Straight Talk: Climate Q&A Marathon with guest Chris Martz – The Climate Realism Show #160 - Environment and Climate News Podcast

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

Greta Thunberg (00:12):
We are in the beginning of a mass mass
extinction.

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

Anthony Watts (00:22):
The price of oil has been artificially elevated
to the point of insanity.

Sterling Burnett (00:26):
That's not how you power a modern industrial
system.

Andy Singer (00:29):
The ultimate goal of this renewable energy, you
know, plan is to reach the exactsame point that we're at now.

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

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

Jim Lakely (00:56):
That's right, Greta. It is Friday, and this is the
best day of the week, not justbecause the weekend is almost
here, but because this is theday the Heartland Institute
broadcasts the climate realismshow. My name is Jim Lakeley.
I'm vice president of theHeartland Institute. We are an
organization that has beenaround for forty years and known
as the leading global think tankpushing back on climate

(01:16):
alarmism.
Heartland and this show bringyou the data, the science, the
truth, and when we're fortunateenough, excellent guests to
counter the climate alarmistnarrative you've been fed every
single day of your life. Thereis nothing else quite like the
Climate Realism show streaminganywhere, so I hope you will
bring friends to view thislivestream every Friday at 1PM
Eastern Time, sometimes 01:12 or01:08PM eastern time. Sorry for

(01:41):
being late. And we also ask youto like, share, and subscribe,
and leave your commentsunderneath this video. These all
convince YouTube's algorithm tosmile upon this program, and
that gets the show in front ofeven more people.
And as a reminder, because bigtech and the legacy media do not
really approve of the way wecover climate and energy on this
program, Heartland's YouTubechannel has been demonetized. So

(02:04):
if you wanna help the program,and I sure hope you do, please
visit heartland.org/tcrs. That'sheartland.org/tcrs, which stands
for the Climate Realism Show,and you can help make sure that
we bring this show to the worldevery single week. Any support
you can give is warmly welcomeand greatly appreciated. We also
wanna thank today our streamingpartners, JunkScience.com,

(02:26):
CFACT, What's Up With That, thec o two c o two coalition, and
Heartland UK Europe.
I hope you will find and followall of these accounts on social
media and also become asubscriber to this show on the
Heartland Institute's YouTubeand Rumble channels. So big show
today, let's get to it. Today wehave with us as usual, Anthony
Watts, senior fellow at theHeartland Institute and

(02:47):
publisher of the world's mostviewed website on climate
change. What's up with that?Sterling Burnett, director of
the Arthur B.
Robinson Center on Climate andEnvironmental Policy at the
Heartland Institute. LaneaLukin, she's research fellow for
energy and environment policy atHeartland. And as always, we
have Andy Singer, our producerand senior digital media manager

(03:07):
at Heartland in the backgroundmaking sure that this show looks
great and flows professionally.And we are so happy to welcome
back to the show Chris Martz.Chris Martz is a freshly minted
meteorologist, getting hisdegree just last month and has
been irritating climatealarmists and credentialed
scientists with inconvenientdata throughout his college
career on social media,especially on X.

(03:30):
The New York Post just did astory on Chris Martz where you
called yourself the anti Greta.That was an excellent piece on
you, Chris. Congratulations, andwelcome to the show. Oops. There
is no audio coming out of Chris.
So this is why we were a littlelate coming on the show today to
begin with.

His his audio is probably directed to the other
stream you set up.

Jim Lakely (03:53):
Yep. Maybe. Chris, you wanna try speaking, see if
we can hear you? Nope. Cannothear you.
Alright.

Let's let's cut off the stream to his
audience and just get it for ouraudience.

Jim Lakely (04:04):
Yep. Alright. I do love his hat, though. I asked I
asked Chris to to wear that KatDiesel power hat, and he does
have it on, so it's a shame wecannot hear him talk. Nope.
I think, Chris, you need to getout of the show. Maybe you have
to dump back out or come back inif you can't figure it out. All

(04:24):
right. All right. Well, heyguys.
We can definitely hear all ofyou, right? Anthony, Sterling
and Lanea?

Yeah, I think so.

Mike, check. We're all here.

Jim Lakely (04:35):
We are all here. Well, we're working to get Chris
Martz back on the show and gethis audio working, of course,
are doing this is a specialshow. We have such an active
chat here on the livestream ofthe Climate Realism show, and we
usually save part of thestructure of the program to have
questions, your questions andour answers at the end. There's

(04:59):
so many good questions, we can'treally sometimes get to all of
them, so we probably next willdo an entire show with just Q
and A after we get through thecrazy climate news of the week,
which we're going to get tomomentarily. Going to wait to
see if Chris Martz has audio, ifyou can unmute him and see.

(05:19):
No? Okay.

Live shows. Had him. Had He was working.

Jim Lakely (05:28):
Yes. I think I jinxed it. Anyway, let's go
let's go to our first segment,and it is the crazy climate news
of the week. Hit it, Andy.Alright.

(05:53):
Thank you, Bill Nye. We have alot of really crazy fun stories
to get to today. I've titled thefirst one, Shut Up, They Say.
This came from X. This is ashort video from UN Secretary
General Antonio Gutierrez, whosays that we need more
censorship of people whodisagree with the climate
cultists or on anything, really.

(06:14):
Anyone who disagrees with oursupposed betters needs to shut
up because they have big plans,you see, and just speaking your
mind tends to get in the way. Solet's play that video clip,
please, Andy.

Antonio Gutierres (06:25):
The platforms are being misused to subvert
science and spreaddisinformation and hate to
billions of people. This clearand present global threat
demands clear and coordinatedglobal action. Our policy brief,
oops, information integrity ondigital digital platforms puts

(06:48):
forward the framework for aconcerned international
response.

Yeah. Yeah. Whatever.

Jim Lakely (06:55):
Yeah. Remember, that's the guy

that that the oceans are boiling, so he lost
all of his credibility with thatone statement.

Jim Lakely (07:02):
Right. Speaking of this And by the

way, he's not saying shut up, we say. He's
saying, we will shut you up, by

the way.

It's he's not asking us to nicely just
withdraw and and keep our mouthshut. He wants a coordinated
global action to suppressspeech. Something that the
little thing that we have in ourconstitution called the First
Amendment specifically forbids.

Chris Martz (07:25):
One a.

Well, he doesn't get that because he's in the EU,
you know, and they thinkdifferently over there.

I don't see Gutierrez. Is he from the EU or
South America?

Jim Lakely (07:35):
He's from South America, but he's the, secretary
general of the United Nations.

UN. Yeah.

Jim Lakely (07:39):
Yeah. So so so, Linea, I know, you know, we we
see another call from forcensorship every few months, it
seems, from these globalistcentral planners, and they don't
seem to realize it's not 2023anymore. We're not gonna shut
up, and God willing, at leastAmerica's Government under
Trump, unlike unlike underBiden, is not going to be

(08:00):
looking to censor people who goagainst conventional wisdom or
the dogma or the people inpower.

Well, I mean, if he stopped hitting this
drumbeat, then he'd be doingnothing at all. Right? I mean,
I'm fairly certain that the UNSecretary General's only job is
to just cry about something onTV as much as they can. So,
yeah, what exactly does he dowhen he's not talking about
global destruction in some wayor another, whether it's like

(08:31):
capitalism or climate change,whatever it is. So, yeah, I
think, Jim, that he would be outof a job if he was no longer
doing this, if only.

Well, I think two years ago, that would be a
terrible thing.

Yeah. Terrible. I'd cry.

Jim Lakely (08:49):
Mean, two years ago, this kind of hits differently
because, you know, they werecensoring people and they they
did have the power to movegovernments to shut up their own
citizens. I mean, it's happeningstill in The United Kingdom. I
think you can be arrested forposting something on Facebook or
X that offends the sensibilitiesof somebody in a certain way,

(09:11):
then, you know, you can bearrested. It's happening in
places, but it's not happeningin The United States anymore.

They just arrested a couple of people in
Belgium for standing on thestreet with a placard. Two
people standing on streets withplacards, not blocking traffic
as far as I could tell, notdoing anything other than
holding up placards abouttransgenderism. And they got
arrested. You know? But theydon't have free they they don't
have a first amendment overthere.
You know, it seems to me thatthey don't get that they sort of

(09:36):
missed the window. 1984 is fortyone years in the past now,
folks. Newspeak does not ruleand hopefully never will.

Jim Lakely (09:47):
Yep.

Yeah. You know, maybe since this guy is from
South Africa, we should pushback with him and say, what
you're practicing is climateapartheid.

Jim Lakely (09:57):
Well, he's from South America.

He's from South America. South America is
from saying EU.

Oh, they used to be together way back

where he's from.

He's from Portugal. Yeah.

Jim Lakely (10:08):
Oh, he's a pro see see I see, look.

Well, he was EU. Alright. My apologies.
Anthony. We'll see you afterall.

Jim Lakely (10:14):
Alright. Well, let's move on then. We've we've
properly bungled that wholething. Let's move on to our
second item, which is there isan EV ship adrift and a blade.

For platforms.

Jim Lakely (10:26):
This this comes from Microsoft news. A cargo ship
vanished in smoke with over3,000 cars and EVs still trapped
below deck. We'll read here fromthe story a little bit. EV sales
might not have caught a light inthe way automakers hoped, but
news of another shipping firereminds us that electric cars
sure are combustible. The cargoship was on its way from Asia to

(10:48):
North America when a fire brokeout, forcing the crew to abandon
the vessel in the middle of thePacific Ocean, leaving thousands
of brand new cars on board.
The morning Midas departed Chinafrom Mexico on May 26 carrying
roughly 3,000 vehicles,including around 800 electric
cars. But eight days into itsnineteen day voyage, just after
midnight on June 3, smoke wasspotted billowing from one of

(11:12):
the decks. UK based ship ownerZodiac Maritime, which manages
the vessel, has since confirmedthat the fire originated in the
section of the ship carrying theelectric vehicles. Now this
happened this ship caught ablazeand was abandoned about 300
miles off of Adak, Alaska, whichis very remote. My

(11:33):
brother-in-law actually wasstationed there in the Navy.
But Sterling, I'm gonna go toyou as I know how much you love
electric vehicles. So ifelectric vehicles are indeed our
future and that future ismandated by government, then I
guess ships randomly ignitingand burning for days is also in
our

future. Ships, parking garages, outdoor parking
areas, buses, you know, anywhereelectric it's electric vehicle,
you're liable to have,spontaneous combustion. You
know, at one time, peopledebated whether humans
spontaneous combust. There's nodebate that electric vehicles

(12:13):
and electric batter you know,the batteries that go into them
do. I I don't understand how anyshipping company any shipping
company that ships electricvehicles at this stage can't get
insurance at all.
I would never insure a ashipping company that agreed to
ship electric vehicles. Youknow, in England, they now have

(12:33):
to in junkyards or or in repairyards, they have to separate
them x number of feet taking upvaluable space. If they did that
inside the ships, you'd have,you know, whole or areas
cordoned off. They neededcompletely new types of of fire
suppression systems. They need,like, bulkheads between electric

(12:54):
vehicles and everything else andthen a special fire containment
system, for the EVs.
Maybe just a system that sucksall the oxygen out of the air in
that container. I don't know ifthat would put an EV battery
fire out, but we know sprayingwater won't do it. So, it it's a
EVs are a disaster in everysense of the word.

Yeah. You know, I was looking at this thing
drifting and burning, and I wasthinking if Johnny Cash were
alive today, he might write asong about it. It would go like
this, and it burned, burned,burned the boat of fire.

Jim Lakely (13:38):
Very good. Very good. Alright.

And it's in the ring of fire there, isn't it
too?

Yep. Yep.

Jim Lakely (13:45):
Very clever. It is in the ring. It is in the ring
of fire out there. Right. Let'ssee.
We're still working just to givethe audience an update. We're
still working on getting Chrison the show. He'll be here soon.
No worries there. Let's go on toour next item.
This is I've titled it theultimate thirst trap. And so

(14:05):
this is actually comes to us.Anthony Watts suggested that we
cover this story today. This isfrom the New York Times. It's
not just poor rains causingdrought.
The atmosphere is thirstier.Higher temperatures caused by
climate change are drivingcomplex processes that make
droughts bigger and more severe,new research shows. I'll read a

(14:26):
little bit here from the story.Look down from a plain at farms
in the Great Plains and theWest, and you will see green
circles dotting the countryside,a kind of agricultural
pointillism. They are fromcenter pivot irrigation systems,
but some farmers are findingolder versions, many built ten,
fifteen or even twenty yearsago, are not keeping up with

(14:46):
today's hotter reality, saidMeatpaul Kukal, that's the name,
an agricultural hydrologist atthe University of Idaho.
Quote, there's a gap between howmuch water you can apply and
what the crop demands are, hesaid. By the time the
sprinkler's arm swings backaround to its starting point,
the soil has nearly dried out.The main culprit? Atmospheric

(15:06):
thirst. Quote, a hotter world isa thirstier one, said Solomon,
I'm not even gonna try thatword, a hydroclimologist at the
University of Oxford.
He led a new study published onWednesday in the journal Nature,
which found that atmosphericthirst, a factor that fills in
some of the blanks in ourunderstanding of drought over
the last four decades, has madedroughts more frequent, more

(15:26):
intense, and has caused them tocover larger areas. Now,
Anthony, you know, think that'senough for the gist to get where
they're going with this study.As I mentioned, you brought it
up and you're a little hot aboutit today. So have at it.

Yeah, it's the most ridiculous article I've
seen out of NYT in the lastcouple of months. You know, this
whole atmospheric thirst thingis nothing but
anthropomorphamide. I can't evenpronounce it. Anthro

you know, when when they try to make take

something that is human and make it into something
else, you know, that's whatthey're doing here. They're
trying to make make it seem likethe atmosphere is thirsty, like
it's a living entity. And that'sjust ridiculous on the face of
it. But scientifically, it justdoesn't hold up either. You
know, the when you look atglobal water vapor and you can

(16:16):
see it in our climate realismpost that we did today we saw
record high global water vaporin 2024.
And this is data that comes fromthe EU on their Copernicus
website. So if we've got recordhigh global water vapor already
in the atmosphere, how is theatmosphere thirstier? It isn't.

(16:38):
The whole thing is just a bunchof made up hooey, and they're
trying to basically scare peopleto say, oh, you know, this is
one more thing that climatechange is causing. You know?
It's it's causing the atmosphereto be thirsty when there's no
such thing. You know? It's justabsolutely ridiculous. If you'll
scroll down here a little bit,Andy, you'll see a a graph that

(17:00):
I was referring to. And thatgraph shows there it is.
Look at that. We've got recordhigh water vapor in 2024, yet
somehow, the atmosphere isthirstier. Well, I'm calling BS
on that.

Anthony hammers the anthropomorphism and
the, thirsty you know, theatmosphere needing more water.
I'll hammer, two other things.First off, they claim that,
droughts are worsening. The datarefutes that. Droughts have not

(17:37):
worsened.
They haven't become longer thanthey have been historically.
They have not become morefrequent or more severe than
they have been historically.That's just the data, folks. It
does not show that. Secondly, Ibelieve didn't you I didn't you
read the title, Jim?
It said something about lessrainfall or or in the first

(17:57):
paragraph, it said lessrainfall. In fact, what the UN
itself says, what the data showis we've got more rainfall in
the regions that they're talkprecisely they're talking about.
We we have, improvedprecipitation. So the soils
can't be drier if you've gotmore rainfall, and there can't

(18:18):
be more drought if there'sactually less drought or the
same drought as before. Thisstory, you know, the the claims
that they make are based oncomputer models, not data.
And when computer models makeone projection and the data
shows something completelydifferent, you're supposed to
follow the data if you're ascientist, not the made up

(18:39):
models, which are just tools.And and in this case, bad tools.

Jim Lakely (18:45):
Yeah. Yeah. We we I would suggest people can go to
Climate@aGlance.com where youcan see we have a section on
everything you can think ofabout the climate. One of the
sections under the extremeweather tab is drought, and that
contains the latest data so weknow so you can get the facts
and it debunks a lot of what wasin that New York Times story.

(19:06):
Okay.
We're gonna try here again.

One one thing. This this atmosphere of being
more thirsty, if that was true,it would probably represent that
giant sucking sound that RossPerot talked about in the
presidential presidentialelection in 1992. Just
ridiculous.

Yep. Alright. I wonder if the atmosphere has a
sippy straw. Hello, Chris

Jim Lakely (19:34):
Can you hear us?

Can you

hear me now?

Jim Lakely (19:36):
Yes, sir.

Sorry about that.

Jim Lakely (19:40):
That is totally fine. We are glad to have you
here. So let's let's I think itdeserves an applause and some
cheers that Chris Martz is herewith us today. Right. Enough of
that.
So, Crit, before we go to ournext item, actually, glad you're
going be here for it in ourCrazy Climate News of the Week.

(20:00):
I just wanted to revisit what Iwas gonna talk to you before we
had those AV problems at the topof the show, and that is you had
a fantastic feature on you in inthe New York Post this week.
Congratulations. And alsocongratulations on now being a
credentialed meteorologist. Sonow you can, you know, now you
can finally speak.

Yeah. Now I can I can start I can start appealing
to my own authority? It's kindanice.

Right. But you know what?

I hear you.

It doesn't matter if you got a triple PhD. They
would say you're not qualified.

Well, you know, it's funny because when I was in
high school, when I starteddoing all this, they say, well,
you need you need to go get abachelor's of science degree to
do this. It's to speak, youknow, to get get a meteorology
degree, then then you'requalified. And then, you know, I
got that. And so now it's like,oh, you need to go to grad
school. You need to get amaster's.
And so if I did that, then it'syou need to get a PhD. And if
got a PhD, it don't matter. Imean, look at William Heffer,

(20:55):
Judith Curry, Roy Spencer. Theydon't care.

They don't

care about any of that.

They only care about

it when it's their side making a claim.

Correct.

When it's when it's it's our side making a
claim, credentials don't matter.

Yep. Absolutely.

Jim Lakely (21:10):
Well, mean, was like that famous quote from Albert
Einstein with his theory ofrelativity, you know, and all
these scientists came out andsaid that, you you're wrong. You
can't possibly be right. Andhe's like, why does it take so
many of you to say that if onlyone of you? I only need one
person to prove my theory wrong,not a hundred. And it's the same
it's always been this way inclimate science too.

Well, and if that's if it's the case that
they need you to be, you know, aprofessional in order to be
allowed to speak on this stuff,what's Bill Nye doing?

Yeah. They don't crush they don't question, Al
Gore's credentials or Greta's orOr Bill McKibben. Greta. John
Kerry.

Worst of all, Greta, but or Bill McKibben or
John Kerry.

Oh, Bill McKibben has me blocked on twit on x.

Jim Lakely (21:54):
Join the club, bro.

I got under x.

Jim Lakely (21:57):
That is all blocked.

I like How

dare you? I

make it a favorite pastime when they get under
people's skin, especially myhaters. It just I love living
rent free under I just startcharging them rent.

I wish, you know, I

read a month.

I actually reviewed Bill McKibbin's book,
The End

of

Nature, you know, two two and a half, three
decades ago, and he's a greatwriter. And and and he clearly
is this, this suffering soul.He's been suffering about the
Indonesia was in was writtenbefore he was talking about
climate change. He was talkingabout how humans are, yeah, is

(22:39):
no wild place left on Earththat's not unaffected by, human
activities, which is, you know,because he talked about, you
know, how pollutants fall evenin wilderness areas, things like
that. And he's and he's right,but he just he has come to
conclusion that you need a lotless people, you know, that that

(23:00):
they need to live like him.
He he's one of the people thatactually lives the lifestyle he
espouses for others. He I don'tthink his house is hooked up to
the electric grid. And I thinkhe's gone I don't know if he's
gone vegan. I think he wentvegetarian. But he he's such a
good writer.

(23:20):
I wish he'd move off the climatetopic and ride on something
else.

Jim Lakely (23:26):
Yep. So, so, Chris, how did it come about that the
New York Post reached out toyou? I mean, are you that famous
can you be that famous on X thatmainstream media wants to reach
out and do features on you?

Well, Chadwick Moore wrote the piece and so he
writes for them and he did aprofile on several other big,
like, conservative commentators.Data republican, the lady behind
that account, was the mostrecent one he did. And, I guess
she actually had well, hefollows me. He's followed me for
a long time, and he had wantedto do something with me for

(23:59):
quite a while. And he said,well, he basically wanted to it
after I got my degree because,know, it helps to have that
credential.
You know, you gotta play thatgame a little bit. But Chad
reached out to me after, Iguess, state of republican, the
the lady behind that told himthat he should do your profile
on me next because she's my goto climate person. So, that was

(24:20):
pretty cool. So he came downfrom New York City, interviewed
me in Charlestown, West Virginiabecause he came down to Harpers
Ferry, which is between my houseand Virginia, in Charlestown,
West Virginia. So we had lunchand we talked for probably two,
three hours.
And as he recorded the audio andthen, you know, he'll put the
important bits of information inthere. They sent out a
professional photographer to getsome pictures and there was

(24:41):
there was only two that were inthe article but it was probably,
there were probably like, youknow, two or three dozen
pictures total that they chosefrom. So, was a really cool
experience. It was cool to, youknow, I was a little nervous at
first because, well, I know it'sthe New York Post and I know
that he did a profile on peoplethat I, you know, I know, you
know, sort of kinda,acquaintances with. You know,

(25:02):
you don't want them to misquoteyou.
They don't you don't want themto,

I don't want them.

You don't want them to do that. So it, it's really,
I lost my train of thought. Youdon't want them to quote you
because that because then thatlooks bad especially if it's
like something like you'retalking about like, you know, my
college experience or something.You know, you don't want them to
misquote something like that andtheir editorial standards, I
asked them if they could readthe article to me like if she
could send like a preprint to mebefore they put it out. And he

(25:28):
said, they can't do that.
But he did run me through thearticle, the gist of it before
they published it, but withoutgoing through every bit of it,
which ended up being great. Soit was really cool experience.

Jim Lakely (25:41):
Well, I'm glad to hear it. Congratulations. As a
former journalist myself, I canunderstand the trepidation with
speaking to reporters. I don'teven like speaking to reporters,
I used to be one. Well done, andit's onward and upward for you.
Congratulations on yourmeteorology degree and being on
the show today.

Yeah, thank you.

By the way, Chris, I have a piece of advice
for you about talking tojournalists. If you're talking
to them on the phone or videochat or whatever it might be,
always record it Because thenlater, if they twist your words
into something that you did notsay, you can you can nail them
with it.

Yeah. That's a good idea. Yeah. I we he actually
recorded the audio himself, and,I I, you know, could have done
it myself if I had asked, but Ifigured since it's positive news
coverage because that's what itwas going to be, I figured I
didn't really need to worry toomuch about it. But, it was
really cool.
It was really cool experience,and my follower count jumped up
by, like, 20,000 in a day, whichis which is pretty awesome and

(26:38):
so, I like reaching new people.There's a lot of young people. I
mean, I already had a prettyyoung audience. I mean, there's
a lot of people in their 20s and30s who follow me. That's about
half of my audience.
If you look at the agedemographics which is cool
because, you know, a lot ofpeople say, well, it's it's the
climate deniers, quote, unquote,are getting old. They're dying
out. They're fossils. And, I'mnot a fossil. Linea is not a

(26:58):
fossil.
Nobody here is a fossil,actually. But, they talk about
people that are like 80 yearsold, they think, oh, they're
gonna die out eventually. Ithink Michael Mann may have said
that at one point. Don't quoteme on that. But a lot of people
were talking about how they'reall dying out.
So it's nice to have youngeraudience that's getting absorbed
into the fold here. And so it'sbeen a pleasure to educate young

(27:21):
people and there's even moreyoung people now who follow me
that are I see people like 22,20 three years old, like in my
tweets and stuff, so it's reallycool.

Jim Lakely (27:31):
Yep. Again, congratulations. Great. Alright.
Look.
We're gonna get on with our ourfourth item in the crazy climate
news of the week, and I've,called this category five
whining. This comes fromMediaite. This is the headline
Florida weatherman warns hewon't be able to accurately
predict hurricanes this summerbecause of federal budget cuts.

(27:53):
John Morales, a meteorologist atNBC six South Florida, had a
dire warning for viewers as thetwenty twenty five hurricane
season kicked off due to federalbudget cuts at the National
Weather Service and NOAA. Andbecause of those cuts, he would
no longer be able to accuratelypredict hurricanes.
You know, I I wasn't actuallyplanning on sharing this entire
video, but, you know, let's letJohn Morales have his full say,

(28:17):
and and then we can react to it.So can you please play?

John Morales (28:23):
Listen. I've been on this, you know, since since
08:00 this morning on socialmedia, and there is a lot of
anxiety out there because youdon't see it turning. Right?
When is it going to turn? John,it's not turning.
It's coming straight to us. It'sgoing to turn. Alright? The turn

(28:43):
was never forecast to be onSunday. The turn isn't even on
Monday morning.
The turn will come Mondayafternoon, Monday evening, into
Tuesday. Remember that? That wasabout six years ago. That was
hurricane Dorian as it wasabsolutely devastating. The
Northwest Bahamas as a categoryfive sat over that region for

(29:05):
two days.
It was headed straight west.Lots of people in Florida were
concerned the hurricane washeading here. And as you've
grown accustomed to mypresentations over my thirty
four years in South Floridanewscasts, confidently I went on
TV and I told you it's going toturn. You don't need to worry.

(29:26):
It is going to turn.
And I am here to tell you thatI'm not sure I can do that this
year because of the cuts, thegutting, the sledgehammer attack
on science in general, and Icould talk about that for a
long, long time, and how that isaffecting The US, leadership in

(29:49):
science over many years, and howwe're losing that leadership,
and this is a multigenerationalimpact on science in this
country. Alright? Butspecifically, let's talk about
the federal government cuts tothe National Weather Service and
to NOAA. Did you know thatCentral and South Florida
National Weather Service officesare currently basically 20 to

(30:10):
40% under understaffed. FromTampa to Key West including the
Miami office 20 to 40%understaffed.
Now this type of staffingshortage is having impacts
across the nation becausethere's been a nearly 20%
reduction in weather balloonreleases launches that carry
those radiosondes, and whatwe're starting to see is that

(30:32):
the quality of the forecast isbecoming degraded. There's also
a chance because of some ofthese cuts that NOAA Hurricane
Hunter aircraft will not be ableto fly this year, and with less
reconnaissance missions, we maybe flying blind, and we may not
exactly know how strong ahurricane is before it reaches
the coastline, like happened acouple of years ago in Hurricane

(30:54):
Otis in Acapulco, Mexico. So, Iwas asked to talk about this
today. I'm glad I was. I justwant you to know that what you
need to do is call yourrepresentatives and make sure
that these cuts are stopped.

Well, first of all, I wanna say weather
balloons are not used to,analyze hurricanes. We have
hurricane hunter aircraft forthat. A weather balloon wouldn't
stand a chance in a hurricane.So that complaint is completely
irrelevant. Right, Chris?

Oh, absolutely. And and a lot of these weather
balloon a lot of the weatherballoon data they launch, you
know, that's over obviously landif they do it at the weather
service. And a lot of that data,yes, it gets fed into models.
It's gonna have an impact on youknow, it could potentially the
produced balloon launches couldhave an effect on the modeling
situation. But to be fair, theGFS models complete garbage
anyway.
We should just use the Europeanmodel, because it's just far

(31:48):
superior, than the than the, I anickname for the GFS, but we're
not gonna say it here. That'smore for the Twitter page. But
weather balloon data isoverland. These hurricanes are
out of open water. So you're notgonna it's not gonna affect all
that that much when you'regetting that data sampling.
Know, it's only when it'sapproaching shore that you're
gonna be able to really launch aweather balloon and get any kind

(32:10):
of data for that. And right bythat point, it's already on as
Anthony said, it's already ontop of you. It's, you know, it's
okay. It's not gonna it's gonnafart the wind. It's not gonna
the chance it's at a chance.

I would question whether he's he's right
about the weather balloons, buteven if he is, I doubt he's done
a survey of all the weatherballoon launches. But even if he
is, what's what's what'sinconvenient for them is they
don't care about weatherballoons when the weather
balloons are telling you thetemperatures are not rising as

(32:39):
fast as the surface stations orthe models said they should.
Then they say, oh, well, youcan't trust the weather balloon
data. But suddenly, there arecuts being made to their
favorite agency. Not no somewhatNOAA as a whole, but most of it
to the Goddard Space, Institute,which has become the climate

(32:59):
scold of the nation.

That's NASA.

Yeah. That's right. I'm sorry. I apologize.
Yeah.
That's NASA. But, they'rethey're cutting they are cutting
some staff, but I would wager.I'm willing to I'm I'm willing
to put I'm not a gambling man,but I'm willing to put real
money on the line that theydon't miss a single hurricane
this year.

That

when tornadoes erupt, we'll know about

them.

I hear I hear about them all the time. You
know, what we know right now isthat, so far, there's been an
unusual low in hurricanes. Sofor I think it's the fourth year
in a row where we haven't had asingle hurricane in May, which
is outside of hurricane season,but what they usually have at
least a tropical storm orhurricane form. They did not

(33:48):
this year. You know, we're allthankful for that.
But the point is our radar andour systems, didn't miss the
fact that none formed, and Idoubt that they'll miss any of
them this year. Will we not beflying those those, hurricane
flights? Of course, we will.There there's no evidence
whatsoever that they are cuttingthe use of those airplanes,

(34:12):
during storm. That's that's justthat was just a falsehood.
That's just a a red

John Morales (34:17):
Right.

So I also There's not a there's not an
agency in The United States thatcannot afford budget cuts.

I also have some additional I have some
additional data here. I did somesearching on this to see where
in fact are the weather balloonsbeing cut from weather service
offices. And a summary producedby looking at different news
stories says, North CentralUnited States, particularly
states like Nebraska and SouthDakota, have experienced the
most significant cuts in weatherballoon launches. This is

(34:46):
followed by parts of the RockyMountains, Great Lakes Region,
as well as much of Alaska. Noneof these places have hurricanes.
So once again

Yeah.

Get complaining. Yep. Okay.

Another thing I'd like to add is that, you know,
when John Morales went on TV totalk about that, the cuts and
stuff, he's been on a wholeTwitter rampage about this for
for weeks, months. And, somebodycommented, they said, you know,
keep politics out of yournewscast. And and to be fair, I
don't care who, you know, who'sanybody's political views on,

(35:19):
think people should be allowedto post what they want on social
media. But if you're just givingthe weather forecast on
television, nobody cares. Youknow, to, you know, nobody wants
to see your, your jab at Trumpor a jab at Biden for that
matter, if you're justpresenting the weather.
So it's, and somebody said tostop doing that. Said, he said,
No, I don't think I will. So Ithought that was kind of, in my
opinion, arrogant on his part.And to more to add to Anthony's

(35:44):
in a in in a related subject onthat on this issue. You know,
when when during the BidenHarris administration, there was
a whole bunch of there werehundreds of millions of extra
dollars that were funneled intothe agency under their under
their under their watch and alot of that money went into
fisheries contracts and climate,you know, justice programs and

(36:06):
climate research and stuff.
Almost none of that money wentinto the National Weather
Service, which has been underunderstaffed and, you know,
arguably underfunded for formany decades. And this goes back
to the, you know, the break inyears. This isn't this isn't
something that's new. But all ofa sudden, because Trump's in
office, it's now it's now aproblem. It's now his fault.
That's all they do when theyblame Trump for everything.

But now that's

I can understand people don't like Trump, you
know, whatever, but but blamehim for everything that goes
wrong. It's just it's justasinine.

Well, that's similar what they've done with
the, air traffic controllers.Right? There were hundreds of
people short of air trafficcontrollers before Trump even
came into office. They've hadsome problems since Trump came
into the office early on beforeeven if his staffing even if he
did staffing cuts, they wouldn'thave taken effect before these
things happened. Same thing asthe weather service.
Right? But I still questionwhether they are understaffed.

(36:59):
Look. I I I looked at the EPAyesterday for for another
reason. They have 16,000employees.
16,000 employees. How many cutshave they made under Trump?
Seven hundred and three.

Yeah.

0.4.

I'm sorry. Under service.

I don't think our environmental, my
environmental health issuffering because 0.4% of the
staff of the EPA is gone. Yeah.

Well, you look at look at NOAA, they have 12,000
employees. And you look at theweather service, they have of of
the NOAA employees, there's fourfour eighty eight hundred of
them that work for the weatherservice. I mean, yeah, I mean,
you could arguably arguably saythat maybe some of some of the
offices have been understaffedfor decades. But do you really
need that many meteorologists onmost days to forecast the
weather, especially if it'ssunny and 75? No.

(37:49):
You only read you only you onlyreally need a fully staffed
office if the weather is, highimpact. But if you know? And
that's and that's in, like, theGreat Plains, you know, the
Northeast during the wintertime,you know, Florida during
hurricane season, the Gulf Coaststates, but on a part time
basis. So they don't need to befully staffed all the time,
especially if the weather isbehind.

Now nowadays, so much of it is automated.
Right? We have radar and sonarsystems that we never had
before. We are finding we we weknow about more hurt, tornadoes
now than we ever did andhurricanes now than we ever did,
not because of staffing atagencies, but because we have
technologies that discover smalltornadoes when they form that
you coulda had a weather, youyou could have fully staffed

(38:30):
weather service and not seenthose tornadoes because they
didn't appear to you know, theydidn't strike any place that
anyone knew about. When tropicalstorms and hurricanes form in
the oceans now, we know aboutthem, But you wouldn't have
known about them before unless aship crossed their paths.

Jim Lakely (38:46):
Yeah. You know, I I I wanted to bring up this story.
There's actually a there's asecondary story we can bring up
to kinda speak about this, butit's just this fear mongering,
this idea that if you cut, $1from federal funding, which is
always going up anyway, thatpeople's very lives are in
peril. It's such BS. This is astory that was from CNN and we
covered a little bit of this acouple of weeks ago on The

(39:08):
Climate Realism Show.
Headline is NASA scientistsdescribe, quote, absolute
shitshow at agency as Trumpbudget seeks to dismantle top US
climate lab. And it says herethat NASA scientists are in a
state of anxious limbo after theTrump administration proposed a
budget that would eliminate oneof The United States' top
climate labs, the NASA GoddardInstitute for Space Studies, or

(39:30):
GISS, a standalone entity. Inits place, it would transform
the lab's functions into abroader environmental modeling
effort across the agency. And itsays here, career specialists
are now working remotelyawaiting details of even and
even more unsure about theirfuture at the lab after they
were kicked out of theirlongtime home in New York City

(39:50):
last week. Closing the lab forgood could jeopardize its value
and the country's leadershiprole in global climate
scientists or global climatescience sources say.
And it's an absolute shit show,one GIS scientist under a
condition of anonymity said tothe media. So, you know, it's
this idea that that, you know,people are going to die, that

(40:10):
you can't possibly cut anybody,that we need actually to keep
growing all of these governmentagencies to study the climate or
else we're all

in peril. It's BS. But more importantly, it's
NASA is a space agency, folks.The Goddard Institute was formed
initially to study space, notfor climate change. It shifted
its mission entirely to get morefunding under James Hansen.

(40:42):
It was never intended to be thepreeminent climate agency
studying climate. It was a spaceagency. They're supposed to be
able to get us in space, to findout what's coming at us from
space, to, deliver satellites,things like that. Not monitoring
global climate around the worldand feeding people information.

(41:04):
That's why we have a NOAA.
We have a NOAA. It's it'sduplication of effort. We don't
need GIS, especially if it's notgoing to do space stuff, which
is what it's supposed to do.

Yeah. Sterling, took the words right out of my
mouth. You know, NASA, as hesaid, that was signed into law
by Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1958to study space. They're not
they're that's what they did.
They they space and aerospaceengineering are not supposed to
be studying climate. And so wehave a lot of these duplicate
duplicative efforts in the inthe in the federal government
where if we have a bunch ofpeople doing the same thing at

(41:36):
different agencies, we don'tneed that. There needs to be
consolidation and that savestaxpayers money. You know,
there's a reason we have no wedon't need NASA doing the same
same research and stuff. I canunderstand NASA, you know,
having interest in monitoringweather and and climate a little
bit with satellites, but, youknow, have the satellites and
let NOAA scientists use them.
It's not it's not that hard.

You know, one other thing I'd like to point
out is that NASA's gifts isredundant. Their climate work is
absolutely redundant. They'regetting data from NOAA. They're
getting the GHCN data worldwideglobal data from NOAA. They're
bringing that in, ingesting it,applying their own secret sauce
to it, and then publishing it adifferent version of climate

(42:18):
disaster with their Gistempproduct.
We don't need it. It isredundant. And, you know, we
could completely eliminate theagency and just simply preserve
the data somewhere, and it wouldbe fine. No one is going to
suffer with the loss of NASAguests.

Yeah. Well, as I said at the first, it was a
duplicative. It grew itsmission. In the end, if you read
the charter for NASA, the wordstudying climate you know, the
phrase studying climate changedoes not appear. That was
mission creep.
That was mission creep. Like somany of these agencies. If you
if you read the Clean Air Act,carbon dioxide does not appear

(43:00):
as a pollutant regulated.

That's why they gotta get rid of the APA
endangerment finding. Hopefully,that we can hopefully, they can
succeed on that front.

And where the mission has creeped, you can
safely cut and still keep thecore mission.

Jim Lakely (43:13):
%. Alright. Well, we promised this was a q and a
show, and so maybe it's time weget

to the q and a through which

Jim Lakely (43:20):
it gives Linea, can you handle that for us again
today?

Of course. Okay, I'm waiting until the layout
figures itself out.

There we go.

Alrighty. Hopefully everyone can hear me
and everything is going well.Hello, audience. Thank you guys
so much. Some of you guys werecheating before the show even
started putting questions in,and I will bring up some of
that.
So welcome, everyone. Okay. Solet's just launch right into Q
and A. We'll probably go alittle bit late, if that's okay
with you, Chris, since we tooksome time getting here and we

(43:52):
started a little bit late aswell. All right.
This is a quick little commentfrom Chris Shattuck, who said,
Anthony, did you say griftingand burning?

You mean when I sang the Johnny Cash song?

Yeah.

Well, you know what? If you go back to the
split screen, what we hadbefore, bring Chris back up.
Bring Chris back up. There, lookbehind him. Totally
coincidentally, there's apicture of Johnny Cash right
behind him, and I did not getthat idea from this picture.
It was totally coincidental.

There's an Elvis one right here on the other
side. I can't do this mixed up.There

we go.

It's

fantastic. A we have a really good question that
just popped up from our,longtime viewer, Chris Nesbett,
who says, did Chris always havehis doubts that we're suffering
through a climate crisis andthat the only way to end it
would be to completely upendcivilization?

I don't I don't think we needed to, like, upend
civilization. I used to be kindof back in the early days of
high school, middle school. Iwas kind of on the mainstream
narrative. Just kind of agreedthat, okay, this is a problem.
And, you know, this is all ourfault.
And we got to get rid of fossilfuels. And the weather is more
extreme than it ever has been.So I thought we are maybe we had

(45:10):
a climate problem, you know,maybe crisis. Don't know if I
would use the crisis term, but Iwas definitely on the kind of
the mainstream side of thingsbefore I began to question
things that weren't adding up.So that was kind of my journey.

Absolutely. Well, I think that's the kind of
default position for everyone.Right? I mean, especially when
you're younger, it's hard to,you know, be, like, aggressive
in challenging the status quo orwhat all your teachers are
telling you is the truth. Andso, yeah, I absolutely believe
that.

Speak for yourself, Anaya.

Is a good question from L. T. Oracle of
Truth, who says, I have lived inFlorida since 2006 and have not
heard of Sahara dust untilaround five years ago. Is this a
new phenomenon or was it justnot reported? Lt, I will say
that with many things like this,the my immediate response to
this would be social media isthe reason why you're only just

(46:04):
hearing about it.
It was almost certainly reportedbefore now. It's been in the
scientific, like, US scientificliterature since at least the
nineteen fifties or sixties, andit's been mentioned by explorers
for a very long time beforethat. So it's not new. Anyone to
add anything?

Nope. You nailed it.

Okay. Sweet. So anybody on Twitter right now or
X right now saying that this islike some geo engineering thing
that didn't exist before doesnot know what they're talking
about. Be very skeptical ofthat.

Don't get any of the ARI started on that.

So here's from nothing as it seems. He said,
where did Chris get hismeteorology degree from?

I just got it from, Millersville University of
Pennsylvania. So, yes, schoolnobody's ever heard of, but if
you are in the atmosphericsciences community, you're
guaranteed to have heard of itbecause we do despite being a
small school, we have one of thetop meteorology programs in the
world, and I'm sure Anthony hasheard about it before I ever
went there too. I'd bedisappointed if Anthony never

(47:07):
heard of it.

Jim Lakely (47:10):
Well, as

soon as he gets

Jim Lakely (47:11):
his cup of coffee and comes back, we'll find out.

Okay. And these I have a series of two questions
here that have something to dowith the defunding of certain
parts of the weather service.Nuts and bolts said, well, for
one, how many degrees does oneneed to get a job as a NOAA
thermometer? And number two,Albert says, so how did Judith
Curry do her accurate hurricaneforecasting if it takes being,

(47:38):
you know, the weather service todo it? Sausage

slice and a egg and sausage. Well, for as far as
the, Judith Curry question goes,I mean, she's a hurricane
expert. Mean, she does she'sdone a lot of research on that.
Think don't quote me on this. Ihave to double check.
If she's if she's watching, I'msorry if I get this wrong, but I
think she did some of her, like,graduate school, whether it's
masters or PhD work onhurricanes. I could be wrong on

(48:01):
that. But I know she's done alot with that and as well as ice
sheet dynamics and stuff likethat. But I don't know. But I
know she's done a lot ofresearch on hurricanes for sure.
So she has, you know, all theknowledge and expertise to
understand, you know, looking atpast years, see what patterns
were with the sea surfacetemperatures in the Equatorial
Pacific and, the Atlantic seasurface temperatures, wind

(48:22):
shear, all that kind of stuff,whether it's going to be, you
know, where the monsoon is goingto be, all that stuff affects
where the African Eastern waves.And Anthony could probably add
to all that. Yeah.

Well, Bill Gray was the weather service,
and he he and the people inColorado almost as far away as
you can get from any hurricanes.But he used to study them for
years. And, look, they used thedata produced by, NOAA and, the
weather service, and theyexamined trends. You don't have

(48:56):
to be with the weather serviceto be an expert on that.

Alrighty. This question from Brandon Dudley
says, do we really need weatherballoons anymore? What's the
function today?

I would say, yeah, but I'll let Anthony elaborate
on that.

I wanna see if he

would if if it's good.

Well, the weather balloons have been around since,
I believe, the twenties orthirties.

Because he was from the state of the field funder
and that person knocked double

There is some background there. I don't know
where it's coming from.

In the shade of maple swirl. It should be a lot
of seconds.

I'm having difficulty talking over that,
whatever it is. Can you hear me?

Jim Lakely (49:41):
Yep. We can hear you, Anthony.

Yeah. We can hear you.

Okay. Yeah. I don't know where that background
audio is coming from. Butanyway, the weather balloons
have been around since aroundthe twenties or thirties, I
believe. And, they have been avery important meteorological
tool for a very long time.
But with the advent of radarsatellites and so forth, we may
or may not need them anymore.They have been upgraded through

(50:06):
their lifetime, but they'restill relatively crude. They're
launched twice a day fromdifferent weather service
offices and they drift for,dozens, sometimes hundreds of
miles. And they do get a profileof the upper atmosphere and that
upper atmosphere profile isimportant in weather
forecasting. But now we havethings like lidar, which can do
vertical soundings as well.

(50:26):
And so the question is, do wereally need weather balloons?
Maybe not. We might be able toreplace it with lidar, but
unfortunately, the weatherservice and NOAA has been slow
to adopt that.

I'm I'm gonna respectfully disagree with
Anthony. I think they stillserve a purpose. You might map
things with LiDAR, but theyactually record, atmospheric
data. And and they are anindependent source of
temperature data. They serve asa check on satellites, on ground
based surface stations.

(50:58):
They are good evidence. Theywere early good evidence before
we did you know, before Anthonydid his project and many others
now have started looking at theUHI. They were good evidence of
the UHI. So, as a as a check,you know, your sign your
scientific the scientific methodis you test things. This is one

(51:19):
way of testing what othersources of data are telling you.
So I I say keep them up.

Yeah. I I agree with, Sterling generally on
that. Although I think Anthonymade some valid points, and on
the on the contrary. So that's ahealthy that's an interesting
interesting debate to be had.But one thing I want to add to
what Sterling mentioned, and Iwanted to add that I wanted to
say this as well, was the hopewas it was a good temperature
check, because, you know, thesurface temperature data sets
show all this, you know, warmingthat we've seen, you know, over

(51:47):
the last seventy five years orso since 1950.
Let's just go with that. And youlook at the radiosonde data
from, you know, the weatherBerlin launches, and you look
at, and that's an independentdata set that they have from
NOAA that you can look at. Thereanalysis that they have, they
all show less warming throughthe vertical depths of the

(52:10):
troposphere than to the surfacetemperature data set. And to add
to that, you have the satellitetemperatures, which is, you
know, you age and RSS. Now RSS,they adjusted their data to
bring that into agreement withthe surface temperature record.
So now RSS from a sensing systemshows all this warming, but UAH,
John Christie Roy Spencer, andwhen I actually met them back in

(52:31):
January, I was talking with themabout this when I visited the
campus just on the way to NewOrleans. Basically were saying
that they use the reason theydon't calibrate their
temperature data to do the RSSdata, you know, to bring it to
agreement with that is becausethey like being independent and
using that to check the otherdata sets as a good quality

(52:52):
control thing, along with theradiosondes and stuff. That
balloon data is definitely veryimportant.

That's great. Thank you, guys. I didn't think
we get such a good discussionout of a balloon question, but I
really like that. Anyway, youlearn something new every day on
the Climate Realism Show. Okay.
Ian McMillan says, is anyonehere familiar with the work of
farmer and ecologist Anim Savoryregarding using grazing animals
to reverse desertification andhe claims climate change? Does

(53:23):
transpiration come into it? I'mI don't I'm not familiar with
the particular individual thatyou're referencing as anyone.
I'm going take that as a no, Iwould say no. And I think that
there's it depends on how thegrazing animals are being used.
I think I think it's kind of amixed bag there because they can

(53:45):
certainly tear up the groundpretty well as well as fertilize
it. So I think it probablydepends. I don't I don't know
enough about the particularperson's argument to to tell you
either way.

I'm not familiar with his work. There
there is work on thisdecertification. I don't know
about farm animals impactingclimate change as far as except
for refuting constantly theclaim that farming is causing
climate change.

Okay. So this is a question from Polly who says
the most important question inclimate change is how much of
global warming is caused byhumans? Half, a third or even
less? All right. Go ahead,Chris.

All right. So this is a question I don't think we
have a clue. I mean, I'm I'msome people here maybe might
disagree. I'm sorry about that.So so I don't think we really
have a clue.
I think it could be, you know,as far as the c o two part of it
goes, it could be most of it.

Jim Lakely (54:56):
It could be almost none of it.

We don't know because there's a greater
uncertainty on the naturalenergy flows and then out of the
system and energy imbalance. Wedon't know all of that compared
to what the forcing is from cotwo and the uncertainty on that.
So there's a so we we don'tknow. And as far as it could
most of the man made part of itcould be, urbanization, which is
a lot of the work that Anthony'sdone, you know, those 96% of the

(55:20):
surface temperature data iscorrupted with bad station
citing, it doesn't fit the WMOand NOAA standards. And in
recent paper by John ChristopherSpencer shows that maybe like 65
of The US temperature warmingwe've seen since the 1895 or so
is is could be due tourbanization.
And there's been work by WillieSoon that they did work on that

(55:42):
with The US and Japan, hassimilar numbers if I recall
correctly. Another test, anotherthing, this is what Sterling was
talking about as well, was theballoon data and how it's
independent to good measure. Andhe had a point in that
temperature record shows allthis warming, and it has warmed,
But the satellite data, youknow, from UAH and the

(56:05):
radiosonde data analysis don'tshow it as a steep upward trend.
And those are the bulkatmosphere temperatures. That's
the whole troposphere.
So the important part about thatis that the climate models and
Anthony knows about this, I'msure Sterling knows about this
is the tropical tropospherichotspot. A lot of that warming
we're supposed to be seeing isin the tropical troposphere mid

(56:25):
upper troposphere. And andthat's what all the climate
models show. CMIP five, CMIP sixsuite, they all show that. And
yet that's not materializing.
So most of the warming should beoccurring up in the upper
atmosphere to the convectiveprocesses in the tropics, which
was in response to radioforcing. We're not seeing that
most of the warmings at thesurface, which in my educated

(56:47):
opinion is a urbanizationsignature. And I'll let the
others add to that.

Well, I think you covered it pretty well.

I I I'll just add one thing. I think studying
climate change is importantregardless of whether humans
are, primate. You you know, I'mnot sure that human activity I'm
not sure that studying whetherhumans and the extent that
humans are affecting the climateis as important as studying the
climate change itself. Humanswon't bring on the next ice age,

(57:21):
And I wanna know, if there areany indicators that it's really
coming, regardless of any humaninfluence. So I wanna study
climate change regardless of anyhuman influence, because it it
can change.
It changes regionally all thetime. And you wanna be able to,

(57:41):
anticipate those changes andadapt to whatever changes come
regardless of the cause of thechange.

That's a really good point. And before I we get
to the next question, justwanted to add is that, you know,
researching climate in generalis important because, you know,
it's also tied into the weather.And there remains a need in my
opinion to have fundamentalresearch that's, you know,
understanding the climatedynamics. There's not much of
that that's done these days. Imean, it's a smaller percentage

(58:10):
of the peer reviewed literature.
And then also I forgot whatelse.

Okay. Alright. Awesome, guys. Thank you. And
thank you, Polly, for thequestion.
That was a good one. Let's go. Idon't know the answer to this
one, and I don't know thatanybody else is gonna know it
either here. People ask us allthe time if we've seen this
person or that person's work.Most of the time, the answer is
probably going to be no because,well, I personally don't spend a

(58:42):
whole lot of time watchingvarious climate change videos.
I tend to be like neck deep andI don't know, reading the
wildfire reports from theNational Interagency anyway.
Fighting Zenithian says, whatare your thoughts on Pothole
fifty four's climate changevideos? Have you considered

(59:04):
responding to what he has said?I do not know who that is. Does
anybody else?

I know that he and Tony Heller would go back and
forth on YouTube for a whilewith stuff, but I didn't I
didn't really watch most ofthose videos. So I don't know if
anybody else has.

I've never seen one, and anyone who calls
himself pothole fifty four wouldnot be somebody that I would
probably look at their videosanyway. But then I'm I'm
admittedly an old codger. Idon't get the names that
everybody wants to callthemselves.

Yeah. I'm with I'm with Lynne. I I spend most of my
time reading, not watchingvideos.

Looking at data, not looking at blogs and
things like that.

Yeah. I mean, there are there are good blogs
out there that

are worth reading. What's up with that?

Roy Spencer's blog. Yeah. For sure. But, yeah,
no, I can't say I don't actuallyspend very much time at all
looking at YouTube of otherclimate commentators and stuff
like that. Okay.
Let's go. I don't know thiseither. Above us only Sky said,

(01:00:12):
I thought almost everycommercial airliner had weather
radar. Why not use that data?Anthony?

Anthony Watts (01:00:20):
They do. But that mobile and it's very narrow.
It's also not something thatthey collect. There is no
collection feature for radardata in an airliner. This is on
the spot.
You know, it's a sweep back andforth in front of the nose for
them to see what's approachingthem or what they are
approaching rather. And sothere's really no way to make
any use of it.

Sterling Burnett (01:00:42):
Well, also, it's it's fit for purpose.
Right? You, Noah, a few yearsago, started using ship intake
valve next to their engines to,to water down the ocean
temperature data, to, actuallymake it look hotter than it was.
So they have the Argo Buoys thatare fit for purpose to measure

(01:01:04):
ocean temperatures, and theysaid, oh, it's not giving us the
warming that we want. So let'sstart taking data from ship,
traversing the seas even thoughthat they're not fit for
purpose.
I would wager that the airlineradar data is not fit for
climate purpose. It's it's forthe very specific purpose of
getting them from point a topoint b safely.

Linnea Lueken (01:01:29):
Here's a here's a sly little comment by Chris
Nesbitt who says, don't modelsgive us better data than actual
measurements nowadays? Hedoesn't mean that. He means to
trigger everybody on the panel.But okay, now we have let's see.
Oh, this is a comment that Iwanted to bring up from Alex
Pope.
It's not a question, but I thinkit is a good point. He says,

(01:01:51):
hopefully, staff cuts are thecorrect cuts and the quality of
work and agency is improved. Soyou're getting more bang for the
buck. That is something that'scrossed my mind, especially as I
see the way that climatealarmists talk about these
issues is there almost seems tobe like a wish on their end that
the people who are currentlystaffing those agencies will

(01:02:14):
like have a little bit of whatdo they call it? I can I've
completely lost the phrase.
There is a word for when peopleare kind of trying to, like, on
purpose damage the results oftheir work or produce bad work
in order to prove a pointbecause they're protesting

(01:02:35):
conditions or whatever.

Anyway Sabotage.

Sabotage is not the word I'm looking for, but
it's close. There seems to bevery bizarre wish for that. And
I I hope that that does it doesnot end up being the case
because weather forecasting isimportant for human life and
health. So hopefully not. Kaywansays, whatever happened to

(01:03:06):
climate audit?
McIntyre's blog was my go toduring Climate Gate. Anthony, do
you know?

Yeah. He's gone over to Substack. There are
challenges. Despite the factthat he's highly technical. He's
not computer savvy.
And so he had some challengeswith maintaining the WordPress
version of climate audit and Ihad helped him for years with
that. But, he decided to moveover to Substack, which was easy

(01:03:32):
for him to, manage. So I wouldinvite you to search on Substack
for him.

I didn't know that. Charles Roder had Charles
Rodger got my word, my phrase,right? Malicious compliance.
That's what that's kind of whatI was looking for. All right.
Thank you.

Okay.

From DJ Bow, we have what is the likelihood that
the administration wouldconsider removing or suspending
all temperature recordingadjustments? What impact would
that have on climate models?

Well, they're doing that now in a sense, and
we do have the climate referencenetwork, which requires no
adjustments whatsoever, which ishow it should have been from the
get go. But the point is they coopted a, a network called the
Cooperative Observer Network,which was all around the
country, started in 1892. And itwas not fit for purpose, as

(01:04:29):
Sterling says. It was designedto aid in forecast verification.
It was never designed to be aclimate monitoring system, but
it got co opted for that.
Now we have a perfectly goodclimate monitoring system with
the climate reference network.And what are they doing with
that instead of broadcastingthat, instead of using that data
in their monthly and yearlyclimate reports? They are using

(01:04:51):
that data to adjust the crappysurface station data down to
look something like it, which isjust ridiculous.

And I I would answer the question by saying if
they cut out the adjustments,the homogenization work that
they do, they get rid of all thestations that actually no longer
exist, so they're no longerreporting from areas that
actually don't have stations,just, averaging from different
stations nearby. If if they didall that, the gap between what

(01:05:18):
the, surface temperaturestations say and what the
climate models say would widen,but they wouldn't affect the
climate models whatsoeverbecause they're not based on
data. They're based onassumptions, c o two forcing.
They they don't reflect eitherhomogenized data or raw data

(01:05:39):
from the surface stations.That's not built into the
models.

Anybody else? Nope. Yes. All right. Thank you.
Okay. Let's see. Oh, this isinteresting from David Voigt who
says, does anyone on here knowwhat percentage of our local
meteorologists are on theclimate crazy train? Do they
have to sign some kind of anagreement that they'll join?

Honestly think local meteorologists were among
the, slowest to be compromisedby climate alarm. Most of them
do their work. They go in. Theylook at the reports that come
into them before they go on theair, whether radio or TV. They,
report accurately.
They don't stray into, longterm. And by long term, I mean,

(01:06:35):
more than a week, more than, acouple weeks forecasting. So
they're not talking aboutclimate change. They're talking
about weather, which is whatthey're supposed to do. And,
over time, the the field hasbecome somewhat compromised, but
I still think that there's moreskeptics there than there are in

(01:06:56):
other fields.
Because they they live it everyday. They know the weather
changes every day. They knowthey know short term forecasts
are still off a lot of the time,and so they they have to be
skeptical of much longer termforecast. If you can't get the
weather good ten days from now,how can you be expected to be

(01:07:17):
forecasting it fifteen hundredyears from now?

See?

Chris Martz (01:07:21):
I absolutely agree with, with Sterling's
assessment. Most meteorologiststhat I know personally tend to
be more critical of the climatealarmist mantra. And I'm
actually with two other onesright now in this room who would
agree with me on that. But it'sand a lot of the TV people do. I
mean, I know a lot of I getprivate messages from
meteorologists, some pretty wellknown ones too.

(01:07:42):
Some of the some of the biggername ones that that I agree with
me. Some of them have been vocalin the past. I mean, James
Spann, for example, he's alwaysbeen critical of it. He doesn't
talk about I know that he's inthe normal camp team. He's on
team reality, but a lot of thebig, a lot of people, a lot of
surprising names that youwouldn't think are in on that

(01:08:03):
list on the on the TV front.
And there's people in academiawho are also critical of that
too but they can't speak outabout it. And and there's people
a lot of private sectormeteorologists a lot of National
Weather Service and NOAA peoplefollow me. They can't
necessarily say it publicly, butthey would agree with their own
team reality. What they gotnoticed is that meteorologists

(01:08:27):
have to face forecastuncertainty and error and being
wrong. A lot of these climatescientists, these basket
weavers, as I call them, theydon't have to face that because
these predictions are out of thescope of necessarily even their
careers.
You know, these predictions arethree thousand fifty years from
now at a time that that timecomes to pass, they're retired
or dead. So it doesn't matter tothem as much. And another thing

(01:08:49):
about a lot of these climatescientists is that a lot of
these government jobs and alsouniversity positions in order to
be a climate scientist, theyhave a job opening. All you need
is a math or physics degree.Now, that's no shade.
I'm not throwing any shade onpeople with math or physics
degrees. That stuff's tough. Butjust because you've got a degree
or a Ph. D. In physics or a Ph.
D. In math does not mean thatyou understand the weather. And
so the weather is thefoundation, the very foundation.

(01:09:12):
I think somebody needs to havean understanding of in order to
really understand the climatebecause you also get
oceanography and geology. Andyes, math and physics are
important.
But just because you have mathand physics under your belt
doesn't mean that you understandhow the atmosphere works, how
the ocean works, how the wholesystem works together.

Absolutely. All right. This is kind of related
to something that we alreadywent over, over under above said
when Judith Curry was on, shesaid that temperature data isn't
used to create climate models.Is this true? If so, what are
they modeling?

Well, that that's what I said earlier. The
climate models are based uponspecifically assumptions about,
temperatures vis a vis c o twoand greenhouse gas forcing, not
data. They you have a modeler.And he says, what do we think
how much do we think a moleculeof c o two warms the earth? What

(01:10:12):
is the forcing of c o two on theearth?
And so we model that as we asthe rise in c o two goes up,
they say, well, then it shouldhave this much forcing. And then
what they do is they also buildin feedback mechanisms, feedback
loops. So it's like, oh, well,will it affect water vapor?
Okay. Will it affect this?
Will it affect that? And howwill they affect temperature?

(01:10:34):
But they are not based on data.They produce an output that is
based on physics, andassumptions about how the earth,
how temperatures respond tovarious types of forcings. It
has nothing to do with raw dataor real data.

It's it's interesting, too, because a lot
of the, like recent models, it'sstarting to become clear that
the more complicated, the morestuff, the more variables you
add to the models, the worsethey actually get at making any
kind of temperature changepredictions, which is pretty

(01:11:11):
interesting. Anthony, if youcould comment on that at all. I
know. I mean, this is at thispoint pretty well your
wheelhouse more than

mine. Well, the the models keep getting warmer.
For example, the CMIP six modelsthat have come out, and the RCP
eight point fives, all of theseseem to get warmer and warmer
because there's a lot of what Isee as confirmation bias in
them. They're also solelyfocused on, you know, carbon

(01:11:42):
dioxide for the most part. Yes.
They put in other variables.Yes. They put in water vapor.
Yes. They put in solar and soforth.
But they have tunnel visionabout carbon dioxide. And
climate is not a linearfunction. It is a dynamic
function. It's also not exactlyreal. Climate is a statistical
construct.

(01:12:03):
It's a averaging of data over aperiod of thirty years. It's not
like you can go and and andobserve climate like you can
weather. I mean, you you canlook out the door and you can
watch a thunderstorm going on.That's weather. You can't look
out the door and observeclimate.
So it's kind of a ficturousthing to start with. But the
point is, is that they use thetemperature data to sort of tune

(01:12:25):
these and from a hindcaststandpoint to see if they got it
right. But when going forward,everything starts to get wonky
because, you know, of thebutterfly effect, because of
chaos. The atmospheric isinherently chaotic on not only a
local scale, but a global scale.And it's very, very difficult,
if not impossible, to forecast achaotic system far into the

(01:12:47):
future.

I think what studies have shown is that
simple models perform betterthan more complex models because
the more complex models build inthings that we don't really
understand very well. Inaddition, I think they found
that predictions based on thenull case, which is no change
based on inputs, do better thanpredictions from climate models

(01:13:13):
based on inputs. So, when thenull case is better, that tells
me your model is not reallyfunctioning the way it should.

Another thing that you mentioned, was it Anthony
that mentioned it? The simplemodels tend to work better, or
was that you, Sterling?

I just said that. Anthony?

Yeah, you said Collin. Yeah. Roy Spencer, if
you look at his blog, you goback to February '9 when he
first started, he used to run alot of different models himself
and just excel. And he couldsort of recreate a global
warming trend with stuff withthe PDO or ammo, internal
variability and how that heat isredistributed. And it was just a
simple model.

(01:13:53):
It wasn't anything complex. Sothat was that goes to your point
that they some of the sometimesthe simpler stuff, is easier to
understand than, you know, in amodeling in a modeling case.

But what I meant was, not not understanding
the model. What I meant was thesimpler models better track
measured changes. So they'recloser to the temperature trend
line of, the recordedtemperatures than the complex
climate models that the UN,uses.

Yep. Okay. Shifting gears a little bit
here. Stan Pickett asks, sinceendangerment finding was
mentioned earlier, does anyoneknow how that battle is going
within the administration? Ithink they're kind of busy right
now.

They're kind of busy with stuff, obviously, but
I know because I work, you know,I do stuff with CFACT, and, we
have a hard we're having a hardtime on our I don't know how it
is at Heartland or or wherever,but we're we're having a hard
time trying to get in contactwith them and them being, you
know, forthcoming withinformation. It's I I was
talking to Craig about that theother day. It's very, just not a

(01:15:04):
lot of stuff coming out fromthem on that from our end.

I think to some extent, they're wise in
what they're doing. They theydon't wanna do this, you know,
in public. They wanna get theirducks

Jim Lakely (01:15:14):
in a row.

Not at all.

You know, one of the successes of Trump's last
administration was, all thecountries they got to, to,
recognize Israel. They had no nocountry after after Carter, did
did Egypt. Not a singlepresidential administration was

(01:15:37):
able to get, any other countryin the region to recognize
Israel. I believe four or fivecountries did in the last six
months of Trump's term. How didhe do that?
What he didn't do, he he didwhat other presidents didn't do.
They didn't hold public summitswhere they announced what they
were gonna be doing soprotesters could show up, where

(01:15:58):
they had press conferences. Whathe did is negotiate behind the
scenes, and then they come outand they have a press conference
the day of the deal. Oh, wesigned a deal today. This
country is gonna recognizeIsrael.
Well, that's what they're goingto do with, the endangerment
finding. They're gonna, I knowthat the energy department's
working on it. The EPA isworking on it. They're doing

(01:16:21):
some dual track stuff. But whatthey're not going to do is
publicly every day update you onwhat they're doing with the
endangerment finding.
They don't need the the flackfrom the mainstream media. They
don't need the flack from theenvironmentalist. They all they
already know what their feelingsare. They want to present it as
a fake and then have the publiccomment period.

Alright. This is a good question from Kenneth
Miller, who says per Lindsay andHapr, is there a simple
explanation of how carbondioxide warming decreases with
saturation at higher PPM levels?I think that would be an Anthony
question. Well,

first of all, I'll give an analogy I like to
use to help people understandthis about saturation. Think of
a bowl of soup. You go to arestaurant, you get a bowl of
soup and you taste it. And it'slike, yeah, it's bland. So you
add a little salt to it.
And then you taste it again.Needs a little more salt. And

(01:17:30):
then you add some more salt toit, and now you've overdone it.
It tastes too salty. And youlook at that and what have I
done?
You know, you've got the saltymess. Well, here's the point.
After that point where yourtaste buds are saturated to
salt, sodium chloride, afterthat point, no matter how much
more salt you add, it's stillgoing to taste the same. And so

(01:17:52):
that's kind of how it is withcarbon dioxide in the
atmosphere. Once you get to acertain point of saturation of
molecules, adding more doesn'treally change how it's perceived
or how it reflects heat back,you know, infrared, long wave
infrared, that sort of thing.
So it's really just a it's justlike any other saturation thing.

(01:18:15):
There's a res there's a maximumresponse you get to. And beyond
that response or beyond thatsaturation level, there is no
more additional response.

Once once you cover this once you cover the
spectrum, you can't it does youdon't cover it anymore. It's
covered. It's covered. When Isadly probably eventually go
bald, I won't be balder anyother day. I will be as bald as
I can get.

You've you've reached maximum chrome
saturation.

Hey. You can get brainwashed in the shower when
you get bald.

That's it. You know? So

Mister Clean.

There you go. Well, if if now to be fair, if I
sorta had mister Clean's bulkybody, then then maybe I wouldn't
mind it so

much. A little more like uncle Fester, I think.

That's my fear.

That's my fear.

Uncle Fester is John Fetterman.

Right. On that note, question from William and
Karen Fletcher is, are ruralweather stations more likely to
be the ones taken out of servicethan urban ones? If so, the
virtual replacements would havemore urban heat island effect.

Yes, that's true. I've actually observed this in
my travels looking at over athousand weather stations around
The United States. The urbanpeople, they are closer to where
the weather service office is,and they get serviced better by
the weather service office dueto shorter travel times. But
there are stations that are outin the boonies literally in the

(01:19:51):
middle of nowhere that arehundreds of miles from the
weather service office thatservice them to keep their
equipment in operation. And someof them are very frustrated.
I've talked to people who said,you know, I haven't been visited
by the co op manager of theweather service in years. And
I've got, you know, thethermometer here that's acting
wonky and I can't get them to doanything about it. And so since

(01:20:12):
this is the volunteer program,some people just simply say, oh,
why the heck with it? And theygive up. And so, yes, the the
rural are disappearing fasterthan the urban.

Yep. That's a to add to Anthony's point on that,
I know that because I I as yougo off, I probably see it on my
Twitter page. I like to createcharts of like the number of
extremely hot days or extremelycold days by year. Or and I can
make create the heat wave days,frequencies, and stuff with that
data by running it through Rustand then Python. But that data

(01:20:46):
is really tough.
It's increasingly hard to findstations that are open more than
one hundred, one hundred and tenyears. You know, there were 120
or eight twenty eight as of2023, but that number might be
more like 700 something now. Andso in order to kind of keep
consistency, you have to and Iwas trying to figure out how to

(01:21:06):
like do this and I cause I knowJohn Christie at UAH does a lot
with this data and so he'shelped me. We've, and then he's
been doing a lot of this work,on his own, but, he's been
supplying me charts and somedata because he has more time on
his hands than I do, at least asa college student. But he's
looked at the stations that haveshut down, of these ghost

(01:21:30):
stations, I guess.
And so he looks for stationsthat are still operating that
are within a few miles of it andtries and incorporates that
data, does a little bit ofguesswork adjustments to it to
incorporate and extend therecord length of that station.
But then, as John mentioned tome, you you run into a whole
host of problems with thatbecause there are microclimates,
there's changes in elevation,changes in other surroundings

(01:21:52):
and stuff. So it's not quite anapples to apples comparison
between if you're threadingstations together. Absolutely
right. It's the rural stationsare disappearing fast, and
that's not a good thing for longterm climate monitoring.

Well, you got you know, as Anthony mentioned,
the station system, the originalstation system was all volunteer
network. They wrote the thingsout by hand a few times a day.
They mailed it in. That's stillthe case. They haven't
computerized all this.
And many of those stations shutdown because the, the locations
where they were, the people justsimply aren't there anymore. If

(01:22:30):
if they were next to a farmer'shouse and he ceases to be a
farmer, and and and someone elsecomes in and and does something
else with the land, that stationgoes away. No one's reporting
that any longer, even if itfunctions, and usually it
doesn't. I went when I lookedfor part of Anthony's project,

(01:22:51):
one of the stations I found wasright next to a small radio
station in a town. And, it wasbiased.
It was it was up next to thewall. It was you know, there
were all sorts of problems withit. But, when that radio station
goes out of business and a lotof rural radio station smaller
radio stations are being coopted and taken over, by

(01:23:13):
national chains that aren't thenusing that station anymore, you
won't have anyone therereporting the data. It's just a
simple fact that, where thelocations were, sometimes the
people, the company, the the thethe whoever was actually

(01:23:34):
recording, monitoring, andrecording the data daily,
they're no longer there. They'reno longer doing it.

All right. Well, unfortunately, you guys, that's
about all the time that we have.We've run right up to when Chris
has to leave. So we actuallyscreenshotted the remaining
questions that we have you guysso that we can try to address
them next week. So don't worryif we didn't get to them.
We'll try to get to them nexttime. But I'll hand it back to
you then, Jim.

Yes. Oh, we'd be happy to get out of here real
fast. I just wanna thank youagain, Chris Marks, for being on
the show. We can't wait to haveyou on again in the very near
future, I hope.

For having me on. It's always a pleasure to be
here with you all.

Yeah. It's mutual for sure. Thanks, Lanea. Thanks,
Anthony Watts. Thank you verymuch, Sterling Burnett.
And thank you, the audience, formaking this show so much fun and
successful. We're glad that youenjoyed yourself today. And
again, we'll try to answer asmany questions as we can in the
chat each and every week. Thankyou, Andy Singer, the producer

(01:24:31):
extraordinaire in thebackground. I would remind you
to always visitclimaterealism.com.
Go to climateataglance.com. Goto energyataglance.com. Those
are all websites produced by theHeartland Institute. And of
course, always go toheartland.org where you can get
all of our latest information,just on climate and energy, but
on all the topics that we coveras a think tank. Again, you can

(01:24:56):
support this program by going toheartland.org/tcrs, and I hope
that you will do that.
You can also oh, I just forgotbecause Sterling will kill me if
I don't say this. You shouldsubscribe to the Climate Change
weekly newsletter, which you canget by going to heartland.org
and hitting the subscribe buttonup there at the top. Thank you
all for being here. We will talkto you next week. Bye bye.

How dare you?

All Episodes

Straight Talk: Climate Q&A Marathon with guest Chris Martz – The Climate Realism Show #160

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

Crime Junkie

Ridiculous History

.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;}Straight Talk: Climate Q&A Marathon with guest Chris Martz – The Climate Realism Show #160