The Climate Realist President — The Climate Realism Show #175 - Environment and Climate News Podcast

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Decisively defeat the climate hysteria hoax.

Speaker 2 (00:04):
We are in the beginning of a mass extinction.

Jim Lakely (00:07):
The ability of c o two to do the heavy work of
creating a climate catastropheis almost nil at this point.

Anthony Watts (00:14):
The price of oil has been artificially elevated
to the point of insanity.

Sterling Brunnett (00:18):
That's not how you power a modern
industrial system.

Jim Lakely (00:21):
The ultimate goal of this renewable energy, you know,
plan is to reach the exact samepoint that we're at now.

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

Speaker 2 (00:37):
They really do act like weather didn't happen prior
to, like, 1910. Today is Friday.

Jim Lakely (00:47):
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
broadcast the climate realismshow. My name is Jim Lakeley.
I'm vice president of theHeartland Institute. We are an
organization that has beenaround for forty one years, and
we are known as the leadingglobal think tank pushing back

(01:07):
on climate alarmism.
Heartland and this show bringyou the data, the science, the
truth to counter the climatealarmist narrative you've been
fed every single day of yourlife. There is nothing else
quite like the climate realismshow streaming anywhere. So I
hope you will do us a big favorand bring friends to this
livestream every Friday at 1PMeastern time. And also like,

(01:28):
share, and subscribe, and besure to leave your comments
underneath underneath thisvideo. All those very simple
tasks help convince YouTube'salgorithm to smile upon this
program, and that gets this infront of even more people.
And as our reminder, as we doevery single week, big tech and
the legacy media do not reallyapprove of the way we cover
climate and energy on thisprogram, so Heartland's YouTube

(01:49):
channel has been demonetized. Soif you wanna support this
program, and I really hope youdo, please visit
heartland.org/tcrs. That'sheartland.org/tcrs, and you can
join other friends of thisprogram to help bring this show
to the world every single singleweek. And by the way, it is a
tax deductible donation, just tolet you know. We also wanna

(02:11):
thank our streaming partners,junkscience.com, CFACT, What's
Up With That, The c o twoCoalition, and our friends at
Heartland UK Europe.
We have a fantastic show todaywith a very special guest, so
let's get started. We have withus as usual Anthony Watts. He's
senior fellow at the HeartlandInstitute and publisher of the
world's most viewed website onclimate change. What's up with

(02:33):
that? Sterling Burnett, thearchbishop of Renterbury, also
known as the director of theArthur b Robinson Center on
Climate and Environmental Policyat the Heartland Institute.
And, of course, Lynea Luken,research fellow for energy
environment policy at Heartland.And, also, wanna thank Andy
Singer, our wonderful producerbehind the curtain, making sure
this show looks and flowsawesomely. And let's welcome

(02:55):
back to the show one of our bestfriends and a lot of fun, man
named Mark Marano. He is thedirector of communications at
CFACT. He is a human tornado ofcommentary on climate and
energy.
And if you've watched any cablenews over the last, I don't
know, decade or two, you'vecertainly seen him on there
talking. He's also the producerand star of Climate Hustle One
and Climate Hustle Two and theauthor of several books,

(03:17):
including the politicallyincorrect guide to climate
change and green fraud. MarkMarano coming to us from an
undisclosed location that looksto be a carbon sink with all
those trees behind you. Welcometo the show.

Mark Moreono (03:29):
Thank you, Jim. Happy to be here. Happy to be
back on the climate realismshow. Looking forward to it
today. What a great week thishas been.
You know, it's a notable week.You may have to change your
intro of the Trump clip. There'sactually better Trump clips now
you could include in yourclimate realism show intro.

Jim Lakely (03:45):
Oh, we're getting to that. That's the star of the
show. We got three minutes andthirty three seconds of Donald
Trump giving it to the UN prettygood on climate. And, yeah, and
I bet you've never gotten anintroduction like that on Fox
Business. Weren't you just onthere yesterday talking about
Trump's speech?

Yes. I was on with Varney and how were talk also
talking about how China istrying to steal away Trump's
thunder by getting the accoladesout of the international media,
CNN calling it a consequentialmove on the climate by China
pledging. They increased theirclimate pledges.

Jim Lakely (04:15):
No offense, but it sounds like it's some commie
gobbledygook.

But, you know, what's funny is I was on Varney.
Varney, historically, he'srepresented Wall Street. He's
always been kind ofconfrontational and adversarial
with me. We've debated hottestyears. He's been very he's
called me an extreme climateskeptic.
But yesterday, at the end of thesegment, he actually said, well,
you've been vilified all theseyears as a climate skeptic, and

(04:42):
it looks like president Trumpnow says you're right. So it was
way Barney's way of say Barney'sway of saying, Stuart Varney,
that he's, you know, he's, maybehe's accepted Trump's view
finally. We'll see.

Jim Lakely (04:54):
We shall see. But, yeah, we're gonna get to that
for sure, very soon. It's gonnabe the highlight of the, of the
show here. But, hey, we like tostart this show as we do every
week with the crazy climate newsof the week. So hit it, Andy.

(05:20):
Alright. Thank you very much,Bill Nye. I've titled this this
bit of the segment called Rent AGreta and canceled. And Rent A
Greta, I'm gonna credit ourfriend Steve Malloy. He used
that term on x.
I thought it was pretty funny.The story comes from the Daily
Mail. Woke on woke fury bringschaos to Greta Thunberg's Gaza
Flutilla. Pro Palestineactivists quit convoy after

(05:42):
learning LGBTQ campaigners areon board, and Swedish eco
protester also leaves her role.So, let's read a little bit from
this.
Greta Thunberg's flotilla boundfor Gaza has descended into
chaos after pro Palestineactivists quit the convoy when
they learned LGBTQ pluscampaigners were on board, it
has been claimed. The 22 yearold she's not a teenager

(06:03):
anymore. The 22 year old Swedisheco protester has also
reportedly left her leadershiprole due to disagreements among
organizers, but she will stay onboard as a participant
volunteer. The convoy's journeyto the enclave has been anything
but smooth with organizersclaiming two vessels were
targeted in a drone attackoutside the Tunisian port of
Sidi Bao earlier this month. Sonow political differences have

(06:27):
allegedly plagued the leadershipof global Smud Flotilla, which
were with reports that KhaledBujiyama, the Tunisian
coordinator of the convoy,defected after learning about
the presence of queer activistson board.
The cause of his frustration wasallegedly the participation of
activist Saif Ayadi on theflotilla, a, quote, communist

(06:50):
queer militant who boarded theconvoy when it stopped off in
Tunisia. Thunberg reportedlystepped down from the GSF
leadership in the midst of thedrama telling Il Manifesto,
that's a great publication, thatshe believes that the committee
was communicating too much aboutinternal affairs and not enough
about the genocide in Palestine.Her name was apparently removed
from the list of board memberson the mission's website, and

(07:13):
she was allegedly spottedwheeling her suitcase along a
Tunis dock to transfer from thesteering committee family boat
to another vessel, the Alma.Anthony, you always like to give
us all, Greta, updates here.And, you know,

why can't why can't the

Jim Lakely (07:28):
woke left just all get along?

Well, because every one of them, I think, is
mentally ill. I'm I'm sorry. Itjust it just seems more and more
lately that's the case. And theyall have their own agenda. You
know?
My version of my complaint ismore important than your version
of your complaint, and they keepgoing back and forth with this
sort of thing. They're all vyingfor public exposure, media

(07:53):
exposure, you know, gettingheadlines, all that stuff. And
so it's basically just likewhat's the right word? It's it's
a little bit animal for amission some way, the way these
folks behave. And so, you know,I'm not at all surprised.

All all protesters are equal, but some
are more equal than others.You're you're right.

Speaker 2 (08:15):
How dare you?

I like how Jim said she was still on board
as opposed to be being, youknow, dropped at sea in a little
flotation device. Yeah. She'sshe's still on board. So they
are it it is sort of a crazy Idon't wanna say much about the

(08:38):
Palestinian conflict. That's notmy area of expertise.
But I do think it's odd that,the LGBTQ community has embraced
it so strongly when, theycomplain about criticisms in The
US, but they're not complainingabout stoning and being tossed
off buildings in The Middle Eastby these people they're

(09:01):
defending. That seems crazy tome. Well

Jim Lakely (09:03):
trying to trying to make trying to make sense of
the, the pyramid of ofoppression on the left is a is a
fool's errand.

Well The funniest thing about Greta's involvement
in the whole Israeli Palestineconflict is that Israel got
Greta to to make a hypocrite outof her about her pledge never to
fly again when she arrived andthey forced her on an airplane.
And you have the picture of hersitting there like a little brat
on the plane being forced tofly. So all those years of

(09:30):
finding the high carbon fiber, co two intense yachts and
everything else she was, sailingthe world with to avoid flying,
one act, you know, a protest,and there she is on an airplane
flying back to Europe. I thoughtthat was, you know, only Israel
could get her back on anairplane, and I thought that
was, you know, worth it for thephoto opportunity.

Well, my question is, you say Israel did
that, but so she got back toanother flotilla in Tunisia. Did
she take a yacht from Europe

No.

That's to Tunisia, or did she fly again to
get there in time? She flew. Itit's all hypocrisy. It's all
show. It's no substance.

Speaker 2 (10:14):
Yeah. She just really likes taking boat trips, and I'm
kinda jealous.

Jim Lakely (10:20):
Oh, yeah. I mean, it's it is a nice way to travel,
I suppose. But, yeah. I mean,the reason we bring it up is
just just kinda easy to pokefun, but, you know, Greta's
second act on the world stage isnot really going as planned. And
I I just wanna close thissegment by showing, you know I
mean, first of all, they saidthey were under attack from an
Israeli drone when it you know?
I don't know what happened. Iwasn't there, you know, but

(10:42):
there's reports that it was justa flare gun that was fired off
and came back down and hit theirown boat. Who knows? We don't
know the truth. All I would sayis that if Israel wants to sink
your boat, your boat's gonnasink.
It's not just gonna light onfire for a few minutes. I'm just
putting that out there as atheory. But, they're not having
a really good time. They're Ifound this video this morning.

(11:03):
Apparently, people were jammingtheir radios so the flotilla
could not communicate with eachother, And the person jamming
the radio decided to have a lotof fun with physical sabotage.
Can you play that video for us,Andy?

I don't know what it was exactly.

Speaker 2 (11:18):
And right now, they're jamming RVH app as you
can hear. Do not know where thisis coming from, the sound, but
other vessels are experiencingthe same thing. They're jamming
our radio.

Jim Lakely (11:41):
Well, who doesn't love Apparently, Greta Thunberg
doesn't doesn't like ABBA eventhough they're the most the
greatest export from Swedensince, you know, pickled
herring. Alright.

Yeah. I'm I'm still hoping maybe they would
have remixed that. And insteadof dancing queen, they did drama
queen instead. Good. Nice.

Good one.

Jim Lakely (12:01):
Alright. Let's move on. Let's move on. We've had
enough fun at Greta's expense,and we'll probably have to get
to her again again soon. Maybemaybe she'll show up at COP
thirty.
We we don't know. It's been awhile. We'll see.

I I seriously doubt it. She's condemned the
whole UN process as a scam, afraud, and greenwashing. So I
don't think she's welcome, and Idon't think she'd wanna go.
Although you mentioned if shegets desperate enough for for a
home of her activism, she wouldgo back at some point maybe.

What you just said, Mark, is that she's
finally come to her senses onthe top.

Was It a one time we we

Jim Lakely (12:30):
we could fully

our side on this matter.

Yes. But she's doing it from the left. She's
with the George Mambion, The UKenvironmentalist, who wants to
stop all, you know, animalagriculture, shut down modern
farm. He there she's completelyjust thinks the UN is sort of
stodgy and conservative. That'show radical Greta is or has
become.

Jim Lakely (12:50):
Alright. Well, let's move on to our second item, and
this is titled a Trojan horse atClimate Week. If you read the
description of this livestreamtoday, you'd you'd realize that
whether you knew it or not, thisis Climate Week twenty twenty
five in New York City. And thisis a piece written by a

know what it was.

Jim Lakely (13:09):
Oh, this broadcast is being jammed by Andy by
mistake. Alright. So this is apiece in The Washington Times by
our friend Steve Malloy. Therewe stars climate week. It's
supposed to be there's asupposed conservative named
Benjie Bakker.
And I bring this up only becauseI'd like the audience to be
familiar with that name, BenjiBacker. Benji Backer. Steve

(13:30):
points out that Benji, in hisopinion, is a, quote, unquote,
Trojan horse for climatealarmism and the ruinous
policies to, quote, unquote,stop climate change. Let me read
a little bit from this, and wecan talk about it. Climate week
twenty twenty five is fillingthe skies with private jets and
the streets with motorcades,while in between cocktail
receptions and panels, theemissaries of environmental
virtue instruct the rest of usto do it less.

(13:53):
Benjie Bakker, a the 27 year oldfounder of the American
Conservation Coalition andnature is nonpartisan is billed
as the conservative voice of theclimate movement. Polished and
adept at wrapping himself inMAGA friendly language, he is
precisely the sort of figure themovement hopes will render its
program more palatable to youngconservatives. However, his

(14:13):
record tells a different story.Mister Bakker has called
president Trump, quote,despicable and indefensible,
unquote, praised GretaThunberg's, quote, critical role
in shaping climate awareness andendorsed government control over
30% of America's land forenvironmental purposes. Benji
Backer supports many of thepolicies long championed by

(14:34):
liberal climate activists,including subsidies for green
hydrogen, government createdincentives that redirect markets
toward wind and solar andexpanded restrictions on fossil
fuel development.
Now Steve goes on to write that,in his opinion, Benji is, quote,
invaluable to the climate leftbecause he gives off, quote, an
illusion of bipartisanbipartisan consensus on the

(14:54):
climate. And, Steve almost endsright here. By accepting the
left's framing of the problemand the solution, Betsy Bakker
offers not a conservativealternative, but a more
marketable version of the samefailed plan. Fortunately, the
Trump administration is intenton moving in the opposite
direction. Let me start withyou, Sterling.
It would seem to me that, SteveMeloy wrote in this piece that

(15:18):
Benji Backer's time has alreadycome and gone. And that it's not
gonna it's not gonna traction.

Look. He he doesn't command he he's at
Climate Week, but remember, noone cares about Climate Week
this this year. It's it's almostgone unnoticed except by the New
York Times. And, of course,that's where it is. Backer
people say that backer is not aconservative.

(15:44):
What backer is is an old schoolrhino in the sense that everyone
forgets the conservationmovement was founded by who?
Theodore Roosevelt and hisfriends, and they believed in
conservation. They believed inlocking up large amounts of
land. The 30% idea, Elizabethwould love that. He believed in

(16:04):
big government.
He he was not a conservative bywhat we mean, sort of a
traditional believe in smallgovernment, limited
interference, free markets. Theybelieve in intervention in the
markets just like a RockefellerRepublican, just like RINOs. So
this is Bakker is one of those.He has his supporters among

(16:30):
Republicans, but remember, notall Republicans are
conservative. And he is truly aTrojan horse.
He's he he says, we'reRepublicans. We care about
climate too, and there's a rumpthat does. But we all care about
climate. What we don't supportis radical changes and
government intervention to fixsomething that's not a crisis.

(16:53):
He believes it's a crisis, or hebelieves it's an opportunity to
gain government power, which iswhat Theodore Roosevelt and his
ilk way back when always wantedin the first place, more
government control.
Remember, they broke up thetrust. They intervened in the
market all over.

Jim Lakely (17:17):
Yep. Mark, you want you wanna weigh in here? You're
in the you're in the DC area inthe swamp.

Benjie Bakker and your illustrious James Taylor
and I had a big debate. This wasin South Dakota, and I think it
was at the Libertarian, which Ican't remember the name of it
now. The big meeting in it wasin July, like, three years ago.
We had a big debate with him onthe stage, and we were able to
publicly excoriate him. Becauseremember, when he came to DC to

(17:44):
testify in congress, BenjieBakker, 02/2019, he sat next to
Greta Thunberg.
He turned to Greta Thunberg andthanked her for her climate
activism for making young peopleaware of climate. That gives you
an insight into just who BenjieBakker truly is. This is a guy
who praises Greta's life work onclimate and thinks it was a good
idea and that she was effectiveand that she helped young

(18:06):
people. And if you look at I Ithink he's a marginal figure. He
does like to pile up with, like,Lisa Murkowski and a couple
other a lot of people would say,liberal Republicans.
And I maybe shouldn't say thispublicly, but he is piling up
with one Trump cabinet member, aone Doug Bergam, of the interior
department. They had a picturetaken, and he was and Bergam was

(18:28):
a keynote speaker. So there'salways gonna be that strain of
republicanism that is has anappeal to someone like Benji
Backer. And he if you listen towhat Benji Backer says, if
you're not paying attention, 80%of what he says sounds like the
Heartland Institute could sayit. He'll say a lot of things
that just sound, you know,normal conservation.
But what he does is he concealsthe other 20. And the other 20%

(18:52):
is all about activism, climatechange is a problem, the
weather's getting worse, and weneed solutions. And that's the
part where you just sort of feeldeceived by him every time he
speaks or you read his writingbecause it's very hard to
actually get him to admit whathis group is really all about
and what their actual goal is.And their goal is to get young
people concerned about climateand get the government to act on

(19:14):
climate, and they're scariestabout the science. He's always
hyping Al Gore style science.

Jim Lakely (19:20):
Yeah.

I wish James were here because I believe that
we hosted a, a panel at one ofthe conservative congresses the
last couple of years, and Benjiewas at, in. And he flat refute
that it was about climatescience. He accepted. He came on
stage, and then he refused todiscuss climate science. He
wanted to discuss climatepolicies and market solutions.

(19:43):
Market solutions are not marketsolutions. Markets develop
solutions. They're governmentsolutions posing as, you know,
trying to set up full markets.

Even called EV tax credit, a market solution or
something. Yeah.

Yeah. And so James just took him apart
because he said, look. You'renot here to discuss market
solutions. You're here todiscuss the climate science.
That's what this panel is about.
Jim can correct me if I'm wrongabout that, but I think that
that's what happened.

Jim Lakely (20:09):
No. That's that's that's accurate. That's
accurate. Yeah. Alright.
Well, look. We can, we can moveon. You know, maybe we'll invite
Benjie on this program sometime.Maybe, have a nice conversation,
and we'll learn something.Anyway, we'll move on here.
Our third item here, this is animportant story. This isn't
crazy climate news. It's kindagood climate news, but this is
an important story, I think, forall of us in the audience to

(20:31):
monitor. This comes from ourfriends at The Daily Caller,
Zeldin, bar staff from joiningclimate activists at fancy
dinners, events in any officialcapacity. The Daily Caller News
Foundation has learned that thee p that EPA told staffers they,
quote, should not acceptinvitations from a climate law
fair group, quote, in theirofficial in their official

(20:53):
capacity over significantconcerns, according to an
internal memo.
EPA staff received an invitationto the Environmental Law
Institute's annual awardsdinner, according to the memo,
but agency leadership is urgingemployees not to attend in any
official capacity. The HouseJudiciary Committee recently
launched an investigation intothe climate judiciary project, a

(21:15):
project of the ELI, and itsefforts, quote, appear to have
the underlying goal ofpredisposing federal and state
judges in favor of plaintiffsalleging injuries from the
manufacturing, marketing, orsale of fossil fuel products,
the committee wrote in an August29 letter. It is no longer in
the agency's interest foremployees to participate in

(21:36):
their official capacity in anyconference, program, or other
event organized by theEnvironmental Law Institute,
included but not limited toELI's climate judiciary product.
Thus, EPA employees should notaccept invitations to or
participate in such events,including ELI's annual awards
dinner in Washington, D. C.
As a steward of Americantaxpayer dollars, EPA has a

(21:58):
responsibility to ensure thatstaff, time, and resources are
spent in a manner consistentwith the agency's interests.
Given the serious concerns aboutELI and CJP that have been
brought to the attention of theagency, it is no longer in the
agency's interest for employeesto participate in their official
capacity in any conference,program, or other event by ELI

(22:19):
until these concerns have beenadequately addressed. I'll just
I'll just leave it right there.You know, the reason this is
important is because we'vecovered this story here and
there on this show over the lastseveral months, but, you know,
there's this there's this cabal.There's this well, conspiracy is
one way to put it betweenenvironmental leftist groups,

(22:39):
nonprofits, a lot of them gettaxpayer money anyway, doing
education with judges toprejudice them toward the
environmental lawsuits that willcome before them.
This is a scandal. This is a bigdeal, and, congratulations on
the EPA for at least, at this inthis instance, putting a stop to
it. Lanea, what do you, maybeI'll start with you. I mean,

(23:01):
you've been watching this storyas well.

Speaker 2 (23:03):
Yeah. Well, I think this is great, from Zeldin. I
think that for a long time, manydecades probably at this point,
it's been kind of, like, justimpolite to point out the fact
that these groups are trying toinfluence the judicial system
and calling them out like this.I mean, you can see later in the
article, the ELI responds, andthey're like, we have always

(23:26):
been nonpartisan, you know,helping to educate, you know,
the judiciary and everything andblah blah blah. It's totally not
a political thing.
It's totally not inappropriate,blah blah blah. And it obviously
is. We all know what they'redoing. They're just trying to
sway judges ahead of time sothat when those, like, climate,
those children's lawsuits comebefore them or lawsuits that are

(23:48):
going to depend heavily onattribution studies, trying to
tie, you know, specificemissions from oil companies or
whatever to specific heat wavesas we've seen in the news. We
know that they're just trying tobias them towards giving it to
the environmentalists becausethe environmentalists have been

(24:09):
quite unsuccessful in a lot ofthese lawsuits for a long time.
They're they're desperatelytrying to keep up the law fair,
and it's great to see the EPAsmack them around a little bit
for their obvious inappropriatebehavior.

Yeah. If I can add, I was in the US senate
staffer, when James Innoff wasthere, the environment public
works committee. And asemployees of the senate, we had
so many regulations,restrictions, and paperwork to
fill out. So much paperwork. Ifyou had to do any event from an
outside group like that thatoffered food, that offered

(24:47):
either travel or an event orsome kind of reception, it
wasn't like you could just youyou in other words, if I if I
attended even anything on thehill, it had to be food.
If it was a lobbyingorganization, they could serve
food, but it had to be food thatyou that was basically you
wouldn't wanna eat. Otherwise,it would be considered they were
bribing you and all kinds ofthings. So what Zeldin is doing,

(25:07):
and I say he's probably the mostconsequential Trump cabinet
member and certainly the mostconsequential EPA chief in
history, He's recognizing thatby EPA employees going to events
like this, not only is it asource for leaks of the
employees to talk to groupsdiametrically opposed to
everything Zeldin and the Trumpadministration are trying to do,
It gives them also the abilityto indirectly bribe these EPA

(25:30):
staff like, hey. You know, youwould be we could have you over
here. And these groups havemoney.
They could pay much more thanthey're making at the EPA. And
what a way to sort of go outfrom the EPA, but maybe, hey.
Collect some documents, say somebad things. We want you, you
know, to, tell us what'shappening inside. You'll be our
man on the inside until youstart over here.
There's all kinds of things, andZeldin, I think, recognizes the

(25:52):
inherent sort of conflict ofinterest for EPA staff and
others to just go to events likethis, for groups diametrically
opposed to the entire mission ofwhat Zeldin's trying to do.

But remember, the EPA I don't know if it's
just lower levels of staff, butcertainly career bureaucrats.
Most of them are in the EPAbecause they were already
aligned with environmentalinterests.

Yes.

They are not and and they rise they rose up
through the ranks by expandingthe EPA's mission and authority
and jurisdiction, creatingincreased levels of bureauxacy
and drop bringing in new amountsof funding. And so it's not

(26:35):
surprising that theenvironmentalists and them have
always been in bed together.Zeldin is finally calling them
on it. I wish he had saidinstead not to not go in your
official capacity, but not to goat all if you wanna continue
working here. You have to choosebetween EPA and its mission or

(26:56):
the environmental groups.

Jim Lakely (27:02):
Yep. Yeah. I mean, a 100%. I mean, the the, you know,
the the I think you made animportant point there, Mark,
about how what what when youwere speaking, actually, it
reminded me of, like, fordecades, there's this this
revolving door Yep. Between EPAand, you know, NGOs that are
gonna save the climate over andover and over again.

(27:25):
And and, that has been closed,at least temporarily. You know,
I would presume that if aDemocrat president wins the
White House in the future thatthose, those revolving doors
will be fired back up again. Butthis is something that is very
it is very little known in thepublic that this is the whole
system really seems to be riggedfrom the government to the NGOs

(27:45):
and all the way around.

And and that's what they're finding with the
FDA. One of the reforms they'reseeking to do is stop that
revolving door where you have,you know, Pfizer executives then
become, you know, high officialsat the FDA or NIH. And you need,
you know, serious reforms to doit, but as you mentioned, this
is becomes a yin yang betweenadministrations. We need serious

(28:06):
permanent reform, and this iswhy they call it the swamp in
Washington.

Jim Lakely (28:11):
Yep. Alright. Well, we'll close this topic out.
Andy, if you could bring up thattweet from that I found
yesterday from from MattWhitlock commenting on this
thing. Somebody somebody in thestory that was in in in
Greenwire in E and E News saidthat they were let's see.
It says here, an EPA employeegranted anonymity because they
fear retaliation, said barringstaff from going to ELI events

(28:34):
was part of the administration'sattack on climate science. And
Matt quips, if by climatescience, she means law firm paid
for open bars, then yes.

That's great.

Jim Lakely (28:45):
And that's what this is. DC is full of open bars.
That is for sure. Alright.Alright.
Well, let's get into our mainevent because I know a lot of
people in the chat are waitingfor it, and they believe me,
worth the wait. We normally donot play videos, video clips on
this show that are longer thanmaybe a minute, minute and a
half, because in podcasting,that's a long time. We're making

(29:07):
an exception this time. DonaldTrump gave what I think is one
of the most amazing incrediblespeeches in in history of
presidents addressing the UnitedNations. Before we get into the
into the thing, I just wanted toset it up a little bit.
This is a story from our friendsat, E and E News. As you might
imagine, the climate alarmistpress, started to lose their

(29:30):
minds over what Trump said tothe UN when it came to, the
climate. Their headline is con,scam, hoax Trump's UN speech on
climate.

Love it.

Jim Lakely (29:42):
And, yeah, that's great. Anyway, I'll just read a
couple things from here. Itsays, president Donald Trump
rebuked world leaders for beingoverly concerned about climate
change during a speech to theUnited Nations in which he
called global warming a con job.Trump, who spoke for nearly an
hour at the UN general assemblyin New York, argued that
renewable energy such as windand solar are a scam and that

(30:03):
they should be eliminated. Heurged nations instead to buy
more American oil and gas whilealso increasing nuclear energy.
Oh, Scott Waldman. Sorry aboutthat. And then hi, Scott. I know
you watch the show once in awhile. Enough of that stuff.
You guys get the gist. Andy,let's roll tape.

Speaker 1 (30:21):
In '82, the executive director of the United Nations
Environmental Program predictedthat by the year February,
climate change would cause aglobal catastrophe. He said that
it will be irreversible as anynuclear holocaust would be. This
is what they said at the UnitedNations. What happened? Here we

(30:44):
are.
Another UN official stated in1989 that within a decade,
entire nations could be wipedoff the map by global warming.
Not happening. It's climatechange. Because if it goes
higher or lower, whatever thehell happens, there's climate
change. It's the greatest conjob ever perpetrated on the

(31:06):
world, in my opinion.
Like all of these predictionsmade by the United Nations and
many others, often for badreasons, were wrong. They were
made by stupid people that havecost their country's fortunes
and given those same countriesno chance for success. If you
don't get away from this greenscam, your country is going to

(31:28):
fail. And I'm really good atpredicting things, you know?
They actually said during thecampaign, they had a hat, the
best selling hat.
Trump was right abouteverything. And I don't say that
in a braggadocious way, but it'strue. I've been right about
everything. And I'm telling youthat if you don't get away from
the green energy scam, yourcountry is going to fail. The

(31:52):
carbon footprint is a hoax madeup by people with evil
intentions, and they're headingdown a path of total
destruction.
Global warming and the carbonfootprint, It's a con job. At
extreme cost and expense, Europereduced its own carbon footprint

(32:12):
by 37%. Think of that.Congratulations, Europe. Great
job.
You pushed yourself a lot ofjobs, a lot of factories closed,
but you reduced the carbonfootprint by 37%. However, for
all of that sacrifice and muchmore, it's been totally wiped
out and then some by a globalincrease of 54%, much of it

(32:37):
coming from China and othercountries that are thriving
around China, which now producesmore c o two than all the other
developed nations in the world.You know, it's interesting. In
The United States, we have stillradicalized environmentalists,

(32:59):
and they want the factories tostop. Everything should stop.
No more cows. We don't want cowsanymore. I guess they wanna kill
all the cows. They wanna dothings that are just
unbelievable, and you have ittoo. And if we had the most
clean air, and I think we do, wehave very clean air.
We have the cleanest air we'vehad in many, many years. But the
problem is that other countries,like China, which has air that's

(33:21):
a little bit rough, it blows.And no matter what you're doing
down here, the air up here tendsto get very dirty because it
comes in from other countrieswhere their air isn't so clean.
And the environmentalists refuseto acknowledge that. The whole
thing is crazy.
The primary effect of thesebrutal green energy policies has

(33:46):
not been to help theenvironment, but to redistribute
manufacturing manufacturing andindustrial activity from
developed countries that followthe insane rules that are put
down to polluting countries thatbreak the rules and are making a
fortune. They're making afortune.

Speaker 2 (34:07):
I love Trump so much. It's so funny. Yeah. He's just
the funniest guy ever.

Jim Lakely (34:13):
That speech was actually more than that part of
his speech was actually morethan six minutes long. And, you
know, when I got done watchingit, Anthony, I wanna start with
you. What did we do to deserve aman like that speaking to

the United Nations like that? We voted.
That's what we did. And and itwas a mandate for sure. But I
wanna point out something, andI've read this online.
I don't know that it's actuallytrue, but I believe it to be, is
that right before he started hissection on climate, his
teleprompter apparently wentdead. And what you saw there was

(34:45):
him speaking off the cuff. Hehad all that in his head. So,
you know, go Trump for thatbeing able to to to say those
things factually, without havinga teleprompter. Joe Biden could
have never done that.
But, you know, now that Trumphas called this thing a con and

(35:06):
rightfully so, because we'veseen this for years, I think
it's time for us to just startcalling at that every time we
talk about it. You know? The thewhole thing is is wealth
redistribution. The whole thingis, you know, funding people
that are, you know, doingnothing. I mean, look at what's
going on.
We're about to come up on COP30. Right? 30 of these meetings

(35:29):
where they have, you know, wineand song and drink and
entertainment and all this stuffat the taxpayer's expense or
others expense, and yet nothingreally has been done about, you
know, increasing c o two. Why?Well, no.
Because they can't. There'snothing you can do about it of
any real consequence. We'vedemonstrated this for years. You
know? Everybody talks aboutregulating it, but the fact is

(35:52):
is that China and India andother nations are saying, yes.
We will help with climate. Youbetcha. Mhmm. But it's all lip
service. They don't actually doit.
So the whole thing is indeed acon job. Yes.

I guess I'd like to take up China. I was I
was asked to comment for a storyrecently. And China China said z
via video conference said thatthey would cut their emissions
seven to 10% below their 2030levels, by 2035. There's no

(36:30):
penalty if they don't. Underunder Paris, there's no
penalties.
There's no teeth to it. And it'salmost impossible to see how
they would do that since they'readding coal fired power plants
monthly, if not weekly. Theseplants will be around for thirty
to fifty years. But what he buthe didn't say you know? And he

(36:53):
was some people are praising himfor this.
Oh, they're taking up they'retaking up the mantle. They're
really stepping up as they addcoal power plants. They're
stepping up. What he didn't sayis what their emissions would be
in 2030. Right now, if if theiremissions went down from 2025
levels to today's level, 10%,they would still be be emitting

(37:18):
more by themselves than The US,Europe, and Canada combined.
If their emissions go up until2030, which they are on the,
path to do, they will surpass useven more. Does anyone really
believe who who's gonna holdChina accountable if they don't

(37:38):
do what they say? And, you know,will China care if they don't do
what they say? In the end, thisis a slick marketing. China is
saying we're taking the mantleof leadership.
And whether whether because theyhave blinders on or whether

(37:58):
because they're grasping at anystraw possible to show that the
whole Paris and UN FCC projectis just not collapsing in a
farce, they are latching on tothe mere scraps that China
offers and saying, ugh. See, thebiggie's on board now. Oh, it

(38:22):
saved us all. It saved nothing.It and it means I I honestly
believe it means nothing.
I I suspect they won't cut 10%.But if they do, if they increase
emissions by 15% by 2030,they'll still be half above
where they were.

Jim Lakely (38:40):
Yeah. Mark Marana, I want I want you to comment on
here. I also wanna, alert ouraudience that I have dropped in
the chat, a URL for thetranscript of Trump's climate
remarks and his things so peoplecould check it out for
themselves. But but, Mark, youknow, this I I titled this
podcast today the the climaterealist president, because if

(39:06):
you just look at the speech andwhat he said, you know, he
pointed out that for since 1982was his was his marker, that all
these predictions of climatecalamity that have a time limit
on them, None of them have cometrue. That, no matter what you
do as far as reducing your c otwo footprint and then he
thought the carbon footprint wasa scam and and complete BS.

(39:29):
That's also the case. You know,it's difficult to find anybody
in public life, let alone apolitician, speak such truth
about what's happening on theclimate, what's happening on on
energy policy, and this was thepresident The United States.
That's why I I it just strikesme as remarkable, and I can't

(39:49):
stop smiling about it.

Yeah. Yes. I mean, this speech was, I think, the
greatest speech ever given by aUS president to the United
Nations that I'm aware of atleast in my lifetime since, you
know, late nineteen sixties. Ican't think of anything. I mean,
I think back to Republicans likethe Bushes and, and I can't even
remember Ronald Reagan giving aspeech of this kind of narrative

(40:13):
flipping.
And this is what is so importantabout what Trump did. It wasn't
the well, it was the fact thathe had the receipts. He did the
1982 warning, the 1989, the tenyear, all these UN officials. He
laid waste to them. He calledeverything a hoax and a con.
The the fact that he justcompletely flipped the narrative
is the most significant thing,though. Because if you remember

(40:36):
back when Vaclav Klaus was thepresident of the Czech Republic,
I remember there was a survey.This was around 02/1011, shortly
after ClimateCape, where VaclavKlaus, the president of Czech
Republic, went around at the UNand everywhere. He wrote a book
trashing the whole climateagenda, basically calling it a
con. That was a country in CzechRepublic with the highest rate
of climate skepticism, and itwas because they had a leader

(40:59):
who was flipping the narrative.
People were hearing it fromtheir official source. So when
Trump went into this meeting atthe United Nations during
climate week and did this andmade this unbelievable speech,
it sent a signal around theworld that this is a first.
Combined with his Department ofEnergy report, by the way, they
they that was the first officialgovernment pushback by any

(41:21):
government in the world, thatclimate assessment report by
Judith Curry and Steve Koonan toever push back against the UN.
So you combine all that, and youhave Donald Trump up there just
laying waste to the UN to theirface. This is gonna have
consequences, I believe, for thefuture.
You think about Charlie Kirk.Why was he so effective? Because

(41:42):
he took the argument face toface to people, made them
confront their own illogic theirown illogic, their own
hypocrisy. He won hearts andminds. Trump did that today, not
necessarily to the people in theUN chamber, but to the rest of
the world.
And he did it in a way that noone can go through and say, oh,
he was misinformed. He broughtreceipts. And if you think back,

(42:05):
I was at COP twenty nine inBaju, Azerbaijan, which bordered
Iran and Russia as a country.Trump talked to the head of
Argentina, the president, MouleMouleu. I can't ever say his
name.
And within minutes of thatconversation, he pulled the
whole 100 plus delegation out ofthe conference. The French deli
environmental minister thencanceled the conference. The the

(42:25):
the opening speech was about oilbeing a gift from God. The whole
UN conference went to shamblesbecause Trump lit that fire. And
now you have, of course, Canadacollapsing Carney's first act, a
World Economic Forum puppet masshe's not a puppet.
He's the puppet master. Zeroedout the carbon tax. You have the
elections in Europe, the haltingof the green deal, the farmers

(42:46):
rebellion. You have, around theworld, this whole awakening of
countries. This is how you givethe whole climate alarmism and
the whole climate agenda a pushoff the cliff because it's not
working.
We've had decades of lies andfake promises. Europe knows it's
not working, the whole greenenergy. Trump was brilliant.

(43:07):
This was at his best. And I justwanna say, you know,
schoolchildren may be citing thespeech in the future, if we can
ever actually kill this wholeclimate, hoax agenda.
It's gonna be hard to killbecause you have billionaires,
corporations, academia, themedia, international
organizations, all theestablishment vested in in

(43:28):
keeping this alive after Trumpis gone from the presidency. So,
yeah, this is the best you couldever hope for. We're we're only
nine months in his presidency,and I'm I'm blown away. Sorry to
filibuster there. But No.
No. No. It's great.

Jim Lakely (43:41):
I think the only thing that could have improved
his speech is if he took hisshoe off and pounded it on the
lector.

Like Nikita Khrushchev? Didn't he do that?
Yeah. Khrushchev. Yeah.

Have to

Jim Lakely (43:52):
be a certain age to remember that reference.
Alright.

Shade shades of Khrushchev.

Jim Lakely (43:56):
Yeah. Alright. Well, I hope the, I hope the audience
really enjoyed seeing that wholething. It was actually only
probably not even half of whathe said on climate. You can see
the entire transcript of it atcfacts.org.
I left a link to it in the inthe chat. And, hey. I think
we're ready to get to questionsand answers. So you can leave
more, questions and comments inthe chat, and we will address

(44:16):
them as we go forward. Butbefore we get to that, I have a
little bit of business that Ineed to take care of, and that
is to mention to you that thishere stream show is, sponsored,
and we have a sponsor, and thatsponsor is Advisor Now if you
listen to a lot of conservativeshows and you hear a lot of

(44:37):
pitches for buying gold, silver,and other precious metals, there
are a ton of companies out therethat do that, but we wanna tell
you why you should trust oursponsor, Advisor Metals.
And it's the man who runs thecompany, and his name is Ira
Brashatsky. He is the managingmember of Advisor Metals, and he
does not employ high pressuretactics or deceptive marketing
ploys like many others in socalled big gold. He also doesn't

(44:59):
deal in so called rare coins.When you buy gold and other
precious metals from AdvisorMetals, you are dealing in
quality bullion, and that is somuch better when it's time to
liquidate this very valuablephysical asset. And, also, when
you buy from Advisor Metals, youwill, have your investment sent
discreetly and directly to yourvery doorstep.
Ira, by the way, is advertisingon this program and also the In

(45:22):
the Tank podcast that we do onThursdays because he is an
America first patriot. Hedoesn't donate to Democrats and
their, and their NGOs. Herefuses to work with proxies of
the Chinese Communist Party. Andhe, like us, abhor the
machinations and the schemes ofthe World Economic Forum in the
United Nations, and we are veryproud to have Advisor Metals as

(45:42):
a sponsor. So if you wannadiversify your investment
portfolio, if you wanna back upyour IRA with real physical
bullion of precious metals, goto climaterealismshow.com/metals
like several viewers of thispodcast have already done.
You can leave your informationthere, and Ira will make the
whole process very easy for you.Again, go to
climaterealismshow.com/metals,and also be sure to tell them

(46:06):
who sent you because that helpsus and this program while you're
helping yourself. Alright. Thankyou very much for your attention
to this matter. Let's get onwith the q and a, Linea.
Jim. Yes.

Before we get to q and a, I'd like to say one
thing.

Jim Lakely (46:27):
Alright.

Trump's speech because Okay. So the key
elements of Trump's speech thatI'd like people to focus on is
he's getting fact checked. Yousee these fact checks on his
speech. I think the New YorkTimes did one. Others have done
one.
The key things to check out hisspeech, fact check wise, is have

(46:48):
any of the predictions come truethat he cited, and they haven't.
Every he's right about that.Every one of them is wrong. And
are is green energy wrecking,Europe and the countries that
have, pushed it? And he's rightabout that a 100%.
Our costs have gone up as we'veadopted green energy. Europe's

(47:09):
costs have gone up dramaticallyas they've adopted green energy.
In both places, transmission,the delivery has become less and
less reliable with break downs.Check out Spain and Portugal and
parts of France this summer. Thepoint is when they try and fact
check him, they they don't factcheck.

(47:32):
They pick stuff that's notimportant or that he didn't
actually say as a fact check,and they ignore the stuff where
he's just dead a 100% right.Jim's pulling the gym.

Jim Lakely (47:52):
Pulled the gym. Yep. We could probably self support
this program if I was finedevery time I left my mute button
on. But thanks for that thanksfor that, Sterling, even though
you kinda ruined our our nicelittle q and a drop that we all
have fun with. But that's okay.
We'll live. Lynea, why don't youtake us through some questions?

Speaker 2 (48:13):
Absolutely. You everyone for being here once
again. We love all of ourviewers. Alright. This is a
question that I think is kind ofa a little bit of a joke based
on the the subject of our showhere, but this is Chris Nisbet,
common viewer of ours, says,somebody tell me, what is the

(48:36):
greatest con job con jobperpetuated on the world?
I'm gonna go around the thepanel here. Jim?

I would have to say it's that give us that
skeleton called something man.Tiltdown man? Yeah. Tiltdown
man. Which really co opted andmade added an end to that to
describe one of our favoriteclimate characters.

Jim Lakely (49:07):
Okay. Yeah. I mean, why the heck did I know that off
the top of my head? That's odd.Right.
But yeah. I I'll add the CardiffGiant was another was another
con job perpetuated, but I don'tthink anything tops the fact
that the the con that humanactivity is causing a a glow
impending global climatecatastrophe.

There's there's one bigger one, Jim.
There's one bigger one. That isthat communism can work anywhere
at any time or has workedanywhere at any time where it's
been tried. It's built upon, anidiotic idea of what human
nature is, and, it's built uponpoor economics because it's

(49:46):
built upon the the idiotic ideaof human nature. And so
everywhere everywhere it hasbeen tried, millions have died.
I'm sorry. That's worse eventhan climate change. They keep
trying to bring it back. We havea mayor in New York that would
like to bring it back, and he'llcreate the same misery there

(50:08):
that they've created everywhereit's been tried. I think I think
Karl Marx is responsible for thegreatest hoax, since, the devil
was thrown out of the heavens.

But it just wasn't tried correctly. Come on,
Sterling.

Yeah. That's what they keep saying. They keep
saying, just get the rightpeople. Just just just you know,
as soon as as soon as we reachthat level where we have so much
plenty, we won't need to work.We'll just sort of divide the
plenty.
So the the the grasshopper caneat just like the ant, and we

(50:43):
won't go down you know, you canmake everybody you can make
everyone equal. You can makethem equal in in misery. You
can't make them equal in wealth,but you can raise the boat for
everyone.

I

Jim Lakely (50:56):
was Sterling, I I thought you were gonna say that
the greatest con job everperpetuated on the world was the
idea that Taylor Swift is thegreatest pop star of all time.

Probably be a close second or third.

I was

Speaker 2 (51:11):
gonna say We we have people at the Heartland
Institute who would contestthat.

And they'd be wrong, but you're right. We have
people that would contest it.

Yeah. Even though they say such statements are
unassailable.

Most recent, the biggest con job was the idea
that in order to stop a virus,you need to give government
superpowers and emergency powersto bypass democracy and shut
down the entire society andcancel weddings, funerals,
medical treatment, and issuestay at home orders with no
voted democracy. That's how youhandle a that was probably and

(51:44):
too many Americans bought that.We were too, I guess,
acquiescent, and we allowed thatto happen. I don't think it'll
ever happen again, but that wasone of the greatest con jobs
ever perpetrated, and the leadfigure there would be a one
Anthony Fauci.

Speaker 2 (52:01):
Awesome. Okay. You've got some dogs there.

Yes. Even the dogs

Speaker 2 (52:06):
eating with my dog. Alright. So engineer guy says, I
see on the news there are twohurricanes on the way. Will they
hit the East Coast? I think theanswer to that is the h one.
I don't remember the name of it.No. The I one. Yeah. Probably.
Here it comes for me is whereit's going.

Well, you know, Roger Pilkey junior had a great
article a few months weeks backabout the hurricanes that don't
hit, and there's actually astudy that claims that somehow
climate change could be pushinghurricanes off the coast from
actually making landfall. But hewas being facetious going
through and ain't gonna jokeabout it. But shouldn't we give
it credit when you have a badhurricane that actually doesn't

(52:46):
hit land? Maybe we maybe wecaused that somehow. But Yeah.
Who knows? Hurricanes are goingto hurricane.

Speaker 2 (52:53):
We'll get we'll get world attribution on that. I'm
sure they'll do that study forus.

Regarding these two, I think one of them
is now a hurricane. The otherone's still tropical Depression
or Yeah. Cyclone. It's not eventropical stormy, I don't think.
But there's some thought thatthey might actually run into
each other.
And if they do 46? No. No. No.If they do, rather than creating

(53:21):
one super hurricane, they maydissipate each other, that they
may, you know, have conflict.
It's a very rare event. There'sa name for it. I forget what it
is. But

I'm sure it's made more common by climate change,
though, that event. Sorry. Yeah.

Speaker 2 (53:37):
Alright. Jeff asks, what is in your pipe, Mark?

Only tobacco. I do not I've never had any any
marijuana in my life ever, noteven tried it once. This is, I
can't remember the name. This isprobably Country Squire, I get
it, from Mississippi. It's ahomegrown US tobacco, and, it's
a light aromatic.

Speaker 2 (53:57):
Very good. Wonderful. Alright.

Why I'm so mellow today. I feel really relaxed. So
it's tobacco mellow, not inanything else.

Speaker 2 (54:07):
Alright. Mars Rock asks, have any judicial
officials noticed or commentedon the education?

Jim Lakely (54:15):
Say that again.

Speaker 2 (54:17):
Have any talking

Jim Lakely (54:18):
about the law fair.

Speaker 2 (54:19):
Yeah. With the law fair stuff, have any judicial
officials noticed or commentedon their

Gotcha.

Speaker 2 (54:24):
You know, their their the climate education that
they're getting pushed on them?

To my to my knowledge, the court has the
Supreme Court hasn't weighed inon lower so the the Supreme
Court people haven't beeninvited to these conferences,
but lower courts have, appellatecourts. Now the people that
attend aren't gonna say anythingand complain. Right? They were
there. They got the meals.

(54:51):
They got the indoctrination.They've got their marching
orders. Their colleagues are lowto critique or criticize, the
others. So I'm not aware ofanyone who said something like,
they shouldn't be attendingthese events. This is
indoctrination.
This isn't giving knowledge.This is shaping, legal doctrine,

(55:13):
but I could be wrong. Maybesomebody said it. I haven't seen
it.

Speaker 2 (55:19):
Alright. And I want to point out that we have a a
hurricane expert in the chat,Stan Goldenberg, who says, yes.
The disturbance soon to beImelda will likely hit The US
and might cause seriousflooding. So everybody on that
coast that seems to be in kindof the general cone of
predictive, strike, please getready this weekend long in

(55:39):
advance before they send out theofficial you know, before the
storm forms and everything. Youshould always be prepared.
He should have been prepared,months ago for hurricane season.
So please now is the best notthe next best time.

Jim Lakely (55:53):
I'll I'll I'll also add that that Stan just texted
me, and he said that the bestinformation that you can get on
hurricanes is hurricanes.gov.

Speaker 2 (56:04):
Yes. Please do, you guys. Alrighty. This is probably
a question for Anthony here. Bobasks, to what extent does post
glacial rebound account forocean level rise?
I don't see how current glacialmelt could.

Well, post glacial rebound doesn't cause
rise in the sea level. It causesthe lowering of the sea level
because the land, had beencompressed from weight of the
ice, is now pushing back up veryslowly. And as a result, in
those areas where that'shappening, sea level is actually
subsiding a little bit. Sothat's really what's going on.

Speaker 2 (56:50):
Alrighty. Let's go. Steven Fraser says, it seems
like Kessler and his crewsuccessfully negated the DOA
negated the DOE report. ChrisWright folded this tent. What do
you think?

He means Dessler, not Kettler.

Speaker 2 (57:07):
Oh, yeah. I don't

Well, it was yeah. The lawsuit what happened was
and this is very unfortunate, isthe Department of Energy, when
they set up this this DOE reportwith Judith Curry and Roy
Spencer. Apparently, they didn'tdo exactly the correct
paperwork. And as Judith Curryherself said, they didn't cross
all the t's and dot all the i'scorrectly, and it left them

(57:31):
vulnerable to some bureaucraticprocedural lawsuit in federal
court, which then forced them todissolve the climate group. Now
it's a question of whether thereport was issued.
Does it still have the weight oflaw? It's it it has implications
on the endangerment finding, thec o two endangerment finding,
whether you can regulate c o twounder the Clean Air Act. It's

(57:52):
unfortunate. I don't knowexactly, and I don't know who
didn't fill out the paperwork orwhy there what didn't have
better oversight, but it's it'snot a shining moment for the
administration on that point.

I I honestly don't think they should have had
to fill out paperwork. You canhave a kitchen cabinet advising
you regardless. As far as theMark's right that the the group
was disbanded as an officialgroup, but, the DOE has stood by
the report. The report wasissued

Yes.

Regardless of the committee, and they haven't,
withdrawn it. But I don't thinkit's critical to the
endangerment finding. Theendangerment finding rescission,
I I think when I read it, I'mnot sure. It it references the
DOE report. The DOE report cameout almost simultaneously, so it

(58:42):
would be hard for it toreference it.
So I think the that stands orfalls regardless. The committee
might be gone, but the reportstands or falls. And as far as,
Dessler's refutation, it was ajoke. It it it it it was it was
idiotic. It didn't address thepoints that, the DOE report

(59:06):
raised.
It it used selective data whenit did directly address those
points. And, yeah, they got alot of names.

Jim Lakely (59:17):
They got a lot

of names. Oh, I can put my name on anything.

Jim Lakely (59:20):
Yeah.

Yes. Is. Did they write a report in less than
a month that it took the othersmonths and months to do? Just
like the NAS's report. Five daysafter their committee was
officially formed, suddenly theyhad a comprehensive report.
No. It's a joke.

Yeah. You know, on what's up with that, we
called it, Charles wrote aneditorial about it, science by
the pound, which is really whatit does. It just it was just
throw out as much crap as theycould and see if it sticks.

Yeah. The NAS, back when I was working in the
US senate again, we were able toget, it was, what was his name?
Ralph? What was the old, who'snow dead, but the old chairman
of the NAS. I mean, he would gohe basically admitted that the
entire National Academy ofScience is doing the bidding of
what government pays it to do.
So in other words, it's not likea neutral policy organization

(01:00:14):
seeking truth in science. It'sthere to essentially do what its
paymasters demand. It's almostheavily mostly funded by by
government. And he ended up,Ralph Cicerone was his name. He
ended up lobbying for Obama'scap and trade bill on Capitol
Hill.
I mean, this is a scientificlobbying organization in many
ways similar in politics to theIPCC of the United Nations. It's

(01:00:37):
there to push a politicalnarrative that the paymasters
insist upon. So anyone out therewho I remember I can't remember
who did the interview, butsomeone was like, the hey, guys.
National Academy of Sciences setup by Abraham Lincoln to review
the scientific latest scientificbullshit. It is a completely
political organization paidbought and paid for by the

(01:01:00):
government that insists they useit for politicization of
science.
So anyone out there who'sdelusional and thinks like, oh,
wow. The top scientists saidthis. No. This is just a
lobbying organization.

Sterling Brunnett (01:01:11):
Now and let's be clear. This report wasn't
funded by government. They wentthey took out they say they took
out their own money. They dothis on their own, right, before
someone says, oh, no. This thisis independent.
Yeah. Every one of thescientists involved has received
millions and millions of dollarsin grants to their by the way,
if you check out their, youknow, I've written about this.

(01:01:31):
If you check out theirbonafides, their their resumes,
what they do, they all work forclimate alarm organizations Yes.
Or spinners at universities thatare set up precisely to talk
about how bad climate change isand how the government needs to
expand and their roles asadvisers to the government need
to expand, take us seriously.And so, yeah, once they see the

(01:01:53):
government suddenly notgenuflecting to their power,
authority, and wisdom, suddenlythey can produce an independent
report that says the governmentis wrong.

Anthony Watts (01:02:05):
Sterling, you need to put your hat on.

I'm going for it now. You're right. It's too
late. But

Mark, in case you don't know, we have dubbed
Sterling the archbishop ofRenterbury, and so I set him in
his hat. That's great.

A little late, but here it is, folks.

That's great.

The the the the NAS on this report are liar
lying liars who tell lies.

Speaker 2 (01:02:40):
Thank you very much for that, Sterling. Alright.
Here is a question from Walterwho says, do climate realists
need to perform an interventionon those members of the
judiciary that are beingspecifically targeted for
propaganda by the climatecentral alarmists?

Mark Moreono (01:02:57):
Well, the intervention would be the DOE
report because it has the, youknow, it's the official report
of the Trump administration.That helps. What happens is
these judges literally don'tknow anything about the science,
and so it's all an appeal toauthority when they try to
prosecute. Well, the UN has saidthis, and even our own
government has an endangermentfinding finding c o two needs to

(01:03:19):
be regulate. So in many cases,these judges, even if they're
personally climate skeptics,they're presented with these
official government reports,they're like, well, you know,
what am I supposed to do?
So, yeah, we need a a betterlegal strategy, and this is why
this is why you need to havereports like the DOE report so
you can cite other officialreports. Because as a judge,

(01:03:40):
that's gonna be very critical indefeating these ridiculous
lawsuits. Many of them, theschoolchildren, eight, 10, 12
years old, suing the governmentbecause our climate future is at
stake. And by the way, ClimateCentral is famous for the TV
Weatherman indoctrination wherethey send the local weather.
Since 1970, your city has warmedx amount.
Gee. Why did you pick 1970? Oh,that was one of the coldest

(01:04:01):
periods of the twentiethcentury. Why don't you start in
the nineteen thirties and seehow much your city has warmed?
And they don't do that.
It's it's a pure, you know, justtypical propaganda outfit.

Mark, how dare you question Honest Science?

Speaker 2 (01:04:18):
Alright. Charlie b says, now that Google has
admitted its prior YouTube sins,are you demanding better
treatment for them?

Yeah. Shouldn't the Heartland channel be back in
full standing now with YouTube?You guys should have a letter of
apology. Check your inbox.

Jim Lakely (01:04:32):
Yeah. Yeah. It'll be in the inbox any moment, I'm
sure. Yeah.

No. No. We're we're working

on it. Although, I've I've seen some, commentary
on x from people who arecomplaining that they're being
slow walked already by YouTube,Google. So, you know, we'll keep
we're gonna keep at it. I mean,they're honest about what they
said in that letter, then weshould be remonetized. And, you
know, look, we we don't make aton of money on this channel.
Obviously, we never we didn'teven when we were monetized. The

(01:04:59):
point is that if your channel isdemonetized, it gets severely
punished by the algorithm, sothe show ends up not flowing
into the feed of people whoshould be seeing it, and not
just climate realists, but otherpeople who engage in the the
global conversation about theclimate. We are suppressed in
that regard because we are notmonetized. We are demonetized.

(01:05:20):
So, you know, that's what we'retrying to fix.

I have the same problem with what's up with
that, and I suspect you do too,Mark, with Climate Depot. They
demonetized me, I believe it wasaround 2019, late twenty
eighteen. Google sent me aletter basically saying, you
know, what you publish does notalign with our values and
vision. See you. Bye bye.
Sayonara. And so they took allthe advertising off of there,

(01:05:44):
you know, because, you know, wewere saying truth. And so I
suspect a lot of differentoutlets in the in the
conservative side have the sameproblem. And yeah. And maybe
Google is slow walking theseback, but we should push hard
for this because what Google didwas wrong.

(01:06:05):
Yeah. Mark, Mark sorry.

No. We're gonna make we're gonna make Sterling wear
that hat every single show untilwe are remonetized. Do you hear
me? Do you hear me, Google? Doyou nobody wants that.
So come on. Put us back on.

I will I will pray that we are remonetized in
Yeah.

I'm gonna have to get a burning cream boot from my

a little warm, folks. I don't I don't
need to be sweating on TV. SoMars rocks made a good
suggestion that we mail ourclimate at a glance to all these
judges. I don't know if that'dbe considered lobbying. I don't
know how what what the tax lawsare with regard to judges.

(01:06:48):
But I'll say this. We have asecond edition coming out. And
if we mail it, that should bethe one we send. It's all
updated and all the sources, allthe facts, and it covers new
material that wasn't in thefirst one. We encourage you all
when it comes out, which will benext week, to go up and get a
copy.

Speaker 2 (01:07:09):
Absolutely. Chris asks, have you noticed any
change in visitor numbers sincetheir admission? I don't think
so. Now that won't change untilthey actually change something.

Yeah. I don't think they they haven't actually done
anything. They just Yeah. Wrotea letter.

Speaker 2 (01:07:25):
This I'm gonna direct to Mark. Charlie in Europe made
our leaders cowards. Yet inAmerica, Charlie Kirk made you
all braver. Why?

Jizzy, Charlie? Who are they referring to?

Speaker 2 (01:07:39):
The early Hepto attack.

Okay. Well, Charlie Kirk, the attack here, I
think, because of the you know,just this young guy who's really
his number one mission was freespeech, debate, open society,
bringing the debate face to faceto your enemies, I think it
struck a chord in America thatjust like his widow, Erica, said

(01:08:02):
it's gonna make his message, hismovement stronger than anything
we could ever imagine. And I'mreally you know, if any good can
come out of his death, I'mhoping that's what it is. Europe
doesn't have the sameconstitutional most countries
don't have the sameconstitutional protections as
The United States in terms of,their free speech. I you know,

(01:08:24):
in order for Europe to evensurvive decades in the future,
the EU has to be abolished.
It is the most evil institution.Ursula von der Leyen, the whole
the whole idea of country'ssovereignty being usurped the
way they can do it almostdoesn't even matter what they
vote. The EU bureaucrats have aa hold on it. I I was in we were
in a at a conference, I guess,last year in in Austria, and it

(01:08:48):
was just amazing that they wereexplaining how the EU was
founded, how it was how it holdsa grip on all these nations, how
they can't really circumvent alot of the EU regulations.
That's that's gonna be yournumber one problem.
Because even if you have a massrebellion, which you have had,
they still can just sort of lielow and the EU can throttle you
back down in the future. It's ait's a bureaucratic structural

(01:09:10):
problem, I think, that'soccurring in Europe.

It's also a problem of history. Remember,
the countries of Europe havebeen conquered and led by
various types of authoritariansthroughout their entire history.
Monarchy is just another type ofauthoritarianism, and they have
a long history of obey obeyingthe crown. And when they throw
it off, they just put it youknow, they got rid of the the

(01:09:33):
the kings in France, and whothey replace them with?
Napoleon.
Well, that's better. They gotthey they they had the glorious
revolution in England. They gotthey they beheaded the the king.
Who'd they get? Thomas Cromwell.
Well, that's better. We arewe're founded America was
founded by people who wereleaving appeals to authority as

(01:09:56):
the standard, except for forsome of them, appeals to god. We
have a history of distrust ofgovernment. Europe doesn't have
that history.

Speaker 1 (01:10:07):
True.

They trust government. They think the
government generally has theirbest interest in mind. They're
not guided by Thomas Paine or,or, John Locke. They're guided
more by, I I forget the theFrench philosopher. But
Rousseau.

I believe Rousseau.

You're Rousseau. Rousseau. Or in
Germany, by Hegel, who believehuman people are just part of an
larger social organism. The Balipolitics, it's important, not
individuals. That's not whatAmerica is.
So when you have someone likeCharlie Kirk, he's hearkening
back to the very notion of howthis country was founded and the

(01:10:49):
people who founded it.

Speaker 2 (01:10:55):
Well and two, I think, I don't know. It just
might be a a matter ofpersonality. I mean, our we have
plenty of leaders whoimmediately, you know, attempted
to go on the, like, both sidesprogram as soon as Charlie was
assassinated. You know? We haveluckily, most of the leaders who

(01:11:15):
are actually in, you know, theWhite House and stuff right now
were not the kind of people thatroll over quite so easily, but
we have plenty of those too.
So it's, you know, across thespectrum. Who knows? But, yeah,
I'm very I'm very sorry that youguys didn't, you know, have
your, over there in Britaindidn't have the wake up moment
after or not Britain. Sorry. Itwas from France.

(01:11:37):
Right? Charlie Hebdo? Franceand, frankly, Britain too didn't
have a wake up moment from thatevent. Let's see. Well, we don't
have any more questions.
I have this somebody startedthis comment for me. I'm not
sure why, but that the climatechange disclaimer is still on
all the videos. So, yeah, theyhaven't changed anything at

(01:11:58):
YouTube. So not too not too

I know why. There the power grid can't is not
powering the AI, so the AIdoesn't have enough power to
change the algorithm to removeall that stuff yet. It's gonna
take a while. Oh, wow. A nucleartheory.
Too much solar and wind on thepower grid for the AI to work.

Yeah. Hey. That's a new conspiracy theory. I was
kinda getting bored with my oldones, so thanks for that one.

Well, if he's if he's right about that, it
will take longer still becausethe power grid is increasingly
still powered by wind and solar,which means lacked of power.

Yep. Alright. Well, that will do it for today's
edition of the climate realismshow. I believe this is episode
number 175, and we hope to seeyou next Friday at 1PM eastern
time for episode one seventy sixwhere we'll be covering the
latest in climate news andkeeping the world informed from
a climate realist perspective. Iwanna thank our streaming

(01:12:56):
partners who help us get thisshow in front of you for more
people.
Junk Science, Seafact, that'syou, Mark Marano, c o two
Coalition, Climate Depot, that'salso you, Mark Marano. Yeah.
What's up with that? AndHeartland UK Europe. I wanna
thank Andy Singer, our producerbehind the scenes doing a
fantastic job today and remindyou to always visit
climaterealism.com,climate@aglance.com,

(01:13:16):
energy@aglance.com, and alwaysgo to heartland.org where you
can subscribe to the archbishopof Rancher Berry's climate
change weekly newsletter.
And, that'll do it, and we willtalk to you next week. Bye bye.
You.

All Episodes

The Climate Realist President — The Climate Realism Show #175

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

Crime Junkie

Cardiac Cowboys

.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;}The Climate Realist President — The Climate Realism Show #175