Human CO2 Emissions Are a GOOD THING - The Climate Realism Show #139 - Environment and Climate News Podcast

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Joe Biden (00:00):
Not figuratively a clear and present danger.

Greta Thunberg (00:02):
We are in the beginning of a mass extinction.

Jim Lakely (00:06):
The ability of c 02 to do the heavy work of creating
a climate catastrophe is almostnil at this point.

Anthony Watts (00:12):
The price of
oil has been artificiallyelevated to the point of
insanity.

Sterling Burnett (00:13):
That's not how you power. Exact same point that
we're at

Jim Lakely (00:17):
now.

You know who's trying that? You

Jim Lakely (00:26):
know, exact same point that we're at now.

You know who's trying that? Germany. 7 straight
days of no wind for Germany.Their factories are shutting
down.

Linnea Lueken (00:36):
They really do act like weather didn't happen
prior to, like, 1910. Today isFriday. That's right, Greta. It
is Friday. It is the best day ofthe week because it is the day
the Heartland Institutebroadcast the Climate Realism
Show.

Jim Lakely (00:56):
I am Jim Lakeley. I'm the vice president of the
Heartland Institute. You know,there is nothing else quite like
the Climate Realism Showstreaming anywhere. So I hope
you will like, share, andsubscribe to this channel, and
also leave your comments belowthe video. All those actions,
which are completely free, helpconvince the YouTube algorithm

(01:16):
to smile upon this program andto get it in front of even more
people.
And a reminder, because Big Techand the Legacy Media do not
approve of the way the HeartlandInstitute covers climate and
energy on this program, ourYouTube channel has been
demonetized. So if you wannasupport this program, and I
really hope you do, please visitheartland.org/ tcrs. That's

(01:39):
heartland.org/tcrs, which standsfor the Climate Realism Show.
And you can help us make surethat this show happens every
single Friday. Any support youcan give us is greatly
appreciated and warmly welcome.
We also wanna thank ourstreaming partners, that being
junk science.com, CFACT, ClimateDepot, and what's up with that.

(02:01):
So for today's program, we havewith us a bit of a reduced crew.
It is the holidays after all.But we do have a lot of our at
least one of our of our regularpeople. That person is h
Sterling Burnett.
He is the director of the Arthurb Robinson Center on Climate and
Environmental Policy at theHeartland Institute. And joining
us, a very special guest andfriend, Gregory Wrightstone.

(02:23):
He's the executive director ofthe c o two coalition, which is,
like the Heartland Institute, anonprofit organization that
looks to promote climaterealism. And, as you might
expect, they focus on debunkingmyths and telling the truth
about the effect of natural andhuman emitted carbon dioxide on
our planet. Welcome, Gregory.

(02:43):
So glad to have you back on theprogram.

Gregory Wrightstone (02:45):
Oh, really good. Thanks for having me on,
Jim and Sterling. Hey. Before weget into anything else, it's the
Christmas season. I bring yougreat tidings of glad joy.
There is no climate crisis. Notonly that, Earth's ecosystems
are thriving and prospering, andhumanity's benefiting. So
there's my glad tidings of greatjoy.

Jim Lakely (03:07):
Yeah. That's kind of like a, a lump of coal in my
stocking, which is what Iactually want this year.

Oh, that

would be good. Living the high carbon
lifestyle.

Jim Lakely (03:16):
That's right. Like our friend, Jason Isaac, the
carbon king. Yes. That's hisslogan, which is really great.
Sterling, thanks for being onthe show.
I I know that you are feelingunder the weather. You've been
battling a pretty tough cold allweek, and so, I just wanna tell
our listeners and viewers if youhe may have to cough and miss
the cough button, so, watch yourears there. But, Sterling,
you're a real trooper for, forjoining us for the last show of

(03:38):
this of 2024.

My my glad tidings of good joy is, not to
infect anyone else with what Ihave. So, may you all have a
blessed Christmas.

Jim Lakely (03:52):
Thank you very much, and you as well. I hope you get
well enough, to enjoy theholiday, as you should, as we
all should. And we wanna say,you know, happy holidays, happy
Hanukkah, merry Christmas, andit will, I guess, be a happy New
Year since this is the last,program that we will have of the
Climate Realism Show for 2024.Before we get into our, regular
feature that we start we do inthe early in the show, which is

(04:15):
the crazy climate news of theweek, which you can see on that
nice little sidebar on the sidethere. There's a there's
actually an item that we wantedto highlight, that it was was
pretty pretty big news.
So if you listen to yesterday'sIn the Tank podcast, which is
also on this channel, Thursdaysat 1 PM Eastern. The show is

(04:36):
Fridays at 1 PM Eastern. We hadmentioned that one of the big
accomplishments of the HeartlandInstitute this year was opening
a new endeavor called HeartlandUK slash Europe. And we hosted
this on Tuesday. In CentralLondon, we host hosted a launch
party to officially announce tothe world, the solidification of

(04:58):
the partnership between theHeartland Institute and our and
our allies in the freedommovement in, Great Britain and
on the continent of Europe.
And so from the, the Europeanconservative, the by the way, if
you're in Europe and you, a NewYork conservative and you're a
journalist, it's a growthindustry. There's gonna be
plenty of room for that.European Conservative is a

(05:19):
fantastic publication, butthere's plenty of room, for even
more. But here, they had a storyreporting on our launch party on
Tuesday, And the headline is,are net zeros days numbered with
a picture there of Nigel Farage.He is the, the leader of the
Reform UK Party, which did verywell in the last parliamentary

(05:39):
elections, in Britain.
And you may be looking on thescreen there at the the next non
labor prime minister of GreatBritain. Who knows? We may see
that. The subhead here, is maybethe the best subhead we've ever
seen in the story about theHeartland Institute, especially
since the media in the UnitedStates is largely, hostile to

(06:00):
the Heartland Institute. But itsays, Farage now has the
firepower of the HeartlandInstitute, a climate realist US
think tank with offices inBritain squarely behind him, and
that's to try to get rid of netzero, that is.
Let me just read a little bitabout this and maybe get some
reaction from Sterling and Greg.Says here, there's a great deal
of talk on the British rightabout how best to capitalize on

(06:22):
Donald Trump's historic victory.Some have suggested that the
mere presence of a pro freespeech anglophile in the White
House will limit Piers Starmer'sroom or maneuver. Continuing to
lock in intemperate old ladiesfor their Facebook posts will
generate more of a PR headacheunder an anti woke Elon Musk
supported Trump administrationthan was the case with a dodie

(06:44):
Joe Biden at the helm. Othershave speculated that the real
advantage of having a fearless,patriotic government across the
Atlantic can only serve tostiffen the spines of British
right wingers, otherwise proneto doomerism or overcaution.
While this is all veryplausible, the most immediate
benefit will likely be afinancial one. Everyone should

(07:04):
by now be familiar with thereports that Musk is on the
verge of turbocharging NigelFarage's efforts to break the
frame of British politics withan appropriately large injection
of cash to reform UK. Just daysago, Farage met the tech titan
for as long as an hour to quotediscuss money, among other
things, at Trump's famed Mar aLago residence in Florida. Less

(07:27):
well known is the fact that,fresh off the plane after
jetting back to Britain, Farajswiftly joined a local, London
social gathering with many otherhigh flyers in attendance to
celebrate the UK launch ofanother heavy hitter from the
United States, the HeartlandInstitute. That'd be us.
Held at the Brooks Clubs, theBrooks' Club and organized by

(07:49):
Touchpoint Politics, the eventmarked the start of a new
endeavor. The HeartlandInstitute is the world's leading
think tank promoting climaterealism. And it says here the
expansion as the, institute'spresident James Taylor told the
audience, he was there thisweek, marks an important moment
in the organization's mission tofostering transatlantic
cooperation, advancingindividual liberty and economic

(08:11):
freedom. And the executivedirector of this new Heartland
UK Europe, which, again, isofficially up and running now,
is broadcaster and activist,Lois, Perry. Sterling, I know
that, this is oh, he's coughing.
I know this is, this is actuallya pretty banner week for
Heartland. Yep. In that regard,it's, it's pretty it's pretty
exciting. You and I were notable to go to this this party,

(08:35):
but, this launch party. But, youknow, the Heartland studio has
worked with scientists andpolicy leaders and politicians
in Europe, in South America, inAustralia, all over the world.
And now, as the story as thestory uses the phrase, actually,
it was in my press release,Heartland has now established a

(08:56):
beachhead in Europe to bringclimate realism, to people who
really need it.

Climate climate Normandy. You know,
there there's one more bit ofthe story I'd like to read
because I think it's important.

Jim Lakely (09:15):
Oh, he just froze when he said the important part.
Oh, goodness gracious, Sterling.Okay.

I'm back.

Oh, okay.

Jim Lakely (09:23):
Back. Okay.

The resources that Heartland UK Europe can
provide both intellectual andfinancial are bound to be
invaluable. In truth, this kindof American presence in Britain
could neither be better timednor more sorely needed. To be
fair, you know, this guy, it's acomplimentary write up, but I
think he he has accurately,captured what's going on. We we

(09:49):
caught a wave here. We'reworking with people in in in
England that, in Britain thathave been wanting to push
realism more, but we're workingwith a broader coalition of
groups.
You know, earlier in the year,James was over there, and we
helped block net zerolegislation in the EU

(10:10):
parliament. We have been askedby others in in Austria and and
Poland and other countries inEurope to bring Heartland or
Heartland's message to them.Poland Poland is translating
it's gonna publish a version ofour climate at glance booklet.
So I I really think that we wewe're on the cutting edge of

(10:35):
something, we've sparkedsomething. And the truth is,
it's important that, Europebecomes realist because their
policies, EU policies can affectthe US.
Their policies which limitcommercial, you know, activity
that impose ESG will redound orlimit our activities. So I think

(11:01):
this is pretty important.

Jim Lakely (11:04):
Yeah. Yeah. I I obviously, I agree. Gregory, I
just wanna read one last bit andwe'll get on with the with the
show after maybe a comment fromyou because I think it's
relevant to the CO 2 Coalition.But, you know, this this cheeky
story says that evidencesuggests that the UK is
currently engaged in amortifying contest with Justin
Trudeau's Canada to see whocould claim the ultimate nagging

(11:26):
rights as the most poorlygoverned declining nation in the
Anglosphere, and they tie thatdirectly to this, this obsession
with net 0, net 0 meaning net 0,human carbon dioxide emissions,
which, I don't know, seems rightup the alley of something called
the c o two coalition to todebunk.

(11:48):
Nope. You're on mute, Greg.

You are muted.

Jim Lakely (11:50):
Nope.

Just okay. You

Jim Lakely (11:53):
get one of the you get one

of those a show, Greg. You get one of those
a show.

Jim Lakely (11:55):
Yeah. It's it's called pulling a gym. That's
what that's called. Yeah. That'sright.

But kudos to Heartland. It's great for you
and great for the, the Europeand the UK. And, yeah, when we
talk about net 0 and the c o twocoalition, I've I've started
embracing what Chris Wrightproposed, the proposed
Department of Energy Secretary,where he's he's he's opposed to
net 0, but he wants to embracenet zero energy poverty. So I I

(12:22):
think that's a thing we weshould all get behind is is
embracing a target of net zeroenergy poverty.

Net zero loss of fossil fuels.

Jim Lakely (12:31):
Yeah. Yeah. You can have a lot of fun with that net
zero. Maybe that's not such abad, phrasing after all. Depends
on how you apply it.
So alright. Well, thanks forthat. I appreciate the
congratulations, Greg. And and,as Sterling said, this we've had
a presence kind of unofficial.We've we've been supporting
climate realism as as Gregor, asthe this whole movement.

(12:52):
You know, I mentioned on the onthe, In the Tank podcast
yesterday, how without, youknow, to put all modesty aside,
without the work of theHeartland Institute, way back
in, like, 2008, at least,building, helping to build a
social and intellectual networkof climate scientists and
policy, experts who wereskeptical of the the idea that

(13:16):
human activity is causing theplanet to boil and that we're
ruining the the planet and wewill be unlivable and all that
kind of stuff. There werescientists from all over the
world, New Zealand, Australia,Chile, France, Germany, the
United Kingdom, Canada, and, ofcourse, the United States who
didn't necessarily know eachother, were maybe familiar with

(13:36):
each other's work, but had neverreally gotten together to
discuss things together, youknow, and the and to go against
the grain together and to pursuereal science together. And our
first international conferenceon climate change was in New
York City in 2008, and we'veheld 14 more of them since then
to this present day. And and wewill continue to do that, and

(13:59):
that's how and where I met Greg.That's probably where Sterling
and Greg met.
And so there is now this globalsocial and intellectual network
of climate realists all aroundthe world that get together and
now work together, and I thinkthat is what has really been has
gained momentum. It's taken 2decades. But, we are Greg,

(14:19):
before we came on the air, onthis stream, you said it feels
like the wind's at our backsnow. And I said it sure sure
feels that way because we'vebeen hitting headwinds and
pretty strong ones for most ofthe last 2 decades when it comes
to climate realism.

Yeah. Yeah. And, obviously, Heartland led
the way here. You're, we we're apretty young group. Just formed
in 2015.
Will Happard was one of thefounders, and so we'll be
celebrating our 10th anniversaryin 2025 next year. Plan to have
a conference in DC, to celebratethat. Can't we can't hope to
approach what you guys have donein the past. But, no, it it's

(14:58):
great. It's great workingtogether for the same goals.
And, again, we're we're we sticktry and stick as much to the
science as we can and stay outof politics. And I think that
served us well because it allowsus to at the c o two coalition,
we're now being sought out forby by people in various states

(15:19):
and at the federal level to toget our advice, because we
aren't highly political.

Jim Lakely (15:25):
Yeah. Yeah. Yep. Well, okay. And and we just have
before we move on, we have acouple of comments here in the,
or couple comments here in thechat saying, you know, hey.
Stop crowing and tell us aboutHeartland UK, what it is about
or promote it. Okay. Fine. Idon't know. Put it up on screen.

They wanna get involved. Yeah. There's several
people that have asked to getinvolved. Let's tell them how.

Jim Lakely (15:45):
That's right. So, to be honest, we just started.
Lois' job Lois Perry's job atHeartland UK is going to be to
be the conduit. She hasconnections. She has context.
She is known. She's gonna bepromoting climate realism with
the support of the HeartlandInstitute and our intellectual
firepower. She'll be makingconnections with legislators and
other allied groups in the UK.So she's kinda the point person

(16:08):
for the messaging of climaterealism in the UK. I know that
they are making a website andyou probably can search
Heartland UK.
I don't know if it was ready yetbecause this all came together,
rather quickly. So, we will, wewill have more information.
We'll certainly be talking aboutthis, and I am certain we will
be having Lois Perry on thisprogram, in the very soon in the

(16:29):
new year to talk even more aboutit. So thank you all for your
support and your interest inthis and you'll be hearing a lot
more about it, very soon.Alright.
Let's see. I think we can get onwith one of our favorite
features on this show, which isthe crazy climate news of the
week. Let's see. Let me see if Ican hit it. We're we're we're a

(16:54):
little shut up.
Yes. Alright. So, actually, thatreminds me, people in the chat
have always also been asking,where's Linnea? Linnea is so

(17:14):
popular on this show. She isactually not on vacation.
She is at the HeartlandInstitute's offices today
recording 10 new climate at aglance videos, in the very
successful series of, I think,Sterling, it was 31 or 32 videos
of climate at a glance that wereleased in 2024. It's close to,
I think, 800 1,000 views on allof those videos. And so a new

(17:35):
round of those is coming in2025, and she's in the office
today, at this very moment,recording more of those videos.
And, Anthony is on vacation. Hethought he was off, but the rest
of us are working.
Alright. So our first our firstitem is from The New York Times,
and it is, a story actually,this the story the where the

(18:01):
story came from is is a littleinteresting because, it was from
back in October, but the holdon. I'm saying, let me put it on
screen. Alright. So so thisstory is called is titled
Climate Change Should Make YouRethink Home Ownership.
Now, the story itself was fromOctober. It's by Benjamin Keys,

(18:23):
who is an economist andprofessor at Penn's Wharton
School of Business. But it gotinto the news this week because
he testified in a senate hearingon climate recently. And so,
this story actually came upduring the testimony. And he
writes here, and I'd like to getyou guys' reaction to it.
He writes, homeownership is notsimply a financial decision, but

(18:43):
also a deeply emotional one.It's core to the American dream,
representing financialpermanence and a sense of
stability for young and oldfamilies alike. But climate
change is most likely makinghomeownership more expensive and
less predictable in large areasof the country. It's only
getting worse. As insurancepremiums and property taxes rise

(19:04):
and future home values grow moreuncertain, it's time for some
prospective buyers set on livingin areas with high risk of
hurricanes, floods, wildfires,and tornadoes to reconsider
homeownership as a financialgoal.
Renting is quickly becoming abetter way for many people to
enjoy these places with muchless financial baggage. Now,

(19:26):
again, this guy is an economist,and so his point here is he's
saying that people won't be ableto afford to live in places
certain places because of achanging climate, hurricane
zones, for instance. But he alsoadds in property taxes claiming
in part that, quote, towns andcities must pay for resiliency
and repair efforts related toclimate change. So his overall

(19:48):
thesis, and, I'll quote thislast little bit from the story,
is, quote, we've seen littleevidence that house prices truly
capture the cost of climatechange, but the prices of houses
in places with growing climaterisk should reflect that risk
and eventually decline. Thatmeans some homes won't end up
being the good investments thatthey now appear to be.

(20:10):
So, Gregory, I'm going to startwith you. You live in Florida.
You lived, actually, in the lastbig hurricane strike, just south
of Tampa. Are you moving anytimesoon? Do you regret owning a
home?
And do you think, your propertyis gonna be worth a lot less
because the climate change isgonna make it uninhabitable or

(20:31):
uninsurable?

Not not at all. We, we just purchased a new
home here in Florida and soldour old home to my my daughter
and her husband, and there arefamilies living in it. And, it's
not not only has it not beendevalued, it's worth twice what
we paid for it 4 years ago. Sothey're number 1, debunked.

(20:52):
Number 2, hurricanes are not Iwhen we just, when I moved here
south of Tampa, though, theyeverybody I talked to is, don't
worry about hurricanes.
Tampa never gets hit byhurricanes. You know, we haven't
had a hurricane here in a 100years. I guess I'm a hurricane
magnet, And Helene came up witha lot of water. Actually, our
bookkeeper had, her own wasdevastated. We did a a a

(21:15):
fundraising campaign.
We raised, over $30,000 for her.Just all of our our members and
and and subscribers chipped in.And then Milton came, not long,
3 weeks later. It was making abeeline for my front door, and
so we said we're gonna bail outof there. And, we actually

(21:36):
traveled across the state toVero Beach to a friend's condo.
We couldn't have picked a worstplace to go. That's where that
swarm of tornadoes came through.We actually got hit by our condo
got hit. Like, a tornado cameright up highway a one a. But
the fact of the matter islandfalling hurricanes in the
United States and in Floridahave been in decline.

(21:58):
It's contrary to what they'resaying. We can pick apart piece
by piece of everything they havein that story.

Yeah. They look. I've been before we were
talking about climate change'simpact on coastal communities, I
I've been looking at propertyrights issues, and I was looking
at insurance issues andsubsidized flood and hurricane
insurance that the governmentdoes in in writing about, how it

(22:32):
encourages moving to thenuisance. It encourages poor
decisions, because people wannalive in the coast, and then when
the government subsidizing youlive in the coast, I will
rebuild if you get destroyed,then the cost of doing it, it's
it's moral hazard. So I waslooking at this before there was

(22:53):
climate change, and, I havelooked at the data from before.
I looked at the day now. There'sno question that some people
have moved away from fromcoastal areas. Some people
didn't go back to New Orleans.But all of the population
centers on the coast thateveryone's talking about, they
need to get out of there.They'll they'll oh, climate
change will travel away.

(23:13):
Climate change there's noevidence of it yet. They keep
growing. People are willing toput up with the occasional
disaster. Look. You know, it'sbeen going on earthquakes have
been a problem for Californiafor years.
People are leaving Californianow, but it's not because of
earthquakes, it's because ofpolicy. Same you know? So people

(23:35):
wanna live where it's nice,where the weather's good most of
the time, where they have niceviews. They move into forest
despite forest fires. And soyou're gonna see this it's not
gonna change.
The interesting thing about thisstory, and I think one of the
people said this is, this is oneof those, you will own nothing
and be happy about it. Right?This is what the UN is. We gotta

(23:56):
get rid of property. Right?
It they say rent. Okay. Rent. Doyou think that those people who
own the properties that rent theproperties, they pay taxes?

Jim Lakely (24:13):
Yes. They do pay taxes. Sterling's having
connection problems today alongwith the It's crazy. Having a
cold. Greg Gregor, let me askyou a question and

we'll see. Mortgages are filled, you know,
figured into the rent. So it'snot like you're saving money by
renting.

Jim Lakely (24:27):
Right. Well, Sterling, you're having some
connection problems. You fellout there a little bit. But,
actually, I wanna ask an exitquestion, and this is I think a
lot of our guys and gals in thechat have alluded to it. And
that's this.
Is is it legitimately moreexpensive to insure homes? I
mean, legitimately moreexpensive to insure homes in
hurricane areas or floodplains?Or is part of this the industry

(24:50):
taking advantage of the kind ofhype you see constantly in The
New York Times and other majormedia outlets that hike up those
prices? You know, is is in otherwords, is reality affecting
insurance rates for homes likeyours, Greg, or is or is the
media hype that never and thereality never really lives up to
the hype having a a big factoron that?

I don't have any data one way or the
other, but you would have tothink, if you are living in a
where we are, you we expected topay a little bit more for
insurance. But I think, youknow, that's that's legitimate.
You can look at the tables andfigure out what the but I think
they they've probably used thatto to greatly accelerate. But a
lot of times I hear peopletalking that that we it's been

(25:34):
stated many places. You can'tget insurance anymore in these
areas.
Well, I live in a in a in aflooding zone a. I'm 10 and a
half feet above sea level. So,you know, our flood our
insurance is a little bithigher. It's it's not cheap, but
it's not, you know, crazy, man.You gotta remember, one of the

reasons insurance is going up is people
are putting more and moreproperty, more and more valuable
property in places wheredisasters are you know, natural
disasters occur. So, you know,it's called like expanding
bull's eye effect. When you'vegot more people and more
property and more valuableproperty, you you replace a bait
shack or a couple of boat rentalplaces with a luxury condo. It's

(26:21):
more expensive to insure becausethey have to pay out more, and
they do when, natural disasters

Jim Lakely (26:33):
yep. 100%. Alright. We can move on to our second
item here, and that is, well, itconcerns a pretty special
iceberg. And this is from, theclimate realism.comentry by,
Anthony Watts, who is who is offtoday, but, he lives on through

(26:53):
this contribution to the show.
And this was from this week at,climaterealism.com. I definitely
recommend y'all check out thatsite. We have at least 3 new
debunkings of media alarmismevery single week. But he writes
that in July 2017, CNN and anumber of other media outlets
posted stories about iceberg a68 calving off of Antarctica's

(27:18):
Larsen C ice shelf, with CNNsuggesting that we should be
freaked out, unquote, about itbecause of climate change. CNN
was wrong, writes Anthony.
It was based on an incompleteunderstanding of iceberg
formation and calving driven bya rush to judgment to further
the false climate disasternarrative. And then see Anthony

(27:39):
cites another CNN story thatstated, quote, there is no
disagreement among climatescientists about whether humans
are warming the earth by burningfossil fuels and polluting the
atmosphere with greenhousegases. We are, and we see the
consequences. And by that, hemeant the trillion tongue
iceberg A68 that broke offAntarctica in 2017. Now, the

(28:00):
surface area of, iceberg A68 in2017 when it calved was 2,200
square miles, which is close tothe size of the state of
Delaware or, for ourinternational audience, about
twice the size of Luxembourg.
Now, I think we shouldn't havenamed it something boring like a
68. I mean, it's it's aimlessand it's adrift and it portends

(28:23):
doom and reminds people ofDelaware, so it obviously should
have been named Joe Biden. So,anyway, let's have a picture of
that. So this is, this isiceberg. This is a picture from
space.
I mean, gosh. It's so big. Youcan see it from space,
obviously. Iceberg a 68approaching South Georgia
Island, which is, famous, Ibelieve, from the Shackleton

(28:44):
expedition. And then we haveanother picture here.
Is that the first one? Thesecond one. Yeah. There's
another picture. There it isagain, a clear shot.
And there were some GIFs thatshowed its motion, but they were
mostly covered in clouds and itgave me vertigo. So I didn't
include this in the show today,but you can see how massive and,
actually kind of beautiful that,iceberg was. So, anyway,

(29:05):
continuing on, Anthony is,highlights that a new study
published in GeophysicalResearch Letters tosses, quote,
ice cold water on thoseoverhyped media claims. The
study, McKee et al from 2024analyzed 47 years of
observational satellite datafrom Antarctica and found that
there has been no trend inannual Antarctic maximum calving

(29:28):
size between 1976 and 2023. Thekey findings of this study are,
1, there has been no detectableupward trend in the annual
maximum iceberg area inAntarctica since 1973 based on
satellite measurements.
2, the break off of iceberg a68, little Joe Biden, from the

(29:49):
Larsen c ice shelf was notstatistically notable. Three,
calving events several timeslarger than anything observed in
the modern record could occurand still it would not
necessarily be due to climatechange. Now the papers authors
are clear that the calving of a68 was, quote, statistically
unexceptional in the historicsatellite record. So let that

(30:11):
sit in, writes Anthony Watts.The author's paper the authors
of the paper write, quote, thisfinding suggests that extreme
calving events such as therecent 2017 Larsen C iceberg, a
68, are statisticallyunexceptional and that extreme
calving events are notnecessarily a consequence of
climate change.

(30:31):
So, Sterling, we will start withyou. This is seems to be yet
another panic that turned out tobe perfectly normal and within
the statistical range ofnormalcy. But even I'm surprised
by this one because, gosh, thaticeberg is pretty damn big. I
mean, if you can see it fromspace, that's a big that's a big
item.

It's a big item, and we've we've got a big
planet, and it's a small item inrelation to the entirety of the
planet. The water that it storesis small in relation to the,
water in the ocean. In the end,you know, this report said, what
we've written about, you know,there's a debate as to whether

(31:13):
Antarctica is losing or gaining,ice. In in the east and central,
it seems to be gaining on thewest and the and our peninsula
is losing. That's largely due tosubsurface volcanic activity,
warming it from below,increasing the ice flow.
Ice has always flowed though. Itit it, pushes out. And, the the

(31:35):
importance of this report isthat it it shows it's not
increasing. It's not gettingworse. They're not bigger
icebergs than we've ever seenbefore.
And of course, remember, we'veonly been in our arctic for a
very very short period of time.We've got no idea what the size
of icebergs might have brokenoff 70 years ago, much less a

(32:01):
100 years ago, and even evenfurther back. They cover the
satellite record. Remember partof the satellite record they're
covering was when the earth wascooler. So during this period of
warming, starting from when theearth was cooler and and people
were warning of the next ice agethrough the period that they
say, the hottest on record, icecalving hasn't gotten worse

(32:24):
despite the claims.

Jim Lakely (32:28):
Yep. Greg?

Yes. Well, I think the key point here is
they talked about the ice shelfbreaking off. Now bear in mind,
ice shelves are floating onwater just like the northern
polar ice cap. And the fact ofthe matter is, if we melted the
entire northern polar ice cap orthat particular shelf melted, it

(32:51):
would do nothing to raise sealevel. Because as you think
about the Titanic and theicebergs, that 90% of that
iceberg is is underwater.
So as it melts, it dis it's it'sdisplacing the water that have
been there. You get and and soyou can melt. You you can do
this experiment at home in awith a large jar. Just fill it

(33:11):
up, mark the line of water, putsome ice cubes in it, and the
ice cubes, when you put them in,will raise the water up. But as
they melt, the the water levelstays the same.
So ice floating on water, evenif it's a huge amount like this,
iceberg, won't do anything torise to raise sea level.

Jim Lakely (33:32):
Yeah. Yeah. Well, that's all true, and, you can go
to climate realism.com to, toread that story in full and,
lots of other stories thatdebunk mainstream media, lies.
Let's just say it. Lies aboutthe climate.
You wanna be generous, they areill informed, and they are most

(33:52):
journalists are not veryscientifically literate, and you
can tell by reading by readingtheir stories.

Oh, but they're lazy too. An
environmental group puts out a apress release, and they take it
as gospel. They don't researchit. They assume that because
they're an environmental group,they're already working in the
the public's interest, because,god, they want a good
environment for people, whichisn't necessarily true. They

(34:19):
they they want what theyconsider a good environment, but
it may not be the best forpeople.
In fact, they may want fewerpeople. A lot of these
environmental groups are likethat. So but they take it as
gospel. They don't research it.They're just lazy.

Jim Lakely (34:32):
Yep. Alright. Well, our last item here is is going
to be, a really, maybe thefunniest one we've had in a
while. And these this is thiscomes from our friends at the
World Economic Forum, who peoplehave mentioned earlier. They
said you will own nothing andlike it.
I guess you're still gonna beable to own your own clothes,
although we'll see that might bean open question. But the, the

(34:55):
World Economic Forum in a poston their website and a video
that circulated on social mediathis week says that scientists
are urging us to wash ourclothes less to help save the
planet. And, they put up alittle one minute video that we
will show you all now. And soscientists are urging us, yes,

(35:16):
because laundry has a hugeenvironmental impact. It says
70% of the c o two emissionsgenerated by a cotton t shirt
come from washing and drying it.
Laundry also puts detergents andmicrofibers into waterways,
which is damaging to ecosystems.Too much washing also wears out
clothes faster, meaning more aresent to the landfill. The EU

(35:36):
alone produces 2,200,000 tons oftextile waste a year, and
experts at the Society ofChemical Industry say we
shouldn't wash our clothes afterevery wear. They say jeans
shouldn't be washed more thanonce a month. And jumpers or
sweaters once a fortnight.
Pajamas once a week. And theexceptions, of course, are
underwear. Yay. And gym clothes,which should be washed after

(35:57):
every single wearing. If using amachine, try the lower
temperatures and shorter cycles.
And they ask, how often do youwash your clothes? And so there
you have it. There is so theredoesn't seem to be a single
aspect of modern life, guys,that the environmental wackos do
not feel the need to lecture youabout or perhaps if they had the

(36:22):
power to, obviously, ban andregulate it so that you can only
do things that they like asoften as they like and to hell
with what you think. So, howoften do you wash your jeans,
Greg Wrightstone?

My jeans can go for 2 months. I'm not
worried about that. But I wasway ahead of the curve on this.
I haven't done laundry inprobably 15 years. In fact, I'm
not sure where the where thewasher or dryer is located
because I have the there'sapparently, the the laundry
genie that when I'm out, takesthe laundry and it shows back

(36:54):
up.
I I don't know how it works,but, so I'm way ahead of the
curve on that.

You said that openly. You have a wife, and you
probably have, you know, maybe ahousekeeper. I would be very,
very concerned. I'd be veryconcerned that, you said that
openly. They they may they maynot be happy about that.

My my wife would laugh at it. Yep.

Jim Lakely (37:21):
You know,

who would have thought homeless people are the
true environmentalist, you know,because they they, you know,
their clothes never get washed.We should all live like that.
Evidently, we don't own homesand we don't wash our clothes.
So, that's that's the that's themove that they want us to make.

Jim Lakely (37:42):
Yeah. Well, I mean

My, you know, my look. My clothes get washed,
once a week. Sometimes I'm theone doing the washing. Sometimes
my wife is the one doing thewashing, but we put we put them
in our hamper after we use them,and they're washed once a week.
That's how often it is, and thatso my jeans may not get washed.
They certainly don't get washedafter one one wear. My shirts

(38:06):
typically get washed after 2because, you know, I'm sitting
in front of a computer all day.It's not like I'm sweating them
up. When I go outside and domore, you know, look, my hunting
clothes get washed after everyhunt. I go out hunt, they come
back, they get washed.
And if I'm spending timeoutdoors, or if I'm doing a lot

(38:29):
of work in the house. Butregardless of what I do or how
Greg handles it or how Jimhandles it, it's none of their
effing business.

As long

as I'm willing to pay for the water and I'm
willing to pay for the energy, Idon't believe in the social cost
of carbon, and, they have noright to tell me what to do. Now
they're trying to. They're doingit through the DOE, making my
washing machine less efficient,less effective. So they may get
their wish. Right?

(39:01):
Because if washing machinesdon't work, I'll I'll I
guarantee you, I'm not going outto the stream with a stone and
washing my clothes there.

Jim Lakely (39:08):
Disconnected. Yeah. You just stole it right out of
my mouth because, you know, Iwas gonna ask you guys, do you
are you guys curious about howoften I wash my, my pajamas or
my t shirts? And my answer isNot

at all.

Jim Lakely (39:21):
It's none of your damn business how often, and
it's my business. And if I feellike washing it by accident,
even if I didn't, you know maybeI put it on and decided to
change my mind and threw it onthe bed. And then I come in
there the next day, and there itis. And I can't remember if I
wore it or not. Guess where it'sgoing?
It's going in the hamper. But,you know, but this it's just
this insidious idea from ourmedia and from our, you know,

(39:42):
these global organizations, likethe World Economic Forum, that
think that they have the right,frankly, to tell everybody how
to live their lives. I know theythey try to get and this is
where this starts. I mean, it isfunny. And we we cover this kind
of stuff a lot on this show.
It is funny that they have awhole video. I wonder how much c
o two, was was used, how muchhow much was emitted making that

(40:04):
video because, you know, serverstake up a lot of energy,
actually. But that that theyfeel like they have the right,
frankly, to tell you how oftenyou should wash your clothes.
And, you know, it reminds me of,like, what JD Vance in, in an
interview he did with, withsomebody on one of those Sunday
shows. Like, do you even hearyourself?
I mean, how are you supposed tobe appealing to people and and

(40:26):
to their better natures when younever have a limit? You never
know when to stop, and it justseems like this is a great
example of that. Anyway, there'smy gym rant for the day.
Somebody in the chat was askingfor one. I probably could've
yelled a little louder, butthat'll have to do.
Okay. Alright. So we have aactually, we like to share a
meme, every every week, and wehave one. I think, Sterling, you

(40:49):
may have found this for us. Ormaybe it was, maybe it was
Anthony.
This is a meme. Greta in 2065looking quite wrinkly. And she
says, we only have one month tosave the world because the
message never changes no matterwhat.

Is it just me, or does she look amazingly like
Hillary Clinton?

Jim Lakely (41:07):
She does she does seem to be on a Hillary track in
the future, I have to say.That's unfortunate, but alright.
Great. So our last, we can getinto our main topic now, which
is which is why we're so happyto have, to have Gregory on this
program today, and that is a newpaper that is out by, the CO 2

(41:32):
Coalition. Nobody well, we haveour international conferences on
climate change.
Of course, we have manydifferent panels on a lot of
different subjects, and one ofthem is always kind of, like,
keeping track and explainingcarbon dioxide in the
atmosphere, how much is human,how much how much is humans
putting up there, how much is istrivial to nature, what does it

(41:54):
look like in historical recordgoing back tens of 1000 of years
or even from the industrialrevolution and all of that. And
Gregory is usually headliningone of those panels or at least
or several of them when it comesto c o two. And so they have a
new paper out today, this week,and we'll put it here on the
screen. Human contribution toatmospheric carbon dioxide, how

(42:15):
human emissions are restoringvital atmospheric, CO2. So
again, Gregory, maybe you cankind of take us through this
paper's findings, its mainpoints, and conclusion.
And I would ask our audience ifyou have questions, any
questions at all relating tocarbon dioxide in the
atmosphere, this is the chanceto ask them.

Yeah. We there are a couple of pretty
important matters when it comesto carbon dioxide and then also
climate, how it might affect thewarming effect of the earth. In
this one, we we stuck we didn'taddress anything on the warming
effect of carbon of carbondioxide, but rather stuck with
why have we had a 50% increase,of carbon dioxide for about 280

(42:59):
at the end at the beginning ofthe industrial revolution to 420
today. That's a 50% increase.And there were some reports out
recently, that claimed quitecategorically that it it's not
due to our emissions, it's alldue to nature.
Well, think about that. Mycolleagues at the c o two

(43:19):
coalition, I couldn't find one.I did recently have someone
contact me, that was he heneeded to learn more, but of all
the scientists, they wereshaking their heads going, no.
And so when this was very muchneeded to to look at the science
and document, you know, what isthe source of that 50% increase?

(43:40):
And we use 7 different lines ofevidence, to to to confirm that
the majority, probably 90% plusof of the 50% increase is from
our human emissions.
And what these people are sayingthink about it. What they're
saying is if you add hugeamounts of a gas to the

(44:04):
atmosphere, it will not increasethe levels of that gas in the
atmosphere. Just looking at itsimply like that, you go, well
well, no. It's gotta increaseit. And so we've we've been
adding this, and I think thatone of the big things we look at
here one of the first things asgeologists, as I look at, is
we're in an interglacial period.

(44:26):
We know over the last 800000years based on, Antarctic ice
core data that during eachinterglacial period, sea level
or c o two levels increased from200 or so parts per million,
maybe 185, during theinterglacials, up to up to 285,

(44:46):
rarely above 300. But this thisinterglacial is completely
different. We're we're at 420today. Huge increase from the
previous ones. And what welooked at here was that that
something's different duringthis interglacial demand, and
that thing that's different isthe emissions of of fossil
fuels.
There's a brand new source of co two that never on earth's

(45:09):
history has ever beenintroduced. We're we're
liberating, the carbon that waslocked up and burning it and
emitting carbon dioxide fromcoal, oil, and gas source rocks.
And, and so we we look at that.There were claims that, there
were very high levels of c l twoas recently as 19 forties that

(45:30):
had gone up over 500. But thoseare most of those are based on
the late Ernst Becks,measurements using chemical
methodology, and we look atthat, in this paper.
I'm not gonna go into detailabout that, but that the
chemical methods and and alsothe paleosol or not paleosols,
but the stomatal measures areare really not very good

(45:51):
measurements. And I'm not gonnago into the details why they're
not, but using the ICE coredata, which, Renee Hannon, our
expert, calls the gold standard,There's something else going on
here. Well, also, we can lookat, the mass balance. We and
when that by that, I mean, weknow pretty clearly how much gas

(46:13):
c o two is being emitted by us,pretty accurately, not not as
act not pretty accurately whatthat is. We also know very
accurately, how much of that gasis showing up in the atmosphere
by the atmospheric levels.
And we only find that, there'sonly half of the gas that are
being admitted that actuallyshows up in the atmosphere as

(46:37):
increases. And so what's what'sthat mean? That means it's going
somewhere, and that somewhere isnature. Nature is a has to be a
net sink, not a net sink, not anet source. And that's pretty
pretty clearly dominated.
If only half of the of ouremissions are showing up in the
atmosphere, it's goingsomewhere. Where is it? Nature.

(46:58):
And so we look at this. We alsolook at it was a fascinating
it's a it's pretty high levelscience here that we look at.
Yeah. I I learned a lot goingthrough this. For example, we
looked at carbon 14 isotopedata, and I'm a geologist, and
I've learned a lot about this.Carbon 14 is radioactive isotope

(47:21):
of carbon that breaks down. It'sgot about a 52100 year half
life.
And so that means you've got bythe time you're about 60,000
years out, there's no carbon 14left in the rocks if it was
deposited. And so these sourcerocks for oil, the coal, there's
no c 14 when you burn them.There's 0 that comes out, and we

(47:44):
see that there's a decline of c14 in the atmosphere, which is
another confirmation that thatthere's a lot of carbon dioxide
being part of the atmosphere.Part of the others is it was
coming from the oceans becausewe know that the a warming ocean
in the other glacials actually,was a was a net source. But here

(48:05):
we find that, we can documentpretty clearly a number of
different ways the c o two isincreasing in the oceans.
The p c o two, is increasing,which means that the pH has been
slightly declining, and it lookslike it's declined over, the
last 60 or 80 years about 1tenth of of of a pH level. So

(48:27):
we're right about, I think,around 7.9 right now. Remember,
7.0 is is is a neutral pH, andanything above that is is
alkaline. So the alkalinity ofthe ocean has has declined,
which confirms it's absorbingmore c o two into the ocean.

(48:47):
It's not getting rid of it.
It's actually adding. There wereother lines of evidence here,
that we used that, we're notgonna go into all of these, but
it was just one line at line ofevidence after another. Just
really, I think we put a stakein the heart of this nature as
the source of these emissions.And bear in mind though, that

(49:08):
you you'll be told that, a verysmall percentage of that carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere isfossil is coming from fossils or
fossil fuels. And and that mightbe true because, you remember, c
o two's gonna be recycled, overtime in a pretty short basis.
So maybe you've got a maple treein your front yard that use,

(49:29):
let's just say, 100 molecules offossil c 02, and then it brings
in in the spring and summer. Andthen in the fall and winter, it
sheds its sleeves, and that 90of the 100 molecules for fossil
are are remitted through,decomposition and now become c o
two from nature. So there's alot of recycling going on. But

(49:52):
but there's there's there'spretty categorical evidence
that, that we are the reason.And we like c o two.
We don't think it's it'ssomething to be embraced. Here
at the c o two coalition, ourunofficial motto is, we love c o
two and so should you. And fromthat, we see, that, you know,

(50:13):
just by almost every metric welook at, our ecosystems are
thriving and prospering, andhumanity's benefiting from
modest warming. So it's warmedabout 1.2 degrees Celsius over
since 18 50, and that warmingmeans we have longer growing
seasons. It's huge for crops.

(50:36):
That's it's a really good thing,and we're seeing most a lot of
that warming count comes in, notin the heat waves or the hot
temperatures, but rather anincrease in nighttime coldest
temperatures that's driving upsome of this warming. And then
the c o two is justturbocharging plant growth and
crop growth. But but, again, I Ilearned so much, through the
creation of this, and we'rediving and delving. Right now,

(50:59):
we're we're researching more onc three, c four plants, and it's
it's fascinating what I'm whatwe're learning there. We'll be
coming out with a report on thatpretty soon.

Jim Lakely (51:12):
Yep. Okay. Yeah. We can we can, we can go back
through a little bit of thepaper. I think I had I put some
charts up there.
Greg, if you have your, I'mgonna throw I'm throwing
something to Sterling here inthe questions even though we're
not officially at the q and asection. But Sterling is
chomping at the bit while hisvoice holds out to address the
question. But, Greg, if you ifthere are a couple charts that
you think are are good to pointout in the thing, you can, you

(51:32):
can tell me about them, in amoment, and we can bring them up
on the screen. But, Sterlingwanted to address, a specific
question here in the chat.

It wasn't a question. It was a comment. It
was

Jim Lakely (51:40):
a comment. It was a comment. Yeah. Here it is.

And, is that the one? Yeah. That's the one.

Jim Lakely (51:46):
So the let me just read it out for for people just
listening to the podcast today.So the question is this is from
Luke Starkenberg. So thequestion is, can nature keep up
with human caused emissions?Sounds like it can't keep up
because the c o two levels keepgoing up. So go ahead go ahead,
Sterling, and maybe Gregory canalso hit on this as well.

And the answer is, no. Nature's not taking all
the c o two out of theatmosphere that we're adding to
the atmosphere. It adds it takesabout half of it out. And then
the question is, so what? Youknow, unless you think c o two
is dangerous, it doesn't matterif c o two goes up.
In fact, as Greg and his grouppoint out regularly, it's good.

(52:29):
At one time, c o two levels, youknow, not at one time, over the
history of the over the yearsgeological history, which is a
lot longer than 1,000, 2,000,10000 years, which we're always
obsessing over, c o two levelhas been much higher. And in
fact, c o two is largely drawndown over time, gotten compact
into carbonaceous rocks, some ofwhich we have opened up when we

(52:54):
when we grind them up forconcrete, limestone, and things
like that. And, we've releasedit back into the atmosphere.
Most plants evolved at timeswhen c o two was much higher.
If we don't capture all the c otwo, that's okay because in part
well, the new c o two is goodfor plants, but also because c o

(53:16):
two only captures certainradiation bands in the
atmosphere, and they're alreadycovered largely by water vapor.
So more c02 doesn't necessarilylead to more warming.

Yeah. That's Greg, guys, Sterling hits

Jim Lakely (53:32):
add to that.

Well, Sterling's right. Yeah. We're
not nature's not keeping up withthe amount of c o two coming
into the atmosphere, and I I'mokay with that. If we're looking
again, we're looking at corn,which is c 4 crop. Now c 4 crops
evolved in a low c o twoenvironment, and they don't need
as much c o two for optimumgrowth.
So it might be that, perhaps andI don't know. I'm not gonna

(53:55):
state this as a fact, but lookslike for corn and c fours, maybe
3.50 or 400 parts per millionare optimal for plant growth.
But put a c o two meter in acornfield. Let's just say, okay,
we're 420. Put a c o two meterin a in the middle of a
cornfield on a a windless day inAugust, and you'll find that c o

(54:16):
two levels instead of 420,they're down at 320, 300,
really, really low levels, andthat's because the c o two the
corn is just sucking c o two outof the atmosphere.
It's fascinating. But if you geton a tall step ladder and get up
out of the corn, it'll be backup to around the ambient 4 20

(54:36):
levels. So if we have evenhigher levels for corn, then the
corn would would actually growmuch better even if their
optimal levels levels were at400 or 350. The c threes are
much more or or most of thecrops that are being grown and
or known nowhere near optimalcarbon dioxide levels for those.

(54:58):
They'll they'll continue being,turbocharged for, you know, it's
it's gonna be what are we gonnabe, 200 years till we double or
more than that before we doublec o two.
And so that's a good thing. Whatwe're seeing year after year,
we're seeing crops. And in mybook, I captured the top 8 crops
in the world, and they're tonsper acre that are produced, and

(55:19):
they're just breaking recordsyear after year after year. And
it's from the coldest countriesto the hottest countries like
India. India's crop growth, andand they used to have terrible
famines and, crop failure.
They don't have it anymore. Theyhaven't had it in in decades.
It's because of a number ofdifferent things. GMO crops are

(55:39):
are now being used that, handledrought better, but it's also c
o two fertilization means thatthey handle plants handle
drought much better. They don'tneed as much water, And so we're
that's why we're seeing part ofthe reason we're seeing that the
the Sahel there was a new UNreport claiming that the the sec
there's desertification in theSahel.

(56:01):
Heck no. Just the opposite.200,000 square kilometers of the
Southern Sahara, the Sahel, arenow the lush grassland and
farmland. They were desert 68years ago. Yep.
And so they lie about thesethings. Flat out lie, and it's
disinformation campaign forpeople we should trust. And, you
know, we've got we we saw this.I think people had their eyes

(56:24):
opened in the COVID era that,you know, we found out that
there was straight outdisinformation and
misinformation, and people lyingabout things that they knew were
were incorrect. And I I thinkwith the at the end of this,
we'll look back.
And maybe maybe it might justpretty coming pretty soon, but

(56:44):
they'll be exposed that it'swhat's going on in climate
change, science, what passes atscience, it it will make the
COVID misinformation look itwill pale in comparison, because
we see it. I know Sterlingshaking his head. Yes. We see it
every single day. It's just not

you know, I wish it I wish it work so rife
in climate science. But, youknow, it seems that the the the
more government gets intofunding science, the more fraud
there is in science to gatherbig money in it because it's
it's not just climate science. Ithink I saw, research that

(57:22):
showed about half of the studiespublished in medical journals,
have been shown to be false.They went through peer review.
They got a lot of headlines, andnow they've had to withdraw them
or issue, you know, what is onthe view they ask you legal
notes.
Well, you know, they they issuescience and say, no. Well, no.
This it turns out this isn'tright. And that's because

(57:44):
there's lots of big money inthis, and so it's corrupted
science. It's not the pursuit ofknowledge.
It's the pursuit of funding.

And it turns out

disaster and disaster garners funding.

And it turns out, if you're a scientist
in academia, and you propose orfind they have a finding that
disagrees with the with the 97%con consensus, you're probably
probably gonna be lucky if onlyyou get is losing your funding.
You might be fired. And thereare very few or you're at the

(58:20):
least, you're at the most you'regonna, rich risk being disgraced
and held in contempt by yourpeers and contemporaries. There
aren't many brave scientists asit turns out out there. There
are few, but but not many.
We have one with the c o twocoalition that was doctor Byron
Sapoia. He worked he was doingwriting papers on sequestration,

(58:42):
carbon removal andsequestration. He he read
articles on are are challengingthat 0. It opened his eyes. He
learned more, and he contactedus and said, I'm I'm working for
the wrong guys.
You know, I'm working for theEmpire. I wanna go work for Luke
Skywalker and Will Happe. And,and so he actually he quit his

(59:03):
job, and I said, man, I gottahire this guy. So he's working.
He's a science and researchassociate, doctor Byron Sapoian,
and he's doing great work forus.
And so but look think aboutthat. He he walked away from a
job. How many people would dothat? So he used to be
congratulated. We need moreByron Sapoians, if you were,

(59:24):
doctor Michael Manns.

Jim Lakely (59:26):
Yeah. We got, you

know, Matt Matt Wilicki is another example
of that. Right? Yeah.

Jim Lakely (59:29):
That's right. That's right.

But the sad the sad thing is, I understand
that it's brave to walk away andstand up for your principal, but
we need guys like that stickingin the university and turning it
around because most people areeducated there. You know, it's
sad that Willicki and andSepoyan had to leave academia,

(59:50):
to be honest. We need academics,honest academics, and the
university setting.

Yeah. Yeah. We see that, we've got a really
neat book. We've I've just I I Iauthored my first comic book.
It's a new series of books wecame out.
I I worked with doctor PeterRidd, who's a prime example of
this. It was, you know, the bookis Chloe the clownfish sleeps
well. It's about a clownfishthat lives on the Great Barrier

(01:00:18):
Reef, and and she's been told inschool school that, you know,
that her the reef was beingdestroyed and she was in great
danger. So I I worked with PeterRidd. He and I collaborated, on
this.
But, you know, Peter Ridd was hewas fired from I think it was
James Cook University, becausehe he told the truth about what
about the good news of the GreatBarrier Reef, that it's it's

(01:00:41):
very, very healthy, and maybe ashealthy as it's been in 30
years. And he's I believe hesettled recently with with the
university. Mhmm. But, he youknow, we get we don't have many
Peter Ridds, and we we need morePeter Ridds and fewer Michael
Manns.

Jim Lakely (01:00:57):
Yeah. Well, hey, Greg. So we're gonna get we have
some q and a here, that I wannaget some definitely some
questions that we start overhere in the chat. I think there
are a lot of really good ones,but I wanna ask you, Let's just
say you and I got into anelevator, and I'm getting off on
the 10th floor. You have 10floors or about maybe a minute
and a half to tell me why thispodcast, the title of, this

(01:01:19):
edition of the Climb RealismShow is human c o two emissions
are a good thing.
What do you tell somebody whoasks you a question about that,
when you only got 10 floors totell them?

Gregory Wrightstone (01:01:28):
Oh, just crop growth is the is clearly a
huge example because you canincorporate both warming and and
admit that it's warming, and itis. But but in the continental
United States, our growingseasons lengthened by more than
2 weeks since 1900. That's greatfor crops, and, crops are fueled

(01:01:50):
by more carbon dioxide. And justabout every crop you look at is
breaking growth records yearafter year after year, and it's
mainly attributed to carbondioxide fertilization. I think
that's the big one.
Or they or to tell them that ourlevels today are at near
historically low levels, that wewe don't have too much c o two.
We don't have enough. We'reactually in c o two starvation.

Yeah. And one of your one of the founding
scientists at the CO 2Coalition, Professor Emeritus of
Physics at Princeton University,doctor Will Happer, when he is
invited on occasion on cablenews networks and other places,
he will make the point that,historically, we are, as a
planet or this planet is, Ishould say, historically, in a

(01:02:33):
long term view, c o twodeficient, compared to where it
should be.

Yeah. And, yeah, Will HappeR is a force of
nature. He's so well respected.I've, you know, I've I I learned
so much every time I talk tohim. And, I'm like it was it was
just one Will HappeR storyquickly.
We it was maybe a year and ahalf ago. I was or no. It was

(01:03:00):
right at the beginning of theBiden administration. I said,
I'm rereading Atlas Shrugged.And he says, that's a
coincidence.
So am I. I'm reading. But hesaid, I'm reading it in the
original Russian. Who does that?Who reads Atlas it's tough
enough in English.
Who reads Atlas shrugged inRussian? Will Haber does. And
so, no. He he's an Americantreasure.

No no doubt. No doubt. Alright. Let let's get to
some of the questions here,while we can. Here's one from
from Jay Bledsoe.
He asked, how much confidence doyou have in the proposition that
humans are causing all or mostof the atmospheric c 02
increase? What about naturalwarming causing c 02 to come out
of solution in the oceans?

Well, we attribute, we we in our paper,
we we we looked at the warming,and, we attribute about 10% of
the, additional c o twos fromthe warming in the atmosphere.
So that is but we know but weknow the ocean is a net sink. It
just is. And we we would usethat we we look at carbon you

(01:04:06):
can look at that confirm it withcarbon 13 versus carbon, ice
carbon 13. And I'm not an experton that, but that's one method.
We also know that the pH of theocean is slightly being reduced,
which indicates that c o two'sincreasing in the ocean. It's
not being reduced. They'rethey're it's pretty pretty

(01:04:29):
categorical. If you if you lookat our paper, and it's it's a
deep dive, and some it's notit's not difficult science, but
there's a lot there to back itup. We wanted to make this, this
paper ironclad, peer reviewed.
And I think we've we've prettymuch fully documented. And I do
realize, people say, well, no.No. It's well documented. The

(01:04:51):
temperature precedes c o twochanges.
That's correct. That's what it'sbeen for the last several
1000000 years until we startedburning lots of of fossil fuels.
That it all changed when westarted liberating lots of the
carbon and carbon dioxide thatwas locked up in the in the coal
swamps. Look at back in theCarboniferous period. It was at

(01:05:13):
26 100 parts per million untilthe coal swamps started forming,
And it fell to under 400 partsper million in in a geologically
short period of time.
If if our carbon dioxide levelsin the in the atmosphere could
be reduced by putting creatinglots of coal, we can increase it
by liberating lots of, by byburning lots of coal.

Yep. Yep. Yes. Yes. Yes.
Yes. Okay. We have some more. Wehave a lot of questions,
actually. Maybe this is a let mesee.
This is a good one here. From aregular viewer, Chris Nisbett.
He says, please explain how thefirst 100 parts per million of c
o two has a greater warmingeffect than the second 100 parts

(01:05:58):
per million.

Yeah. The the, that's that's been captured
laboratory as a laboratory.Doctor Appler uses paint on a
barn. I like mine a little bitbetter. Let's just say, if you
got a front window and you put aa coat of white paint on your
front window, and that'll knockout what?

(01:06:22):
A lot of the light, and then youput another coat of white paint
on it, and that knocks out alittle bit more of it of the
light, but not as much as thatfirst coat, and so on and so on
and so on. And so what we do is,the c o two in the atmosphere,
there's only there's only thereare only so many infrared rays
that it's called saturation.It's it's actually it's c o

(01:06:45):
two's is not saturated, but it'snearly saturated in the
atmosphere. It's it's alogarithmic decline in its
warming potential. And, I knowwe'll I'll get an email from,
Will Haber saying, you didn'tsay that quite correctly.
That's where I he he he keeps mefrom going too far astray. But

(01:07:06):
but again, yes. It's it's thefirst 100 parts per million has
more of a warming effect thanthe next 100 and so on and so on
and so.

A logarithmic relationship to it.

Gregory Wrightstone: Logarithmic. Right. (01:07:16):
undefined

Right. So so, actually, so Bill, Pekney has a
related question. Maybe maybeit's worth addressing here. He
says, I understand that c o twois saturated in the air today.
So how do I address biologiststhat insist there's an upper
limit on c o two that helps cropgrowth?

Well, the saturation has only to do with
the warming effect of it. Cropgrowth has come something
completely different. And, Iwill tell you that I I, Bill
Pekney and I have workedtogether. He's he lives in,
Utah. I hope I'm not telling anystories.
He loved our billboard, and hesaid that we put up. So, at his
suggestion and his a little bitof help, he had us put up a

(01:07:56):
billboard last year that says,sleep well, there is no climate
crisis, and that rotated aroundSalt Lake City for, I think, 6
months, And people were drivingby, and heads were exploding.
But, Bill, there's, 2 differentthings. The saturation has to do
with warming and the, c o twobenefiting crops. It just has to

(01:08:17):
be with the crop fertilizationeffect.

We have another, Abel Windsor, a a regular on
both, viewer of both thisprogram and the In the Tank
podcast on Thursdays. He'sciting, I suppose, a, academic
paper, Shane et al from 1991.Water vapor is 98% to 70% of the
greenhouse effect based onatmospheric conditions. Maybe
you can talk a little bit aboutwater vapor versus c o 2?

Oh, water vapor is the is the largest
greenhouse effect we have. ButI've I I'm not familiar with
that paper, but, the physiciststhat I talked to, Linz and
Happer, Steve Coon, and, theother physicists that we have at
the coalition, especially WillHapper, you know, they think
that it's around it can vary,but it's probably around 70%,

(01:09:08):
and that c o two might beanother who knows,

you

know, what the percentage is. But it's it's
certainly a a minority of thewarming effect, and water
vapor's predominant one. I don'tthink it's it's 98%.
Particularly, we see that, andit it varies because water vapor
water in the atmosphere can varygreatly. And and diff you know,
where depending where you are inthe desert, so Antarctica is

(01:09:34):
very low on water vapor.
But I I think the 98% is, youknow, 70, 80%, I think, is is
more in line with what we'll seewith, the amount of warming from
from water vapor.

Okay. Let me, let me get this, Doug Troyer, another
regular to the program. Thankyou for being here with us
again, Doug. He says they stillhave no idea what is human and
natural. It's just notdeterminable.
And I guess and I suppose hemeans the the level of c o two
in the atmosphere. How much isit attributed to nature? How
much is attributed attributableto human activity? Can you

(01:10:09):
address that? How how close arewe, or do we know the answer to
that?
How much is human? How much isnature?

I think I think we can get close, and I
think we have in this paper. Weknow we know what it should have
been based on the otherinterglacial periods. Other
interglacial periods were around300 parts per million. Or at 420
today. And just looking,comparing today versus where we

(01:10:37):
should have been without ouremissions, which a little over a
100 parts per million is butagain, that's not the c o two
from fossil fuels is beingrecycled all the time, and, you
know, it it's taken up by plantsand then readmitted.
But but it's a 120 parts permillion, I think, is is

(01:10:57):
attributable. We would be at 300parts per million if we weren't.
Another way to say it is wewould be around 300 parts per
million if we weren't liberatingthe carbon that was locked up
1000000 of years ago.

And extending the the length of making life better
for every human being on earthin exponential ways since the
industrial revolution. No.

No. Sorry. Go ahead, Sterling.

Sterling Burnett (01:11:23):
Yeah. So you say about 300 parts per million,
and I'm not gonna dispute that.But I'd like to point out to our
audience that during the lastice age, carbon dioxide levels
dipped to about a 180 parts permillion. And in a 150 parts per

(01:11:44):
million, photosynthesis stops.Plants die, and when plants die,
we all die.
So what happened after we cameout of the last ice age? Well,
it added about a 120 parts permillion to the atmosphere, a
140. Right? It went from, itwent from a 180 to 270, 280 to

(01:12:12):
300 in the early part of thecentury before we started
pumping out the CO 2. So naturedid have a role in current CO 2.
It's just that where it standsnow, most of it is, human's
contribution.

Yeah. There it again, it's that this this
paper was very much needed,because there's some incorrect
science out there. There's someothers that we'll be attacking
here. There've been recentpapers claiming that, the green
there is no greenhouse effectand and c o two has no warming
effect. Well, that's just andand they're they're using

(01:12:51):
strange ideas to back this up,and hopefully, I've I've got it
in front of me today.
It's, we'll be putting somethingout by one of our our our
members, Kevin Kilty, on this.And Yeah. I'm I'm in front of
I'm I'm I'm hopefully may havethat out this weekend. But but
again again, there's you know,we're as scientists, we have to

(01:13:13):
stand for scientific rigor, andwe have to show what the true
science is. Whether it comesfrom our erstwhile allies, and
if they get it wrong, we we needand and we need we need to point
out what's right and what'swrong.
Yeah. And we see a lot of bad,bad, bad science coming from the
climate alarmists. But butagain, we we need to stand as

(01:13:35):
scientists for scientific rigor.

Yeah. I mean, one of the things one of the things
that is a hallmark of all 15 ofthe Heartland Institute's
International Conferences onClimate Change when scientists
from all around the world gettogether is that something that
will probably shock a lot ofalarmists or critics of
Heartland is that there's a lotof there's quite a bit of
disagreement from a lot of thescientists on, on on the
science, on on or theirconclusions of what the data

(01:13:59):
tells them. You know, you're ageologist, Greg. We have Will
Happers, a physicist. We haveatmospheric scientist, Willie
Soon, a very good friend of theHeartland Institute, and we'll
have to have him on this programagain very soon.
His specialty is the sun. Andso, you know, you bring
scientists together and it's amultidisciplinary field where
you you to understand theclimate, you need you need

(01:14:21):
experts from all sorts ofdifferent disciplines in order
to get a a good grasp on thebigger picture. But, so in that
spirit, one of the things thatwe also address on this show,
the Climate Realism Show, andpeople come on this show to get
some answers. And here, ThomasSchule is, watching today and,
we hear this from time to time.And he he says that c o two has

(01:14:42):
no effect on the climate.
The greenhouse effect is amathematical artifact of the so
called equilibrium climatemodels, with a flat earth in
constant in constant insulation,no night. Not quite sure about
the rest of that. But maybe,Greg and and Sterling, you can
address the idea that, carbondioxide, isn't really a

(01:15:02):
greenhouse gas or maybe one thatwe shouldn't really worry about
that it's not, it's not havingthe effect that the media and,
you know, mainstream scienceseems to play.

2 things. The latter part of what you said is
right. We don't need to worryabout it. The former part, I
will defer to Greg. My suspicionis he will disagree with this
statement.

I'm I'm thinking he might.

You think? Yeah. It's just not right. It's
and I I'm a geologist, but Iwork with some of the top
physicists. This we're talkingabout physics here and
atmospheric physics, and there'sno better atmospheric physicist
in the world, perhaps, than WillHapper.
I work with work with Dick Blinsand Will Happer. Again, top
physicists in the world. We'vewe've published many papers.

(01:15:49):
William Windingarten at theUniversity of Toronto of of
Toronto. These we've documentedand go in great detail the
science behind this.
It's, again, it's no. C o 2 thegreenhouse effect is real. It's
and, thankfully, it's real. C otwo has provided warming of the

(01:16:13):
atmosphere, thankfully, but it'snot anything alarming. And, it's
oh, I I would I would steer,mister Shula towards the many
papers that we've written andcoauthored, about this that
support

It's warming, but it's also a diminishing
impact.

Correct. That's why there was never
runaway heat. There was neverrunaway warming when when c o
two levels got to 6 8000 partsper million. Right. And we we
should I it's I'm okay withthat.
Good. I like it warm. That's whyI'm living here in Florida.

Yeah. Alright. And we have to we have to go.
Sterling, despite his, his wearycondition, does have a radio
appointment here pretty soon, soI just wanna put one more. What
a trooper.
I'm gonna put one more questionup here, and I think we can
maybe address it. This is froman account called Ocean Weather
Services. He or she says we areadding greenhouse gases to the
atmosphere at double the ratethat the Earth system can absorb

(01:17:11):
them. I think we touched on thisa little bit in a previous
comment, so I thought maybe wecould hit it again here at the
end of the q and a.

Yeah. Thankfully, we're we are
emitting twice as much, c o twosthat are showing up in the
atmosphere. That's a good thing.I mean, a lot of that's taken up
by photosynthesis, and that'swhat's driving the greening of
the earth, the greening of theSahara. And and we should
celebrate, not demonizeincreasing c o two.

(01:17:39):
And so, you know, when you getin your internal combustion
engine vehicle, which I hopeyou're driving and not an EV,
you can be thankful that youremissions coming out that tail
pipe are actually helping tofeed the world, and the and the
world's hungry. So that's a goodthing you're doing right there.

And and some of it's being absorbed in the by
the phytoplankton and planktonin the oceans, which is good for
sea life. Right? We haven't wehave entire areas of the oceans
they're called dead spotsbecause it doesn't have a lot of
nutrients. And we can putnutrients in there and it will
create life. It will attractfish life because it creates
plankton and phytoplankton andpart of that's being absorbed.

(01:18:19):
And most of it is not acidifyingthe ocean. It's sinking down
when they when those things die,they're sinking down to the
bottom and get locked in justlike it has done, by the way,
throughout the history of theEarth.

Right. As as petroleum geologist, I did a
lot. We we looked at the at thisat these organic rich shales and
mudstones that are the now thesource rocks we're we're
targeting. And a lot the organiccomponent there was algal algal
there were algal blooms thatbloomed and died and sunk to the
bottom, bloomed and died andsunk to the bottom. And it was
certain geologic conditions,allow these to accumulate over

(01:18:53):
many thousands or 100 of 1000 ofyears into these thick organic
rich rocks, like the MarcellusShale, the Utica, and others,
Barnett Shale in Texas, and thePermian Basin.
They're tapping these organicrich they're mostly algal
blooms. They're they're in theywere unfortunately called fossil

(01:19:13):
fuels. And I guess if if algaeis a fossil, they're right. But,
but now we should celebratethem. We're liberating all of
this.
It was it's been entrapped for1000000 of years and wanting to
get to the surface.

Doing our part for the carbon cycle. You know, we
don't get enough credit for it,I guess. There you go. But, I
wanna thank our, our guesttoday, his very special guest
and friend, Gregory Ridestone.He's executive director of the
CO 2 Coalition.
You should visit CO2 Coalitiondotorg, where you can read the
the new paper that they just putout, this week, I think, or

(01:19:47):
last, about carbon dioxide. It'sa great resource for learning
more about the planet and c otwo's effect on it. I also wanna
thank our, you know, men andwomen here in the chat. Greg,
you you had, Thomas, Schulle,had had, put up a question I
thought was a good challengingquestion, and now we have people

(01:20:08):
in the chat. He's he's aphysicist, and we have other
scientists going at each otherin the chat in in live time,
which my eyes keep lookingtoward, which, again, is part of
the point of this program andthe and the kind of debate that
we want to, foster, not justhere and in the scientific
community, but in the popularcommunity as well.
I want you I want to, urge allof our our listeners and viewers

(01:20:30):
to check out our streamingpartners, that being junk
science.com, CFACT, ClimateDepot, and what's up with that.
Always, every day, visit climaterealism dot com, visit climate
ataglance.com, and also, ofcourse, visit heartland.org,
where you can subscribe for freeto Sterling Burnett's Climate

(01:20:50):
Change Weekly newsletter. Iwanna say, again, thank you to
Greg. Thank you to Sterlinghanging in there like a trooper
in your sick condition. I wannasay Merry Christmas, happy
holidays, happy Hanukkah, andhappy New Year to you all, and
we will talk to you next year.
Bye bye.

All Episodes

Human CO2 Emissions Are a GOOD THING - The Climate Realism Show #139

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

.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;}Human CO2 Emissions Are a GOOD THING - The Climate Realism Show #139