.
There was, yeah, maybe a littlebit of carbon dioxide warming

(46:02):
going on, but nothing like theforecast that they've been
making. And if you look at thetemperature over the last twenty
years, particularly at the USCRNdata from NOAA, you know, for
the best climate network on thesurface, there's not a lot of
warming going on there. We'rewe're seeing temperatures today
that are the same as they werein 02/2005. So the big climate

(46:26):
scare, no matter how you look atit, just has not happened on
every front. And if you go to mywebsite, what's up with that?
We have a timeline of all thedifferent climate scares out
there and their failures. And itit every time they make an
announcement or a forecast likethat, it ends up failing, and
then they just keep moving thegoalpost.

Yeah. Just for context, when Anthony mentions
02/2005, that's not a cherrypicker number. The USCRN, it was
put into place in 02/2005. Andwhat it is, it's a system of
temperature stations that werein placed at the most pristine
locations where that you wouldnot have corruption due to urban

(47:06):
heat island effects, asphalt,anything else. This is the most
reliable network of temperaturestations anywhere in the world.
And so there are a 114, Ibelieve, such stations
throughout The United States.They've been in place since
02/2005. So now we have twentyyears worth of temperature data
that covers the entire UnitedStates. And when we look at the
data, you don't see any warming.You see ups and downs and dips

(47:30):
and, you know, whatever else,but you don't see a trend line.
So when you hear the newsstories, you you get this all
the time. Oh, because of climatechange, trout in Montana no
longer can survive, because ofhotter temperatures. You can't
produce maple syrup anymore inVermont or, you know, whatever
it is. I said, well, thatclimate change you're talking

(47:50):
about must have occurred manydecades ago because there's been
no warming here in The UnitedStates for the past twenty
years.

And trout still swim the streams in
Montana, and maple syrup stillcomes from Vermont, contrary to
what the media has claimed.

Speaker 9 (48:07):
Yeah. Well, look. I have two

Jim Lakely (48:09):
other clips to play, and I plan to enjoy them with
our audience. So

You cut off Renee. She's about to comment.

Jim Lakely (48:16):
Oh, no. No. She can come in right off right after
the second one.

This I'll comment after these. I I can save my
thoughts. I'll write it down.

Jim Lakely (48:21):
Alright. Yeah. In the second one, the New York
Times guy, you know, forlornvoice, is lamenting that, the
world just hasn't seemed to bedoing enough to stop it.

Speaker 12 (48:35):
And on climate? Well, we haven't saved the
planet. Paris helped mobilize anawful lot of green energy, and
we'd surely be in a worse placewithout it. But the more
ambitious 1.5 degree targetestablished in Paris is now
functionally out of reach. Thetwo degree target is getting
pretty close.

(48:55):
These are warming levels whichnot that long ago, frankly,
terrified us. Now we areaccommodating ourselves to them,
defining our failure to meetthose thresholds as a kind of
success because we have nothingelse to do. Right after Paris,
climate was an inspiring globalcause. Millions marched in the

(49:16):
streets. There were quantumleaps in policy.
Every major leader the worldover showed up at climate
conferences speaking inexistential terms about the
risks of warming. And when theywere talking about what must be
done, doing so in terms of fullscale mobilization, a World War
two scale mobilization. Now whenyou go to those climate
conferences, most of thoseleaders are missing. There's

(49:40):
still plenty of work to do atCOP, but the COPs are no longer
a center of geopoliticalactivity or gravity like they
were just five years ago.Countries aren't even submitting
their plans to decarbonize inline with the terms of the
agreement.
The rich world isn't mobilizingfor a World War two against
climate change. In The US, JoeBiden seemed to focus his entire

(50:03):
presidency on achieving alandmark piece of climate
legislation. But three yearslater, the IRA has been stripped
down almost to the bone.

Jim Lakely (50:13):
Sterling, the good news just won't stop from him.

I wish it was stripped down almost to the
bone. I mean, we we got rid ofabout a third of it.

I I will I'll stay from

one you want. I want that. 1.5 degrees and all I
got with this T shirt.

That's good. We should thank you, Tech. We're
gonna steal that idea, and we'regonna put that on the Heartland
website. But I I I want toapologize first for, on behalf
of my fellow millennials, forthe the absolute scourge that is
the millennial vocal fry. It isvery hard to listen to.

(50:57):
But yeah. Well, what I wanted tosay is this guy's I you almost
kinda feel bad for him a littlebit. Not really because they're
trying to push for, you know,catastrophic globalist, you
know, policies that they'd pushfor regardless of climate
change. But a little bit becauseif they're true believers, then
this would be very, veryupsetting. I wanted to point out

(51:21):
that, you know, in the you havethis, like, kind of coalition of
people in the media andpoliticians and stuff who keep
up this drumbeat about differentaspects of the climate debate,
like the the idea that thetransition is underway or
whatever.
The the the transition fromfossil fuels is underway. But
you look at, you know, chartsshowing, you know, the energy

(51:45):
breakdown. And sure, there aremore renewables coming online
than in previous decades, butthere has not been a, you know,
corresponding decline in globaluse of fossil fuels. So that's
just something that's just nottrue. That hasn't been
happening.
They also you know, they havenot seen any significant change
in carbon dioxide emissions inthe atmosphere. They haven't

(52:08):
seen, you know, consistentwarming anywhere. It's
irregular, as James was pointingout, pretty much everywhere.
The, you know, various impactson, you know, glaciers here, or,
you know, sea ice there,whatever it is. It's all it's
it's not going the way that theyhave been saying that it's

(52:29):
supposed to go.
And and then you get thesepoliticians, these world leaders
who will stand and look theiractivist friends in the face and
say, we're winning on thisissue. The transition is
underway. And and it's very muchnot. So I kind of I kind of
think that, you know, Greta wasright a couple of years ago when

(52:49):
she stood in front of or stoodoutside of the IPCC or the one
of the COP conferences and saidthat they were all hypocrites
and liars. But she was wrongabout what they were lying
about.
Right? She she she says thatthey're hypocrites and liars
because they don't actuallybelieve this stuff and they
aren't actually like, trying ashard as she thought that they

(53:13):
should be to be, like, forcingsome kind of a global energy and
politic politics transition. Andthat's true. They they aren't
many of them are not truebelievers, I think, at these
conferences. They're justenjoying the benefits of getting
to go to cool conferences.
But the the the reality is thatthey are charlatans and liars

(53:38):
and that there's no catastropheon the horizon. And if we could
get that point across, then Ithink that you could save a lot
of people a lot of reasonablepain. You know? Yeah. So

Go ahead, James.

Jim Lakely (53:54):
James. I wanna set up a third clip, which you'll
enjoy, but go ahead.

Okay. Well, very quickly then. I I actually do
feel for this guy, a little bit.I mean, his pain is real. And
when he talks about how thereare fewer people going to these
conference of the parties, theUN COP conferences, I mean,
think of the opportunities lost.
If more people would be going toCOP thirty in Berlin, Brazil,

(54:17):
think of how much more theAmazon Rainforest they could
have bulldozed to set up the,the roads going out there. I
mean, they they've onlybulldozed tens of thousands of
acres so far. I mean, if thisguy had his wish, think of the
hundreds of thousands of acresof Amazon Rainforest they could
have destroyed. Think of all theextra private jets and the
carbon dioxide that they couldbe pumping into the atmosphere.

(54:38):
I I feel for this guy.
I mean, if we just had morepeople attending these
conferences, the planet would bein such better shape.

Hi. Yeah. I I've gotta say, you know,
everyone's said, oh, we can feelthis guy's emotion. Look. I'm
not, I'm not saying that he hasto be more emotive.
I certainly shouldn't be as thearchbishop for Brandenberry
suggesting how people should dotheir presentations. But his

(55:07):
mono tonic, reading of his,diatribe or his, you know, sort
of, to a lost climate agreementthat that was really never
anything but a paper tiger tostart with. This guy I could

(55:30):
listen to to go to sleep. Imean, his he he he I don't see
the emotion. I see it in hiswords, but not in his
inflection, not in his emphasis.
It's like, he could have donethis through AI. Honestly, I
could sleep with this guy. It itit it'd be like the surf. Come

Speaker 9 (55:52):
on, please,

dude. Sterling.

Jim Lakely (55:54):
Yeah. Yeah. You gotta you better rephrase that,
Sterling. That's all I'm gonnasay. You can run that back and
see how that came out of youronto the show.
Before we, just one last clip.This one is is shorter than the
others, but it contains heutters the words that fans of
the show might recognize. Playit, please, Andy.

Speaker 12 (56:13):
The number of climate laws passed by
governments around the world hasfallen from about 300 just a few
years ago to under 50 last year.We hear less about net zero than
about energy sovereignty andclimate realism, and it's hard
not to avoid the conclusion thatwe're choosing to define as
navigable levels of warmingwhich five or eight years ago we

(56:36):
chose to define as unacceptable.Politically, the world has kind
of just moved on, but thatdoesn't mean it's all over.
Doesn't mean that environmentalapocalypse is right around the
corner or even that our climatefuture will be defined primarily
by normalization of what oncelooked like totally
inconceivable climate disasters.Because as climate has lost its

(57:01):
grip on our politics and ourgeopolitics, decarbonization and
green energy has raced ahead.

Yep. I I like his statement not only about climate
realism, but he says, it doesn'tmean that environmental
apocalypse is right around thecorner. It never has been.

Well, I like how in the same sentence, he then
proceeds to say, but we aregoing to be witnessing
unprecedented, you know, climatedisasters or weather disasters.
It kinda does sound like he'ssaying both things at the same
time. It's Mhmm. Bizarre.

Jim Lakely (57:40):
Are you saying that the climate alarmist arguments
are incoherent andcontradictory?

I would believe it. I would never say something

like that. Yeah. No. Never.

Jim Lakely (57:49):
It'd be

the first time I've ever been accused of that
before.

Jim Lakely (57:53):
Yeah. Well, alright. Well, let's, I'm you all enjoyed
that. Hope our audience reallyenjoyed that. I certainly
enjoyed that.
But it is interesting, and wewill keep an eye on those kinds
of arguments. The cop this yearin Brazil is gonna be very
interesting. We may have somenews about people on this
broadcast concerning that COP.I'll just leave it there for

(58:14):
now. And, we can get on to our qand a because I know Anthony has
to has to boogie a little bitearly early today.
But before we get to the q and afor everybody, be sure to put
those in the chat for us. Iwanna tell you a little bit
about the sponsor Wally.

Speaker 9 (58:30):
I wanna tell you a little

Jim Lakely (58:31):
bit about the sponsor of this show, the
Climate Realism Show, and thatis Advisor Metals. Now if you
listen to a lot of conservativeshows, you hear tons of pitches
for buying gold, silver, andother precious metals. There are
a ton of companies out there,but we wanna tell you why you
should trust our sponsor,Advisor Metals, and it's the man
who runs that company, IraBrashatsky. He is the managing
member of Advisor Metals, and hedoes not employ high pressure

(58:54):
tactics or deceptive marketingploys like many that you find in
big gold. He also doesn't dealin so called rare, coins.
When you buy gold and otherprecious metals from Advisor
Metals, you are dealing inquality bullion, and that is so
much better when the time comesfor you to liquidate this very
valuable physical asset. Andwhen you buy from Advisor
Metals, you'll have yourinvestment sent discreetly

(59:15):
directly to your very home. Andby the way, Ira is advertising
on our program because he is anAmerica first patriot. He does
not donate to Democrats in theircauses. He refuses to work with
proxies of the Chinese CommunistParty, and he, like us, abhor
the machinations and schemes ofof the World Economic Forum and
these other confabs of, climatealarmists around the world.

(59:37):
So we are very proud to have himas our sponsor. Oh, if you wanna
diversify your investmentportfolio, if you wanna back up
your IRA with real physicalbullion of precious metals,
please go toclimaterealismshow.com/metals.
You can leave your informationthere, and Ira or one of his
team will get, in touch with youand make the process very easy.
Again, that'sclimaterealismshow.com/metals,

(59:59):
and be sure to tell them whosent you because that helps us
and this show while you'rehelping your future. Alright.
We are ready for the q and a.Lanea, please take it away.
Alright.

Speaker 10 (01:00:18):
Okay. Alright. So our first question here is from
a frequent visitor, Albert,says, what's this winter gonna
be like? And I'm gonna. My firstquestion is

Jim Lakely (01:00:34):
looks like Lynne, it looks like your audio might be
broken. I'll just ask we havethe question up on the screen,
but it says, from Albert. Hesays, what is winter going to be
like?

Anthony Watts (01:00:42):
Yeah. But he has to say where? I mean, Northern
Hemisphere, Southern Hemisphere,Western, Eastern you know? All I
can say is is that winter,wherever it's at, it's gonna be
cold. That's it.
That's all I can say for sure.And there'll be less daylight.

James Taylor (01:00:58):
Colder. Colder. Some of us, you know, live in
Florida or Texas or Louisiana orSouth Carolina, and there's a
reason why people flock to thewarmer climates, not just in
America, but around the world.Look at the world's major
population centers. Notice howthey are disproportionately
grouped around tropical,subtropical climates.

(01:01:21):
It's not killing us all. Soanyway but, hey. But but it
reminds me, what is it in inGroundhog Day? Winter is going
to be it's gonna be a coldwinter. Well, I don't know.
For most of you.

Sterling Brunett (01:01:33):
I I I I don't like to make predictions, but
I'll make this one. It will snowin some places. Other places
will get hit by ice, maybe thesame places on occasion. We're
already seeing snow fallingacross, the mountains in Europe,
in the Balkans, and, that'spretty early for it. They're

(01:01:57):
falling pretty heavy.
It's you know, the Russian warin Ukraine continues to drag on,
and I think they're gonna, youknow, run into the to what the
the the Nazis did and whatNapoleon did once again this
year, and it's gonna get boggeddown the winter there. So, this
winter will look like otherwinters that we've had in the

(01:02:18):
past. Colder, some snow, but howmuch and where? Who knows?

Yeah. We should just put in a proposal to
replace the entire NationalWeather Service with Sterling.

Here we go. And and along that line, let's hope
that it's a full winter, with agovernment shutdown in place.
That'll make it more

There you go.

Yep. Lanea, how's your audio doing right now?

Linnea Lueken (01:02:46):
Can you hear me

now? Yes.

Yes. Okay. Great. It's, I don't know what happened
there. I guess my microphonejust decided to disconnect or
something.
Not sure. Anyway alright. Sohere is another question from
our good friend, Alan, who hasbeen on the who has, you know,
been in our comments sectionsince the very beginning as far
as I remember. Anyway, he says,hi from a very damp, crawl of

(01:03:10):
UK. Let's say the climate war isover.
What will you guys have to talkabout then, and what will happen
to your funding sources? James,what are we

Speaker 10 (01:03:19):
gonna do?

No. I mean, that's a great question because I often
get accused of, you know, just aHeartland Institute is just a
show for these big money donors,and that's all you do it for.
Well, first of all, I'll gladlytrade our budget with the budget
of Greenpeace or the WorldWildlife Fund or, you know, you
name it, the Sierra Club. Theymake a lot more money. They
bring in a lot more than we do.

(01:03:41):
I guarantee you we could flip onthis issue tomorrow, and
Heartland's budget wouldskyrocket. We'd all be living
fat and happy. And the morethat, the more we prevail on
this issue, we do it becauseit's right. We believe in truth.
But, yeah, if and when we we putthe final nail in the coffin of
climate alarmism, I I know I'mgonna lose some of our donors

(01:04:02):
who are motivated to make surethat that threat does not
materialize, but so be itbecause we're here fighting for
truth.
That's what we believe in. Youknow, let the rest take care of
itself.

I I I I have an experience. So my mother,
used to work for SocialSecurity. And at the previous
think tank I worked at, we werepretty heavy into, getting rid
of Social Security and makingsetting up private accounts. And
I I asked her one day. I said,mom, how do you feel about the
fact that, I'm working for anorganization that's trying to
put you out of work?

(01:04:32):
And she started to laughuproariously. She just thought
that was the funniest thing. Andshe looked at me and she said,
do your worst, son. Look.Climate alarm isn't gonna go
away.
The climate war is not over. Butif, as one, alarm climate
scientist told me once, overtime, predictions continue to be

(01:04:55):
wrong. We may have to rethinkthis. The environmentalists
will, as they've done in thepast, jump on another cause to
impose restrictions on people'slives. It will be endocrine
disruptors.
It will be they're already youknow, the plastic we gotta get
rid of plastics. The plasticpollution. They will always have
a cause, and we will always haveplenty of work to do here at the

(01:05:17):
Heartland Institute.

Yeah. And, James, I I will have you know, some of us
are fat and happy without beingwealthy. That's all that's all
I'm gonna say.

Alright. So here's a question from Walter
who says, the rescinding of theendangerment finding gives the
blue states an exit strategyfrom their energy predicament of
impossible net zero goals. Willthey will they take the out or
just double down on their doomedpolicies?

Good question.

Great question.

Well, they're not they they they aren't bound.
You know, they they were alreadydoubling down just because the
feds aren't the backstop theysaid before under Trump. All
these cities all over thecountry were saying, we're gonna
go forward with Paris whetherTrump whether we're in it with
Trump or not. We are gonna haveour own policies, our own net

(01:06:09):
zero goals regardless of whatthe federal government does. I
do not think so they didn'tneed, Trump's efforts to give
them an out.
They didn't have to join thatstuff in the first place. They
could back out anytime theywant. Will they do so? Well,
it's happening in Californiasome. You know, reality is

(01:06:30):
starting to slap Gavin Newsom inthe face.
He is not gonna be the presidentof The United States if he has
the highest energy prices in thecountry. He's driving people and
jobs out of his state. Theycan't his gas prices are high.
They're they're changing theirlaws and not just in response to
federal changes, but on theirown. So some of them may learn,

(01:06:53):
others maybe not.

California is a case in point. You know, they've
got the most restrictiveenvironmental policies anywhere
on the planet, you know, andalso the most restrictive energy
policies. And, you know, theytried to close down their
nuclear plant, their oneremaining nuclear plant a couple
of years ago. And then theyrealized, oh, wait a minute. If

(01:07:16):
we shut that off, we're notgonna have enough power to keep
the grid going, especially when,you know, there's a heat wave or
something like that.
And so what do they do? Well,they say, well, you know, we
didn't really mean that. We'rereally gonna let that nuclear
plant continue for a littlewhile longer because, you know,
wind and solar and all the othergreen goodies that we promised

(01:07:36):
haven't kept up. And so theysaid, let's just set that aside.
Now they've done the same thingjust recently for electric
vehicles, not cars, mind you,but for trucks.
They had this insane idea and alaw that said we're going to
make it that anyone who isdoing, you know, trucking in
California is gonna have to usean electric truck by 2035. Well,

(01:08:02):
the trucking industry wentberserker over that and rightly
so. I mean, the electric trucktechnology still isn't mature.
And even if it was mature, itstill got its own set of
problems. There's no chargingcapability in California that
could keep a fleet of electrictrucks running.
And the whole idea was pie inthe sky. You know? It was a feel

(01:08:24):
good, we're saving the planetthing. But they came to reality
and said, you know what? We'regonna back down on that.
So I look at California. Youknow, the worst case scenario
for green environmentalism isnow backing down from it. And if
they're backing down from it,you gotta believe that some of
the other states are gonnafollow.

You know? New Jersey might follow real
quickly. Their their governor'srace is is up in arms over a
couple of things, but the energyprices is one of them.

Yeah. It it's funny in California. Gavin
Newsom just last week attemptedto take a victory lap on his
Twitter account celebrating andbragging about how California
leads the country in renewableenergy and winds wind percentage
and solar percentage and allthat stuff. And so I saw that.
And, I mean, I I know what'slikely to be the case, but okay.

(01:09:17):
I quickly went to the EnergyInformation Administration's web
page where they have state bystate pricing. Yeah. California
leads the country in gasolineprices, has the highest gasoline
prices anywhere in the country,has the highest electricity
prices anywhere in the lower 48states, and they're approaching
Hawaii and Alaska. It's prettyhard to approach that because,

(01:09:39):
you know, they they're far fromeverywhere else. Their prices
are through the roof.
Anyway, yeah, Gavin Newsom,please. Let let's let's talk
about let's take victory lapsand compare California to the
rest of the nation because Idon't think that's going to be
good for your political future.

Yeah. I mean, I I think David Wallace Wells, who
did those podcast clips that weplayed, at the at our main
segment here, gave us a biganswer to that question that he
you know, he's on the globalstage, climate realism is now
the name of the game. I thinkwe're already seeing that. And
he mentioned that not one, maybeonly two countries even came
forward with a reasonable planto meet the to meet the goals of

(01:10:16):
Paris. And so it's actuallyalready happening right now.

Alright. We have this question from Polly who
says, why isn't there any costbenefit study made on the
climate change before spendingany more money? Well, that's
what our Department of Energy isattempting to do, I believe.

Yeah.

Anybody have anything on that? Yeah. It's
because

of be a thing to do, but nobody seems to be
interested in that sort of thingbecause, you know, it's all
about image. It's all about, youknow, saving the planet, all
that kind of stuff. They'reengineering, you know,
economics, all of those thingsdon't really go or figure in
well, you know, to climatesolutions.

Well, what they do, they only do half the
equation. Every time theyrelease a new rule, a power
plant rule, a vehicle emissionsrule, they only do the benefits,
their their supposed analysis ofthe benefits, and they ignore
the costs or they minimize them.You know, that's that's what
they've done with the mercuryrules. That's what they do with

(01:11:27):
the clean power plan. They'resupposed to do a legitimate cost
benefit analysis, but they don'tever do the cost analysis

or the relative cost

of goods.

There was a study published, 2022, 2023, I forget
which, in the peer reviewedjournal energy, and you had
energy economists. What they didis they broke down the full
system levelized cost ofelectricity sources. And so
doing what, for example, whatwhat EIA has done in the past is

(01:11:59):
they will give what they say islevelized cost of energy, but
then they don't factor in costsimposed upon the grid, costs
imposed upon energy sources thataren't wind and solar. But,
anyway, according to this,according to this peer reviewed
study, natural gas is far andaway if you're if you're gonna
going to now build a new powerplant or new equipment, wind,

(01:12:20):
solar, whatever it is. Naturalgas is far and away the least
expensive.
Wind power, I believe, was aboutseven times more expensive than
natural gas. Solar power, morethan 10 times. What's amazing so
it's it's there you have thecost, which is through the roof
if you're going through thepreferred energy sources of
climate activists. But the youknow, when you factor in the

(01:12:43):
benefits, environmentally iswhere they say, well, these are
our benefits. But what we did atthe Heartland Institute, we
published the affordable,reliable, clean energy
scorecard, and we dove in.
We we did a deep dive into thevarious environmental issues. So
it's not just carbon dioxideemissions, but species impacts,
land conservation. How much landis required to power the grid

(01:13:05):
with wind turbines? An amazingamount of land. About a third of
the nation's land would have tobe covered by wind turbines
according to peer reviewed studyby Harvard scientists.
So if you're going to have acost benefit analysis, take a
look at affordable, reliable,and clean energy scorecard, and
you will see that it's not justthe cost, but the benefits are
entirely on the side ofconventional energy sources.

(01:13:28):
Natural gas is the goldstandard. You also have coal,
nuclear, hydro score very wellalso. So check that out. There's
your cost benefit analysis, andI'm hoping, I won't mention
names, but we have connectionswith people in the
administration, that we areproviding this information with,
and I'm hoping we're gonna havesome big announcements soon.

Yeah. Tech, this is this study is on Heartland's
website. You can go toheartland.org. Do we have a

I'm I'm I'm gonna drop it in right now. I just
read it. Fine. Yep.

Awesome. Thank you very much. So we will we
will have that for you. Don'tworry about that. Alright.
Couple of great questions here.We have this one from Climate
Bell who asks, how motivated isoil and gas to debunking climate
change alarmism? Do you thinkthey have self imposed barriers
perceiving reduced profits ifscarcity is reduced or want to

(01:14:23):
play the ESG game? It's you'reyou're climate bill, you're
really pointing out a lot of thecomplicating factors here. Yeah.
Oil companies, some oilcompanies have stronger feelings
about this than others. Manyothers are kind of, in my
opinion, and this is fromsomeone who is outside the
industry at this moment, kind ofpursuing the let's get eaten

(01:14:47):
last approach and others thatare taking advantage of all of
the tax advantages and stuffthat you can take advantage of
if you promote ESG or if youpursue carbon capture, you know,
and storage, all that kind ofstuff. There are a lot of
corporate, there's a lot ofcorporate encouragement to kind

(01:15:10):
of hype climate alarmism evenfor oil companies. And a lot of
them are, you know, diversifiedtoo into wind and solar and
stuff. So it is complicated.
The scarcity thing, I think, isa little bit of a I think it's

(01:15:31):
kind of too broad of a of aconcept to say that they're,
like, making decisions at thecorporate level in order to
promote scarcity like, thefeeling of scarcity or whatever.
I don't think because that wouldthat would entail basically
every company being involved intrying to promote that
narrative, and that's nothappening. So, you know, there
are companies who put outreports saying, like, oh, we're

(01:15:55):
screwed next year. We're gonnabe in so much trouble. You know,
Permian is gonna be gone orwhatever.
And then you'll have anothercompany that puts out a report
that says the opposite. So it'sthere's no, like, oilfield
conspiracy to promote scarcity.But, yeah, it's it's
complicated.

We we've been in this game for a long time.
We've been, we've we've providedmaterial to lawsuits that the
that the oil companies have beenin. They don't give us money. I
wish, you know, I I wish theydid. They're not in in fighting
climate change alarmism.
They're invested in having asoft landing as possible, from

(01:16:39):
the government. Every lawsuit,they never challenge the
science. They never challengethe science. We try and
encourage them to do that. Theydon't do it.
What they say is this will beterrible for the economy. Yeah.
The planet's dying. Yeah. We areproducing the energy, but saving
the planet would be terrible forthe economy.

(01:16:59):
And if you're gonna do it, itshould be done at the federal
level, not by state.

It's such a terrible argument. It's
unbelievable. But Yeah. It'sThat is the argument that they
make.

It it calls to mind a number of years ago. I
was invited to give a climatescience presentation at the at a
meeting of the board ofdirectors for a large coal
company. And I walked throughthat. And, at the end of the

(01:17:30):
climate science segment, thenproceeded to, you know, what are
what are our courses of action?What is our preferred course of
action?
And after I made the case forreducing restrictions on
conventional energy, making surethat the federal government does
not run coal, natural gas, oilout of existence, I was taken

(01:17:53):
aside afterwards and said,James, it was a great
presentation on the science, butwe have some disagreement here.
We're not opposed to eliminatingcoal power and other sources of
power so long as the costs aresocialized. In other words, give
us enough money, we'll go away.And it's funny. You know, we
never got a dime from them, Butit's it's amusing how oftentimes

(01:18:17):
the argument is is that the bigoil companies are funding
climate realists or climatedeniers, whatever it is.
They don't give any money to anyorganizations that I'm aware of.
Long time ago, they gave alittle bit, but it they're more
interested in preserving theirprofits, and they see the
federal government hand outsubsidies and sitting at the

(01:18:40):
table as their best path towardsmore money. And and and the
thing is with the HeartlandInstitute and Climate Realist
across the board, we don't haveany particular love, affection,
or loyalty to a particular coalcompany, oil company, or even
the coal or oil industries.We're looking out for consumers.

(01:19:00):
That's what we care about.
We don't want our cost to gothrough the roof, our freedom to
choose be taken away, and,basically, people being stopped,
the American people, and ourstandard of living being
destroyed by wind and solarpower. If wind and solar power
become affordable, if they cancut their cost by a factor of 10
so that they can compete withnatural gas, you know, I'll be

(01:19:22):
cheerleading them as well. Idon't care what what industry it
is.

Well, if they're also reliable like
natural gas. I mean

And reliable and not destroying birds and bats
and taking up the Americanlandscape. Yeah. There's a lot
of obstacles. But the point iswe don't care about any
particular industry. We justwant the best deal for the
American people.

Yeah. What do want?

And I sorry, Sterling. I wanted to we can
keep talking on this subjectbecause, actually, there's
another question that kind of istangent tangential to this.
Sorry to cut you off. Fromsomeone that I have not seen in
our comment section before. Ithink they just randomly came
across this broadcast.
So I'm excited to have themhere. This is atheist gamer who
asks, what's your take onimporting oil, empowering Gulf

(01:20:05):
countries, and leading to anincrease in money for terror? Is
it strategic to havealternatives? And, Sterling, if
you can take that on.

No. I will. But I I wanna say I wanna state
Heartland's standing prettyclearly. We are energy neutral.
We want all energy sources tocomplete to compete in the
marketplace on a level playingfield.
Not we don't promote subsidiesfor oil and gas or coal. We

(01:20:35):
fight the little subsidies theyactually get, which is carbon
capture and storage. But wethink they should all be treated
equal and let them compete. Andif they were competing on a
level playing field withoutregulations restricting one and
and promoting the other,without, subsidies, massive
subsidies, wind and solar on thegrid scale just wouldn't exist.

(01:20:59):
They they just simply wouldn'tbe there.
So but if they get to the pointwhere, as James says, they and
battery backup are costeffective and reliable, all for
it. We we take no preference. Wewant what's what works. What

(01:21:19):
keeps the lights on, keep therefrigerators running reliably.
Now concerning strategicconcerns with The Middle East.
Donald Trump is the firstpresident in a long time, and
this this started back when hewas the first, you know,
president. The first was hewanted to make America not just
energy independent, but energydominant. And one of the reasons

(01:21:42):
for that strategically is hewanted us to be less reliant on
foreign sources of energy, whichfunds terrorism. And so he's
actively doing that. Right?
He doesn't wanna be relying onChina for, rare earth elements.
He wants to do that mining here.He wants to do the refining

(01:22:02):
here. He wants to make us lessvulnerable to the geopolitical
machinations of foreigncountries, whether they're in
The Middle East, Asia, you know,or up in, you know, in Russia.
He wants America to be theshining city on the hill that
leads by example and in partleads through energy dominance.

Totally agree. And it's not just an opportunity to
wean ourselves or wean othernations of the money we send to
them that are hostile to us. Butin America that is taking the
shackles off energy production,keep in mind that America has
more coal, oil, and natural gasresources than any other nation

(01:22:52):
in the world. It's not evenclose. There's only one nation
in world that has even half asmuch of our cumulatively
cumulative oil, coal, naturalgas resources.
That's Russia. Nobody else haseven half as much. If we were to
produce effort or take theshackles off of that, if we
allow energy producers to simplydo what they're set up to do,

(01:23:17):
not only do we reduce priceshere, not only do we immunize
ourselves against energy shocks.If Iran says, oh, we don't like
this, so we're gonna shut theStrait of hormones hormones and
drive energy prices to theroofs, great. Saudi Arabia loves
it when prices go up, so willwe.
Go ahead and do it, Iran. Makeour day. But on top of that, we
have the ability to export coal,oil, natural gas around the

(01:23:38):
world. And rather than nationsright now being beholden to
Russia, to China, to hostileactors in the Middle East, and
then following their lead anddoing their bidding in the
geopolitical realm, well, heck,they'll be lining up to align
themselves with America andplease us. And there's nothing
bad that can come with that, atleast not not today.

(01:24:00):
Who knows? We get another BarackObama administration. But,
anyway, that's what we should bedoing.

Absolutely. So to that to that, mister Gamer, sir,
yeah, it's it's complicated,but, basically, America First
Energy is kind of the cure allto a lot of this stuff.
Alrighty. Let's see.

Short margin is good for us, it's good for
the world.

Yeah. Well and and to his point about, you
know, is it strategic to havealternatives? Because I think
that this is something that the,British government has been
saying for a while. They say,like, we have to put in more
wind turbines in order to breakus from Russian gas or whatever.
And it isn't breaking them fromRussian gas.
It's it's not helping them atall. It is it would be strategic

(01:24:48):
to have alternatives if thosealternatives were actually
alternatives and not things thatactually burden the grid
further. Wind and solar as theystand right now, even with, you
know, modern current batterytechnology is not an
alternative. It's just basicallya burden. It's it's like I don't

(01:25:10):
know.
I can't come up with a goodexample off top of my head, but
it's it's not helping any. Sowhat is strategic is to be
producing here so that we don'thave to import from elsewhere.
And, also, there's some, youknow, reg weird regulatory and,
like, legislation and stuff thatwe could get rid of that would
help us to not have to import,like, Russian oil to or Russian

(01:25:31):
gas to the, the East Coast andthat kind of thing. So, yeah,
it's there there are a lot ofmoving parts there. Okay.
Let's see. Stan Pickett asks,what are your expectations for
when Lee Zeldin will make astatement regarding the
endangerment finding? Anybody?Bueller?

I saw Sterling lean forward there, unless it
was unrelated to the question.

Well, I'm not sure he's gonna make any kind of
announcement while thegovernment shutdown is going on.
I'd like him to go ahead andmake the announcement and let it
be a fait accompli by the timeanyone comes back to work and
lawsuits are filed. But they,you know, they've taken they've
taken our not just ours. They'vethey've put out the proposal.

(01:26:20):
They have taken the publiccomments.
They're considering the publiccomments. They have a a deadline
for doing that. I don't knowwhat that deadline is. But right
now, unless they contracted itout, they don't have anyone
working on the public comments.So I think they'll move forward

(01:26:40):
with it, but I can't give you atimeline.

Alrighty. Great. Let's see. We don't have a whole
lot of time for other questionshere. Let me find one more.
Unfortunately, Anthony had toduck out. So any for him, I
can't I can't take. Let's see.Oh, okay. We're gonna end on
this, and I'm gonna pitch it toyou, James.

(01:27:09):
Has anyone done a study todetermine how much warming the
trillions we've wasted so farhas prevented?

Well, it's it's funny. EPA has, you know, their
model that, you know, forecastshow much warming would occur or
would be averted based upon theamount of carbon dioxide
emissions released. And and,basically, if if the entire
American economy went to zerocarbon dioxide emissions, which

(01:27:40):
is impossible, but let's justsay in theory, it could happen.
It happened immediately, youknow, by the end of the century,
the amount of warming that wouldbe averted, I forget the number,
but it's, like, zero point zerosomething degrees. And it's just
silly.
And on top of that, keep in mindthat and we discussed this

(01:28:01):
before, but it's important toremember that carbon dioxide,
it's it's it's a law ofdiminishing returns. When
there's very little carbondioxide in the atmosphere and
you add some, it is going toprevent or prevent much more
radiation from going back intospace than when you already have
more carbon dioxide in theatmosphere. In other words, the

(01:28:21):
first the the first initialportions of carbon dioxide in
the atmosphere cause a lot morewarming than what is added
later. And right now, as doctorsHapper and Linsen, two of the
most brilliant scientific mindsin the world have shown, the
atmosphere is essentiallysaturated with carbon dioxide.
So if we're gonna add more andmore carbon dioxide to the

(01:28:43):
atmosphere, it's not gonna haveany measurable, any noticeable
increase on temperatures.
And of late, what we've added atthe past, you know, few decades
has had very little impact aswell.

You know, I think we we had this guy on the
The New York Times audio. Ithink he said something in his
presentation. Like, if we hadn'tacted, it'd be so much worse
now, but we're you know? It'slike, well, what what evidence
do you have that it would havebeen appreciably different today

(01:29:16):
if we hadn't signed, the ParisClimate Agreement and basically
met none of its targets? Youknow, where's the where's the
proof of that other than yousaying it?

Yep. It's it's a mystery, Sterling.

Speaker 6 (01:29:39):
It's a mystery.

Alright. So thank you very much, Lynne. Thank you
very much, everybody, in thechat for your questions. We've
always enjoyed that part of thisshow. I want to point out that
the over under on myself, Jim,pulling a Jim, was 2.5, and the
answer was zero.
So if you took the under,congratulations.

I just left the $100.

Yes. With money on the line, Jim comes
through.

It focuses the mind. That's all I could say. So thank
you to Anthony Watts, who was onthe show when he had to bug out
a little bit earlier. Thank you,James Taylor, president of
Heartless too, for joining ustoday. We hope to see you again
soon.
Thank you, of course, toSterling and Lanea, the usual
people that are on this showalong with me. And, again, I
wanna thank everybody in ouraudience. Without you, this show

(01:30:25):
doesn't happen, and weappreciate that. And be sure to
go to heartland.org/tcrs so youcan help support this show and
bring it out here every singleweek. I wanna thank our
streaming partners, JunkScience, CFACT, c o two
coalition, Climate Depot, What'sUp With That, and Heartland UK,
Europe.
Thank you very much, Andy, ourproducer behind the scenes.
Fantastic show today, and wewill see you again next week.

(01:30:48):
Bye bye.

All Episodes

Has the World Given Up on Fighting Climate Change? — The Climate Realism Show #176

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

The Breakfast Club

.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;}Has the World Given Up on Fighting Climate Change? — The Climate Realism Show #176