The Endangerment Finding Is Dead. Here’s Why It Matters — The Climate Realism Show #190 - Environment and Climate News Podcast

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
One of the most urgent tasks of our country is
to decisively defeat the climatehysteria hoax.

Linnea Lueken (00:10):
We are in the beginning of a mass mass
extinction.

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

Anthony Watts (00:19):
The price of oil has been artificially elevated
to the point of insanity.

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

Speaker 5 (00:27):
The ultimate goal of this renewable energy, you know,
plan is to reach the exact samepoint that we're at now.

Jim Lakely (00:36):
You know who's tried that? Germany. Seven straight
days of no wind for Germany.Their factories are shutting
down.

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

Jim Lakely (00:53):
That's right, Greta. It is Friday. It's the Friday of
one of the best weeks ever forclimate realism. It's also a
great week because this is the aGood Friday, should say, because
this is the day the HeartlandInstitute broadcasts the climate
realism show. My name is JimLakeley.
I am executive vice president ofthe Heartland Institute and your
host. And, you know, at theHeartland Institute, we are an

(01:15):
organization that has beenaround for forty two years, and
we are known as the leadingglobal think tank pushing back
on climate alarmism. Heartlanddid this show bringing the data,
the science, the truth tocounter the climate alarmist
narrative you've been fed everysingle day of your life. There
is nothing else quite like theclimate realism show streaming
anywhere, so I hope you willbring friends to view this

(01:38):
livestream every Friday at 1PMeastern time. And also like,
share, and subscribe, and besure to leave your comments
underneath the video.
These all convince YouTube'svery mysterious algorithm to
smile upon this program, andthat gets it in front of even
more people. And as a reminder,because big tech and the legacy
media do not really approve ofthe way we cover climate and
energy on this program,Heartland's YouTube channel has

(02:00):
been demonetized. So if youwanna support this pro program,
and I really hope you do, pleasevisit heartland.org/tcrs. That's
heartland.org/tcrs, and you canjoin other friends of this
program who support it to bringit to the world every single
week. And we also wanna thankour streaming partners,
junkscience.com, CFACT, What'sUp With That, The c o two

(02:24):
Coalition, and Heartland UKEurope.
Oh, boy. Do we have a big showtoday with some fantastic news,
so let's get started. We havewith us, as usual, Anthony
Watts. He's senior fellow at theHeartland Institute and
publisher of the world's mostviewed website on climate
change. What's up with that?
Lynea Lukin, research fellow forenergy environment policy at

(02:44):
Heartland. And we are so welcometo welcome we're so happy to
welcome back special guest LoisPerry. She's the director of
Heartland UK Europe, and thatorganization and and Lois are on
the vanguard of convincingpeople and the government of
Great Britain to give up thenonsensical net zero goal. She's
doing amazing work. Welcome,Lois.

(03:05):
Welcome, everyone.

Lois Perry (03:06):
Thank you for having me.

Jim Lakely (03:09):
Alright. Before we get into the show, I just wanna
remind everybody that we have aclimate conference coming, the
sixteenth InternationalConference on Climate Change.
The theme, which we picked outmonths ago, is really apropos
today. Climate realism isrising, and it's April 9 and
April 2026 at the HotelWashington in Washington DC. You

(03:34):
can get your tickets.
Space is limited. I must tellyou, space is limited. So go
today. Go to heartland.org.You'll see a feature on the
front page where you can clickon that and get your tickets.
Get them today. And this it'sgonna be fantastic. We have some
fantastic speakers, includingLanea and Lois and Anthony
Watts. So if you if it's beenyour dream to meet in person the

(03:57):
people on this show, the ourclimate conference is the place
to be in April in Washington DC.Alright.
Now with that and with a bigshow ahead of us, let's get into
it with the crazy climate newsof the week. Yes. Thank you very

(04:25):
much, Bill Nye. I don't know howwhat I what I enjoy about that
drop more. The the thefoolishness of Bill Nye or that
funny music that we put to it.
Alright. Let's go. Our firstitem here is this comes from
Eurobarometer, and it seems thatEurope's climate panic has taken
quite the dip. There was BjornLormborg, who we like well

(04:50):
enough, shared a tweet thatshowed this in graphic form. But
the Eurobarometer, that's anofficial poll from the EU.
And since August 2010, they haveasked, quote, what do you think
are the two most importantissues facing the EU at the
moment? You can only pick twoanswers when they ask you that.
In the early years of the poll,the top two issues were by far

(05:13):
the economic situation and thestate of member states public
finances. And then immigrationbecame one of the top two for a
few years in the middle twentyteens. But then in 2019, climate
took the number one spot, andbut it's been all downhill ever
since.
Today, in the Eurobarometerpoll, the top two issues are the

(05:34):
war in Ukraine and, once again,immigration is high on that
list. Mhmm. And I don't thinkclimate is gonna be ticking back
up anytime soon. You can seefrom the graphic on screen that
it looks like it's it's apermanent spiral downward. So
first of all, Lois, the directorof Heartland UK Europe,

(05:55):
congratulations.
And two, why do you think thistopic has faded in the minds of
Europeans as one of the mostimportant issues?

Lois Perry (06:04):
Well, I think number one, I'm not sure that I can
take all of the credit, butthank you very much. You know, I
do I do love compliments, so I Iwill take that one, actually.
But I think, basically, you'vegot a situation where if this
look. You guys having Trump inthe White House has changed

(06:25):
everything. It really has.
Suddenly, you've got the mostpowerful man in the world just
openly calling the whole thing ahoax, the whole climate change
thing a hoax. Drill, baby.Drill. People are seeing in
America the impact of what goeson you know, what happens when
you reduce the cost of energyand you become energy energy

(06:46):
sufficient, and and and theywant a little bit of that. And
the other thing as well, withoutwishing to put too fine a point
on it, there are so many otherpressing issues.
When people are going out intothe streets and and they're
they're seeing, additionalviolence, crime going through
the roof, and people you know,the the things other things take

(07:09):
priority. I mean, for example,in London at the moment, violent
crime, and, shoplifting and andall sorts of different crimes,
sexual attacks in particular,are so off the Richter's scale
that people worrying about whatmay or may not happen to the
planet in fifty years, whetherthey think it believe in it or

(07:30):
not, is not gonna be a numberone priority. I'm not surprised
immigration is so high, and I'mnot surprised that concerns
about, expensive wars or warswhere your sons and daughters
might be drafted into that youdon't believe in. And even if
you do believe in it, you don'tyour kids to be drafted into it.
I I'm not surprised that climatechange has slipped down.

(07:52):
Also, hopefully, the the goodwork that that we're doing is
making an impact. I know it isin The UK. I know from the CPACs
that we've been to in Poland andHungary that the work that the
Heartland Europe is doing ismaking a big impact as well. So
so, yeah, let's take some of thecredit at least, Dave.

Jim Lakely (08:18):
Yeah. Well, I mean Go ahead, Anthony. Sorry.

Yeah. I was just thinking, what a mess that the
left has created in in The UK. Imean, their policies on
immigration, well, you know,everybody's come on in, you
know. It's just it's justdestroying not just The UK, but
the many of the EU countries.They're letting this immigration
take over their nationalidentity.
And so as a result, you haverising crime and fear. And, you

(08:46):
know, climate change doesn'teven score a blip in the mind of
a lot of people these days.

Lois Perry (08:50):
And and resentment.

Worried about going out on the street.

Lois Perry (08:53):
And resentment. Huge resentment. And and,
unfortunately, just veryquickly, just make one little
point. What's what I've noticedfrom my, because I've got lot,
my my stepfather is Jamaican,and my sister's a mixed race.
What's happening is thatindigenous British born people

(09:15):
and mixed race people areexperiencing racism sometimes
for the first time because ofthe resentment that's being
caused by illegal people comingin and being seen to be being
treated better and and, youknow, and have a and and being
here completely illegally andand causing issues and problems

(09:38):
and crime.
So my my my half brothers and myhalf sisters have experienced.
But my little sister, Tanya, hada bottle thrown at her the other
day. She has never ever everexperienced any kind of
prejudice. Well, maybe veryslightly when she was very
little. But but it's becausepeople are angry about the about

(10:02):
the uncontrolled immigration.
I'm absolutely convinced of it.

Yeah. It's so to the audience real quick here,
just to explain why we have alittle bit of a a pause between
conversations as we're goingalong. Andy is out. As you can
see, the bishop of Rantaberry isout.

Sterling By the way, at the upcoming ICC
sixteen, we're gonna have abishop of Rantaberry statue in
the lobby. And then press abutton, and it'll create a rant
for you.

Yeah. Yeah. We're gonna have cardboard cutouts of
Sterling in the lobby. But theyeah. So we're running the show
in the background at the sametime as hosting and having
conversations.
So it's a little bit trickytoday, but thank you guys for
sticking with us. And I justwanted to give a little bit of
an explanation because we'rehaving a little bit more, like,

(10:53):
pauses than we usually do.

Jim Lakely (10:55):
Yeah. Yeah. We're doing our best. We're doing our
best to try to produce and hostat the same time. So all errors
are mine, and all good thingsare Linea is responsible.
Alright. Well, let's let's getinto our second item, and it is
titled, the issue with tissue.Now this comes, from our

(11:20):
friends, I say thatsarcastically, of course, from
the National, Natural ResourcesDefense Council, and they
actually have put out a reportcalled The Issue with Tissue for
several years. So, you know, tohell with your nose and and your
bum as well, I guess. The NRDCthinks we just have it too good,
and the cost is the forest,apparently.
So let me read a little bit fromthis. It says since 2019, NRDC's

(11:46):
the issue with tissue series hasexposed how America's largest
tissue manufacturers are failingthe climate, communities, and
biodiversity by creating singleuse, throwaway products from
forests like the CanadianBoreal. Now, you know, I like
toilet paper being single use,but everybody was there. They
write, these annual scorecardsgrade major toilet paper, paper

(12:09):
towel, and facial issue brandsbased on their sustainability
and provide custom, consumerswith a powerful tool for
selecting eco friendly options,such as products made from
recycled content and responsiblysourced bamboo. Despite progress
and the dozens of smallercompanies embracing alternatives
to the tree to toilet pipeline,many of the most popular US

(12:32):
tissue brands continue to drivedevastating impacts to forests.
For the first time, Procter andGamble breaks out of the f grade
category with its Charmin UltraBamboo Toilet Paper landing a b
score. While this product is astep in the right direction, P
and G's flagship tissue brands,including Bounty, Charmin, and
Pups, continue to receive fgrades for relying almost

(12:56):
exclusively on forest fiber.Now, Lanea, I don't think most
consumers really care wheretheir tissues and toilet paper
comes from as long as it's,well, let's just say
comfortable, if not luxurious.And they probably care less
about the tree to toiletpipeline than NRDC does because
trees are a renewable resource.Yeah.

(13:18):
Toilet paper be among the lastproducts made out of a tree that
is cut down, actually?

Yeah. Thanks for going to me on this, Jim. You
know? But yeah. Boy, where tobegin?
Well, let's say the so thereason why they like the bamboo
stuff more than forest stuff isbecause it takes a lot longer to
grow a weed, which is bamboo,than it does to grow a tree

(13:46):
tree. Although I'm a little bitskeptical about the the, like,
whole of life emissions and andenvironmental friendliness about
relying entirely on bamboo.Though I would like to I'm gonna
scroll up here because I'm incharge of this right now. I
would like if you can pull up ifyou can put that other screen

(14:07):
back on

Jim Lakely (14:08):
Yep.

The thing with the chart.

Lois Perry (14:11):
Yep.

I will say, if you notice, all of the ones that
are so so bamboo is supposed tobe easier to use because it
grows super fast. It's supposedto be cheaper. But all of the
ones that are at in the acategory and b category are,
like, the most expensive toiletpapers on the market. You're not
gonna you're not gonna get me tostop buying the Kirkland brand

(14:31):
one. I'm sorry.
That's what I've got. It's it'syou would think that it would be
cheaper, but it's not. Like, I'mnot gonna buy Trader Joe's
toilet paper. Sorry. It's justcrazy.

Lois Perry (14:46):
I I I don't have a clue what you're talking about
at the moment, but I'm guessingfrom what you're saying. I'm
guessing.

Yeah. So it's man, I guess you can find
something to complain aboutanything. Right?

You know, they it just goes to show you they are
after every aspect of your life,you know? Yep. They wanna change
every aspect of your lifebecause the way you live is not
acceptable to them. I mean, ifyou're not living in a mud hut
and eating grass and bugs,you're not living the life of a
climate crusader, you know? Andand that's how they think.

(15:25):
It's just bizarre. And, ofcourse, yeah, if you ever see
these folks out in any kind ofan outing such as, you know,
maybe one of their conferences,oh, you know, they're living
high on the hog. It's all about,you know, regulation for you,
but not for me. The wholeelitist viewpoint that they've
had forever. And, you know, mostpeople today just don't wanna

(15:47):
have any part of it.
They're smarter than that. And Iwould say this, bamboo toilet
paper, well, you know, I don'tknow if you've ever had bamboo
slivers stuck into your fingersor not, but I sure as heck don't
want any bamboo toilet paper.

Lois Perry (16:00):
Yeah. It's interesting, isn't it? It's
always then, you know, the themiddle class and the well off
who are really into all of thisnonsense. And and and as Lynnae
just pointed out, these the theones that are the most
sustainable, the ones that havethe highest ratings are, guess
what, the most expensive. Onceagain, everything everything
that's good for the planet,everything that's the right

(16:22):
thing to do is expensive.
So so the sort of the inferenceis if you're a poor person, then
you shouldn't you know,basically, you just shouldn't
almost exist. You certainlyshouldn't be driving. You
certainly shouldn't be able toheat your home or or or even use
decent toilet paper. I mean,you're right. Is there not one
aspect of our lives that theydon't want to control or

(16:45):
destroy?
It doesn't seem like it, doesit?

Jim Lakely (16:48):
No. And that's and that's the point. I mean, we
call it the crazy climate newsof the week, and there are
usually at least a handful, ifnot two handful, of these sorts
of stories where there is nolimiting principle into what
they will try to force people todo either through coercion,
persuasion. Very rarely do theyuse persuasion. It's usually
government coercion.

(17:08):
Even to even to the comfort youhave after, doing a number two.
I mean, I apologize, Lynne, forgoing to you first. Usually,
most of the poop stuff goes toAnthony first, but I thought,
you know, he's been he's beenpretty greedy with that.

Well, let me say this too. So they're worried
about boreal forest. They don'twant old, you know, nice forests
being chopped down. And I agreewith that. I don't want old nice
forests being chopped downeither.
But you know what's somethingthat they are chopping down nice
forest for? To plant othercheaper trees, faster growing
trees like the loblolly pine inorder to make wood chips to send

(17:42):
to Britain for them to Yeah. Forelectricity. Yeah. So I really I
don't take this stuff.
I don't take their cries aboutdeforestation. I really don't
take very seriously because Idon't believe that they actually
care all that much. I think, youknow, if they're told, like,
well, it's okay because we'regonna chop down this forest to
put wind turbines.

Lois Perry (18:04):
Yeah. In the meantime. Mhmm.

So, yeah, I just I I just don't take them
seriously on these issuesanymore.

Jim Lakely (18:12):
Yep.

You know, I would say in in terms of overreach,
this is the poop de grace oftheir effort.

Lois Perry (18:21):
Oh, Oh, boy.

Jim Lakely (18:22):
Alright. Well, here. This

is a

This nice family friendly show. Yeah.

Jim Lakely (18:32):
Okay. Well,

Lois Perry (18:33):
let's flush this a new story now, please? As an
English
fan, I'm trying to it's a little bit uncomfortable.

Jim Lakely (18:39):
Yeah. We'll flush that topic and move on to the
next one, which is another manhumiliation. And, Anthony, get
ready. I always go to you firstwhen we have to talk about
Michael Mann. But our friendSteve Malloy, who's often on
this program with us, So let mejust back it up a little bit.

(19:01):
So the Associated Press wrote astory this week earlier this
week about Trump repealingObama's endangerment funding for
carbon dioxide for greenhousegases. And our friend and
frequent guest, Steve Malloy,tweeted at the reporter for the
Associated Press and asked himwhy he used Michael Mann as a
source in his story considering,quote, he has just been

(19:22):
sanctioned by a Washington DCcourt for presenting false
information in court andlitigating in bad faith on the
essential issue in his case,unquote. And that if you
frequent viewers will willremember that that's the case
where Michael Michael Mann suedMark Stein in National Review
for defamation. But since thecase has been adjudicated, the

(19:43):
junk the judge has been keepinghimself very busy sanctioning
Mann for presenting falseinformation to that very jury.
Well, anyway, after being calledout, the Associated Press
removed Mann and his commentsfrom the story.
Just wiped it clean. It'sactually pretty shocking, you
know, because the AP grants youknow, they get grants. We've

(20:04):
mentioned this on the showbefore as well. The Associated
Press gets grants from, youknow, lefty daddy Warbucks is
out there. Print nothing butclimate alarmist stories.
But, apparently, now even theAssociated Press has standards
because they scrubbed MichaelMann from the story. Anthony,
this might be the worst possiblepunishment for one of the worst

(20:24):
people in the climate debatebecause Michael Mann has an
enormous ego, and this had tobeat him pretty esteemed.

Yeah. I've often said that his ego is so live
that you cannot he cannot fitthrough some doors. It just this
guy has you know, that we havethis phrase called Trump
derangement syndrome. Well, MikeMann has climate derangement
syndrome. Seriously, he does.

(20:51):
He he believes that the world isgoing to hell in a handbasket
and he is the savior of theplanet. And everybody should
listen to him because he is thesavior. And it it it's just
bizarre the kind of things thathe will do and say just to get
his point across. And so what'snow happening is he's got a
sharp reality check, and I'msure he's just having a

(21:14):
conniption fit over this. Youknow, I'm sure the email I would
have loved to have seen thoseemails in the background that
transpired after that gotpulled.
He's probably mattering ahornet. And this is going to set
a precedent. Now I wanna pointout something. If you go to
Grok, you know, which isTwitter's AI, and ask, is

(21:36):
Michael Mann a liar? He comesback and says, yes.
When when the when the LLMs ofthe world are starting to
recognize that he's a liar andputting out, you know, a
response that says that, thatreally says something.

Lois Perry (21:54):
Yeah. His hockey stick is still used. The graph
is still used in schools to showchildren that that, you know,
that that temperatures have goneup and that it's all man made
and and all of that where, youknow, where it's been it's been
provingly proved completelyfalse. Is that that's correct,

(22:15):
isn't it?

That's right.

Lois Perry (22:17):
Yeah. But yeah. My thought is still learning that
in full.

Way back when. Yeah. If if you take data take
this data, any data, anything,and feed it into his algorithms,
it comes up with a hockey stick.Okay.

Lois Perry (22:34):
He yeah. And and, obviously, he was very mean to
my very good friend, Mark Stein,who who gave me a a show to to
talk purely about climate stuffcalled Perry's perspective on GB
News for a time. And, yeah, Iwas very, very, very sad about
what happened to to Mike sorry,to Mark with regards to this and

(22:57):
also with regards to his hisshow on GB News.

Jim Lakely (23:03):
Yep.

I'm running Grok right now, and it's taking a
while to think about the answer.I'm just wanna see how fast it
comes up with it. It is veryinteresting at the I like it now
that they show, like, all theplaces that they're searching
and stuff. Mhmm. And, like,Grock's, I guess, like,
processing.
But we'll see what it comes upwith. We'll see.

Jim Lakely (23:25):
The the only the only way Mark or Michael Mann's
hockey stick should be taught inschool, it it should be taught
to give an example of dishonestscience and and fraudulent
presentation because you can'tyou can't I mean, Anthony, maybe
you can expand on this. But,know, you can't start with one
dataset, take collect it in acertain way, skip to another

(23:48):
one, different dataset, take itin a different way, and then go
back to the other dataset theother way around. I mean, that
that is one of the big flaws inthe hockey stick that he never
loves to talk about, but it'sthe way it was put together was
was, guaranteed the as you said,guaranteed the result.

Lois Perry (24:04):
Oh, well, you'll absolutely love this. So my
daughter today in her dramaclass had to do a rap about how
hydroelectricity producescleaner and cheaper energy than
traditional oil and gas. I mean,no. It doesn't it it may be in
in a very specific locationsaround the world with very

(24:26):
specific, you know, geography,but certainly not in The United
Kingdom. But, I mean, getting ina bunch of 15 year olds to do a
rap about renewables.
God's you should say, oh, no.Really? Is it is it really that
bad? I mean, it was quite a goodrap, actually. But yeah.
I mean, what's going on?

Jim Lakely (24:50):
Yep. So so what do we got there, Lanea? How's it
looking?

I don't use my grok my grok does not agree with
Anthony's grok.

Lois Perry (24:58):
Well, either if you didn't

give it an exact prompt, when you say Michael e
Mann, I'm climate scientist, itmight not because there's
another Michael Mann who

has nothing to do with mine. Which one. It knows
which one. It's but mine gives adifferent, you know, but but
they're they train differentlybased off of how you treat like,
how you talk to them and whatsubjects you run through them
and stuff. And I've almost neverused Grox.
So

Lois Perry (25:23):
Oh, right.

Jim Lakely (25:24):
Yeah. Linea is busy. Makes a difference.

It's it's possible that it's been scrubbed
already, but I saw this clearlyyesterday in a Twitter post. And
it was it was quite definitive.

Jim Lakely (25:36):
Well, Linea's busy training a a different AI to
behave properly. We've talkedabout that on the In the Tag
show. So.

Yeah. I've been beating ChatGPT into submission.
Not so much not so much on thetypes of answers it gives
because I don't trust any like,if I I'm not gonna ask a an LLM
to give me a truthful answerabout, like, climate science or
something. It's just not it'sjust not geared towards
something like that. But I Ihave been beating it into

(26:05):
submission with regards to itspersonality and the way that it
talks to me Because I reallyhate the sycophant version that
got released where it, like,tells you you're right all the
time.
I hate it. I hate it. So I do II abuse ChatGPT.

Jim Lakely (26:24):
Yeah. The real the real world tells me I'm right
all the time, so I could I

Lois Perry (26:27):
don't need that for

Jim Lakely (26:28):
my ChatGPT for sure.

Lois Perry (26:30):
But isn't isn't that alarming just on a sort of
looking at the whole issue of AIin a metaverse, just for want of
a better word, that youbasically it means that in a way
that people are getting theanswers they want. So people are
there there are differenttruths. If it if it behaves

(26:50):
differently based on how youtalk to it and things that you
look for and your attitudes andthings, doesn't it become a
little bit like buying anewspaper because you have it
has a certain politicalpersuasion rather than a
different one? I don't know.
I don't use it because I hate it so much.

Yeah. It's a tool. It has to be thought of as
a tool and not as a oracle.Yeah.

Lois Perry (27:15):
But kids do see it as an oracle. That's the
problem, isn't it?

Jim Lakely (27:19):
Yeah. Yep. The human the the the the danger is how
humans are being trained to useAI, not the other way around.

Lois Perry (27:25):
We're gonna we're gonna train

we're gonna train Grock to consistently call
Michael Mann a liar.

Lois Perry (27:33):
Hey. Just

remember this. Mantastic claims require a
fantastic evidence.

Jim Lakely (27:41):
Alright. Well, before we before we move on to
the big news and the bigfantastic news, really, it was
his his an historic day onThursday when Donald Trump
basically got rid of theendangerment finding. Before we
go to that, Lois, I just wantedto you you had shared something
with me on WhatsApp this week.Tony Blair, of all people. Tony

(28:01):
Blair has said, you know, hey.
We need to start ramping upgetting oil and gas out of the
North Sea again. I never thoughtI would hear somebody like Tony
Blair ever say something likethat.

Lois Perry (28:13):
Yeah. So a a a very sensible story, appeared today.
I think it was in the Times. Isent I sent you a link. I sent
you a copy of the article.
So the Tony Blair Institute hassaid highly sensible things that
we, us, guys, have

Jim Lakely (28:31):
been

Lois Perry (28:31):
saying forever, basically, about the, that
basically, if you're notproducing your own oil and gas,
then you're going to beimporting it, producing more
carbon emissions if you believein that kind of thing being
being an issue. You know, sayingthat we that the, Ed Miller Band
and the current labor governmentneed to end the bat the ban on,

(28:54):
on North Sea oil and gaslicenses, new ones, because at
the moment, if there's a ban onissuing any new license for
exploration in the North Sea,Trump said that he feels there's
five hundred years worth there.Who knows? But there's certainly
enough to keep our economy goingin terms of the revenue from

(29:15):
that for for decades, and andthe Tony Blair Institute said
that. I mean, unsurprisingly,somebody who's the head of
climate science at a universityin The UK said, this is madness.
Renewals renewables are cheaperand all of that. But, you know,
in the immortal words of, of alady that testified in the
perfumer affair scandal in thesixties called Mandy Rice Davis,

(29:38):
She said, well, he would saythat, wouldn't he? You know,
when somebody's got a betterwhen someone benefits from the
climate nonsense, of course,they're gonna wanna keep the
climate nonsense going. Butsomebody and and an institute is
as important and respected assaying we need our own energy.
We mustn't be we mustn't berunning our economy or or

(30:00):
putting may crashing our economyon the basis of, you know, moral
issues.
We need we need to be thinkingabout the whole picture and and
supporting our people. Mostexpensive energy in the Western
world, if not the entire world,it's ridiculous now. They they
it's impossible now to to runany kind of industry because the

(30:22):
energy prices are so high. So,yeah, I mean, I saw this as a
very, very positive sign. Andthe story actually said, Tony
Blair Institute agrees withDonald Trump.
So drill, baby, drill.Hopefully, you know, that that's
the policy of of the reformparty anyway. So and they're
heading the polls in The UK atthe moment. So fingers crossed,

(30:45):
Dave.
Yeah. Fingers crossed.

Climate sensibility is taking hold
worldwide.

Lois Perry (30:51):
Brilliant. Yeah. I mean,

Jim Lakely (30:53):
I really think I really thought that was a that's
a great sign. I mean, becauseyou would I wouldn't have
dreamed that was possible thatthe Tony Blair Institute of All
Things wouldn't wouldn't juststay neutral or stay quiet, but
actively advocate for more oiland gas

Lois Perry (31:04):
They're pushing for it. That's what
I'm You you know, because we talk all the time
that that the Heart Institute inThe UK and Europe, and The UK in
particular, has been pushingvery, very, very hard for this.
And, I mean, the otherinteresting thing is they said
if we're going to get our ouremissions down, that we need our

(31:28):
carbon emissions down, thenwe're going to have to electrify
everything. And the this isbrilliant. The cheapest way to
us for us to provide our ownelectricity is to is to build
more gas fired power stationsbecause then we're not importing
gas with a higher carbonfootprint from abroad. But
they're saying this like it'sbrand new stuff.

(31:49):
How long have we been sayingthis stuff? You know? Anyway, it
seems they're listening, sothat's good.

That that is very good. Mhmm. They're not
engineers. They're evocative.That's the their whole thinking.

Lois Perry (32:03):
Yep. Yep. Alright.

Jim Lakely (32:05):
Well, we're gonna get to our main topic today that
the endangerment finding isdead. Forgive me for a moment.
I'm gonna try to set this up sothat we have the largest
possible screen. Actually, whatwe'll do, we'll go back to this.
Alright.
I'll put the I'll put this videoup on screen. I I prepared
something a little special forus to celebrate and to have a

(32:28):
good laugh, at the death of theendangerment finding, so I'm
gonna hit that video right now.

Speaker 1 (32:37):
McCoy.

Jim Lakely (32:40):
That Jim. A strange

red modeling all over his face.

Jim Lakely (32:47):
Shock bringing back together seems to have been too
much for him. He's dead, Jim.Finished. It's dead.

Stitch.

Jim Lakely (33:34):
The man is dead. He's dead, Jim. Just like the
other one. Stab over and overagain. Bill Shatner, thank you
so much.
Outstanding. For that. Yeah. Ihad some fun.

Lois Perry (33:54):
You would
not take time by any chance.

Little bit.

Lois Perry (33:58):
I know.

Jim Lakely (34:01):
We I I we didn't have time to all buy, Star Trek,
shirts to wear on the air today.But, yeah, when I saw the
Endangerment Finding was dead, Ithought, you know, he's dead,
Jim. It, it kind of was ever so.But let's let's get into the
into the story here. By the way,Al Gore calls the end of the

(34:21):
endangerment funding forgreenhouse gases, quote, an all
out assault on climate policy inThe US.
If only that were true. Theycould have done more, and we'll
talk about that a little bitlater. Liday, maybe you can
bring up the the slide that has,the actual Sure. Rule from the
Environmental Protection Agency,which was released announced

(34:43):
yesterday and, I think, putonline this morning. This is the
final rule for greenhouse gasendangerment finding.
In this action, the US EPA isrescinding the administrator's
2,009 findings of contributionand endangerment and repealing
all greenhouse gas emissionstandards for light duty, medium
duty, and heavy duty vehiclesand engines to effectuate the

(35:06):
best reading of the Clean AirAct. The EPA determines that the
Clean Air Act, section two zerotwo(one) does not authorize the
agency to prescribe emissionstandards in response to global
climate change concerns formultiple reasons, including the
best reading of the statutoryterms air pollution, cause,
contribute, and reasonably beanticipated to endanger. That

(35:31):
about does it. The statutoryinterpretation is corroborated
by application of the majorquestions doctrine. The EPA
further determines thatgreenhouse gas emission
standards for new motor vehiclesand engines do not impact in any
material way the public healthand welfare concerns identified
in the administrator's priorfindings in 2009.

(35:53):
On these multiple andindependent bases, the EPA
concludes that it lacksstatutory authority to regulate
greenhouse gas emissions inresponse to global climate
change concerns under the CleanAir Act, and it is not
finalizing the additional basisfor repeal set out in the
proposed rule. And before we westart to break this down a

(36:14):
little bit, I wanted to show,some video here. This is Donald
Trump and EPA administrator, LeeZeldin.

Speaker 1 (36:24):
This is a big one. If you're into environment, this is
about as big as it gets, theytell me.

Jim Lakely (36:33):
Today, the single largest act of deregulation in
the history of The UnitedStates, over $1,300,000,000,000,
the elimination of theendangerment finding is signed,
sealed, and delivered.

Speaker 1 (36:47):
The single largest deregulatory action in American
history. That's a big statementin American history, and I think
we can add the words by far.Under the process just completed
by the EPA, we are officiallyterminating the so called
endangerment finding, adisastrous Obama era policy that

(37:11):
severely damaged the Americanauto industry and massively
drove up prices for Americanconsumers. Prices went up
incredibly for a worse product.This action will eliminate over
$1,300,000,000,000 of regulatorycost and help bring car prices
tumbling down dramatically.

(37:33):
You're gonna get a better car.You're gonna get a car that
starts easier, a car that worksbetter for a lot less money. We
we canceled the EPA's absurdjust totally absurd tailpipe
emission standards, was adisaster for automobile
manufacturing and revokedBiden's emissions waiver that

(37:54):
would have allowed California toregulate automobiles for the
entire nation, and they're crazyout in California. They have
nothing but trouble out there,as you know, that's why people
are leaving in record numbers. Ialso ended Joe Biden's extreme
CAFE emission standards, savingthe average American consumer
much more than $1,000 when theybuy a new car, but now we're

(38:18):
talking about close to $3,000.
Sure.

Speaker 8 (38:21):
What do you tell Americans who are concerned that
the $1,300,000,000,000 insavings does come at a cost to
public health and theenvironment based on science.

Speaker 1 (38:31):
I tell them don't worry about it because it has
nothing to do with publichealth. This is all a scam, a
giant scam. This was a rip offof, the country by Obama and
Biden. And let's say Obamastarted, they didn't get it
rolling, and a terror terriblerip off.

Lois Perry (38:50):
Yep. Terrible God. I am so gel, as they say in Essex.
Well, I am so gel. You are solucky.
You really are. Wow.

Jim Lakely (39:04):
Yeah. Well, yeah, Anthony, you know, this is a big
deal, obviously. Let's talkabout why it's such a big deal,
and then we can get deeper into,as a group here, what it doesn't
do and what more needs to bedone. But, you know, Lee Zeldin
calls the called theendangerment finding, it's now
past tense, The holy grail ofthe climate change religion. And

(39:24):
this repeal is something thatour community of climate
realists have been asking forsince way back in the first
Trump administration.
It seemed like it was nevergoing to happen, and here it is.

Yep. Well, let me just be the first to say with
this opportunity, it's dead,Jim. Anyway, but is it really
dead? Is it gonna be a zombielike some of these other things
we've seen? It's possible.
I mean, the left is goingberserk right now. If you look
at some of their their postingson x and other places, they are

(39:59):
going after this as if you, youknow, you killed their dog. They
are after the the the fixingthis. They have to because we're
saving the planet and we'resaving you. You know, if we
don't get this back, this planetis doomed.
I've I saw another I saw anarticle today in the the
Guardian, you know, theuniversally always alarmed
reliable Guardian that said thatwe're closer to a hothouse earth

(40:22):
than ever before, you know.Gosh. But of course, it's based
on models. It has nothing to dowith reality just like, you
know, the endangerment finding.So what's likely to happen is
they're gonna throw all kinds ofstuff at this.
They're gonna see they're gonnathrow all kinds of lawsuits and
see what sticks to the wall, youknow. And this is they're

(40:44):
they're gonna do everything theycan to derail this. And and the
bottom line is is I think it'llend up in the supreme court. And
the supreme court will probablylook at the way that it was
originally put together and whatthe limits of power that the EPA
has were back then and say,well, you know what? They

(41:04):
couldn't do it.
It was it was wrongly done. Itit circumvented due process. It
circumvented science. You mayremember Jim, a fellow by the
name of Alan Carlin, whoactually attended one of our
ICCC conferences way back when.He was at the EPA and he was one
of the few people that held uphis hand and said, wait a

(41:26):
minute, when the endangermentfinding was being pushed.
And he said that the science wasbeing circumvented, the due
process was circumvented. Whatdid he get for his trouble? He
got fired.

Lois Perry (41:36):
Alright.

Well, I I you know, we don't wanna be I'll
I'll say this. We should becelebrating right now.

Lois Perry (41:47):
We should

not be, like, countersignaling the the
achievement here at this point.You know, you can say, this is
awesome. Let's go on to the nextstep like I did in the video
that I put out, kind ofsummarizing what's happened
here. But I would not be, like,taking to social media to say,
you know, yeah. This is aworthless move in the long run

(42:09):
because they can just bring itright back once they get in.
I mean, it's true, though. Andit's not just it's not just
likely or possible, Anthony. Iwould say it's guaranteed that
if the next administration thatcomes in is a democrat one and
we don't get the right nextmoves in place, then it will be
brought back immediately. It'llbe like the Biden administration

(42:30):
coming in and just undoingeverything instantly in the
first twenty four hours of him,you know, being in office with
the auto pen situation. Thisweek Oh, you do not have to play
that.
Thank you.

Jim Lakely (42:41):
No. No. No. I'm just I'm playing I'm there's no
sound. There's no sound.
I just wanna let you know.

Lois Perry (42:45):
There is sound. Oops.

There definitely is sound.

Jim Lakely (42:48):
Sorry. I didn't I I thought it was on the

Lois Perry (42:50):
other side. May
I just say how well you look? You look amazing. Your
hair, you look like a princess.

Jim Lakely (42:55):
Well, not where I froze it. I'm sorry. That's
fair.

Lois Perry (43:00):
Can I just make one point? And it's a very, very
general point, and it and itactually it it's it's it's not
disagreeing with anybody, butit's just a bit of advice that
my late grandfather and mygrandparents brought me up used
to say to me. And he used say,Lois, you must remember to
plateau. When you achievesomething and it's good, enjoy

(43:22):
it. Plateau, then go on to thenext thing.
Don't start thinking, oh, youknow, they could go back or
what's next? So all I would sayis what what I'm low, low
plateau, and that's what youused to say to me. And I think
we need to do that with thisbecause this is a huge thing.
And I think maybe you guys havegot used to hearing great stuff

(43:46):
coming from from your from yourleader, but we haven't had any
of our leaders saying greatstuff for so long that, as I
say, we've massive massive,jealousy going on going on here.
But that but that's all I wantedto say.
It is huge. It is massive. And,yes, they could try and unpick
it, and they probably will. Butyou're right. Make sure the next

(44:07):
steps make it more difficult forthem to be able to do that.
Yeah. Yeah.

Jim Lakely (44:11):
Yeah. Let me let me so I was thinking about this
again this morning. I've beenthinking about it a lot,
actually, because it's suchgreat news. And I'm trying to
enjoy the moment and rememberwhere we are and how unlikely
this seemed not so long ago.Even when Trump was first in
office Yeah.
Know, Steve Meloy, who again isis on this show a lot. He's on
the board of the HeartlandInstitute. He was on Trump's EPA

(44:34):
transition team. They had a listof things that they thought
needed to be done to end theclimate scam and madness in the
federal in federal policy, andthey got, like, maybe three
things that were important onthe list. And now the entire
list is all checked off, andthere's things on that list that
they never thought of that havebeen checked off.
The engagement finding was,like, number one with a bullet,

(44:55):
and it just didn't get anytraction. And now here we are
after an interregnum with JoeBiden, a second Trump
administration, and it's on fastforward, baby. I love it. It's
great. You should enjoy this.
But the one now now, I mean, I'mjust gonna contradict myself.
But, like, the little bit of ofdisappointment, like so the
endangerment finding, all alsoso this is just really for

(45:19):
automobiles, for carbon, you youknow, for carbon dioxide
emissions out of automobiles.One of the reasons why the
energy economy in The UnitedStates is not as efficient and
cheap and market based as it isis because of the regulation of
carbon dioxide out of powerplants. And, Linea Linea, you

(45:41):
talked about this in in yourvideo. I, you know, just follow
Linea Lucan on x, and you canwatch the video for yourself.
But there are two importantsupreme court cases related to
this news today. One isMassachusetts versus EPA, which
was the decision, stupiddecision, I believe, one of
those squishy swing justices.Was it Kennedy or Breyer? Wrote

(46:05):
the decision, basically, openingthe door for the engagement
finding in 2009. And then therewas the other case of is it EPA
versus West Virginia?
That supposed was supposed toactually shut down the the
engagement finding, but that wasnever really enforced. So maybe,
Lynea, you can start to talk,and and and Anthony can also

(46:27):
jump in. But there are a fewmore hurdles that we need to get
over here in order to put thisunscientific endangerment
finding in the rearview mirrorvery far.

Well, I'll let Anthony hit it first because
Okay. I you can go watch myvideo. But yeah.

Alright. Well, I would say that we're we're at a
point that's very similar to themovie The Princess Bride. Okay?
We're at a point where it'smostly dead, but not truly dead.
Right?
And so we're all waiting for themoment when it's truly dead and
that comes in the future afterall of these lawsuits and

(47:07):
screaming and wailing Right. Youknow, get done. We're in that
phase now. We're mostly dead,but not truly dead.

Yeah. That's absolutely correct. And and like
Jim already pointed out, I'm notsure how much I can add to what
you said, Jim, but it's gonnatake a couple of court cases to
get overturned. It's gonna takeyou know, if if we can overturn
that stuff, what's gonna happenis it'll make it so that a it
takes, like, a real act ofcongress, real pass legislation
from, you know, the house andthe senate and then signed by

(47:38):
the president in order to getmore of these regulations on the
books again. We need to be inthat position because it will be
very, very difficult for them toenforce the kind of super
unpopular, like, sweeping, youknow, economic policies,
basically, or what thesegreenhouse gas emissions,

(48:00):
standards are.
It it's crazy that they didn'thave to pass anything in
congress in order to get to apoint where the federal
government can shut down almostall of the major power plants in
the country. You know? That'ssomething that definitely needs
to go through legislation if atall, which it wouldn't if it

(48:21):
were put to legislation evenduring a democrat run
administrations, I believe,wouldn't have made it through.
But they basically just gave theEPA this, like, sweeping power
to do whatever they wantessentially, which is completely
inappropriate. It's you know,you hear the you hear the left
crying all the time about how,like, Trump is making the

(48:43):
executive branch into, like, afascist dictatorship.
But but in reality, it's theleft that's been forever running
rough shot over the idea of ourthree branches of government.
They've been they've been usingthe executive and all of its
agencies as, like, weaponsagainst the populace for for

(49:03):
decades and decades. So it'sit's the the height of hypocrisy
to cry now. And I another thingthat I would say is my fate one
of my favorite thing that that'scome out of this is now you're
starting to see climatealarmists like Zeke Hausfelder
and some other guys like thattake to social media to say,

(49:24):
look. This kind of thing can'tbe done at the stroke of a pen.
There needs to be debate on thescience before you can make
these kind

of mistakes. Why didn't you say that years ago?

And it's like, I just don't believe you because

Lois Perry (49:38):
Yeah. All of this

stuff was put in place when and they said,
there's no debate here. There'sno debate to be had. Yeah. It
started to settle.

Yeah. Debate is over.

It's it's settled before it even started. We don't
have to have any kind ofconversation about this. We're
just gonna go with it. Shut up.Go away.
And now that they're not gettingwhat they want, they're like,
well, shouldn't we talk aboutthis? Shouldn't we have a
reasonable debate about thescience and about the data

Lois Perry (50:03):
that we're gonna a conversation.

Yeah. They're like, there's a reasonable
debate to be had is what

Lois Perry (50:08):
Zeke said. I'm like, no. No.

There's no debate anymore. We are gonna crush this
climate alarmist nonsense. Andand maybe we'll toss you, like,
a little treat. Maybe you can beinvolved in the Superfund site
cleanups in the future, and youcan do your environmental
activism there. But there are

Lois Perry (50:29):
self awareness is shocking, isn't it?

Jim Lakely (50:32):
Yeah. Well, I mean, people forget that the because
it was seventeen, you know,eighteen years ago when Barack
Obama came into office. He andhe peopled his entire climate
and EPA with radicalenvironmental leftists from from
well funded, by the way, radicalleftist environmental groups. He

(50:52):
did not

Lois Perry (50:53):
They always are.

Jim Lakely (50:54):
They always are. He did not put people in charge who
actually know about theenvironment and our our
scientists. He put in radical toto implement a radical agenda.
The the declaration by theEnvironmental Protection Agency
in 2009 to grab for itself bythe stroke of a pen enormous
power over The United Stateseconomy, and thus and that

(51:15):
ripples out all over the globe,was unprecedented in scope at
the time. And the what's kind ofhinting back to what I've said
earlier when we started thisdiscussion, this is not
something that, frankly, a lotof us on the in the climate
realism movement thought waspossible because, you know,
there is something calledpolitical momentum, and there's

(51:36):
something called stasis.
And that once ground is gained,it's such as this, it tends to
stay there. It tends to it ittends to it tends to be in the
possession of those who took itforever or or forever as far as
most people alive are concerned.And that did not happen in this
case. And so I was thinking thismorning, you know, well, people

(51:59):
on our side of this argument arelike, you know, well, this is
great, but, you know, it's justgonna get they're just gonna
flip it back. They're just gonnareinstate it when the Democrat
comes into office and gets theWhite House again.
And I was thinking, well, firstof all, not so fast. I don't
think a Democrat has a reallygood chance to win in 2028.

Lois Perry (52:16):
No. I I don't
actually work for it. So

Jim Lakely (52:19):
a so a president Vance who may get two terms,
that would be a long time thatthat this policy now, the
correct policy, thescientifically and frankly
morally and politically andlegally correct policy has been
in place. Then that momentumwill be on our side, on the
realist side, and it'll be a lotharder to, you know, to reverse

(52:41):
it. And that points to the pollthat we showed talking with you,
Lois, in the beginning, polls inthat that show that the American
the the European people are notthat concerned about climate
change anymore. Pollsconsistently in The United
States show that, you know, whenyou talk about why people are
voting for a certain candidate,environmental issues come at the
bottom of the list almost everytime and has for many years.

(53:04):
There is not going to be thepopular political momentum to,
again, allow an EPA power grablike the endangerment finding
again.
That's why I think this reallymatters.

Lois Perry (53:14):
No. I agree with you, and it's interesting
because it Lenora, it was it wasyou that went to Davos, wasn't
it? And I had a look around.Yeah. And you were saying that
that our alternative Davos thatwe did, that for for the the
heartland, but in Zurich, thatthat when you went and had a
look around, you couldn'tbelieve the the the lackluster

(53:37):
amount of of climate alarmisttype pro net zero stands and and
activists that it was completelydifferent to to to previous
Davos events, didn't you?
So that I mean, that shows you,doesn't it?

Oh, yeah. It was dominated dominated by AI stuff.
Yeah.

Lois Perry (53:56):
And they need energy.

They they push the climate guys off into this
little corner pretty well. Good.

You know, one of the things that struck me
yesterday about the the newsconference announcement that
president Trump and Zeldin puton is that one of the speakers
right after Zeldin and Trumpspoke said, no other president
could do this or would do this.And he's he's right. And and
Trump's a smart man. He, youknow, he thinks many many steps

(54:25):
ahead. And so what he has donehas put into place a hold on.
What he put into was gutting ofthe EPA. He got rid of all those
activists, you know. And hemade, he did that on the first
term and then of course some ofthem clawed their way back. And

(54:47):
then the second term, you know,he took a scorched earth policy
to the EPA Mhmm. And and got ridof a lot of those people.
And so it's gonna be harder forthat bureaucratic momentum to
come back. Yeah. Especially, asyou say, if we get president
Vance for two terms. But, again,I think it'll I think it'll
stick. It will be a lot ofscreaming, a lot of lawsuits,

(55:08):
and all that stuff.
But in the long run, I thinkit'll stick because Trump has
essentially neutered thebureaucratic machine that
sustained this. And one otherthought, you know, we were
talking about Star Trek earlier.I think

Lois Perry (55:23):
that for fun,

we should make up some red shirts, some red t
shirts to send to all of ourfriends out there on the other
side of the aisle that say, it'sdead, Jim. Get over it.

Lois Perry (55:37):
Or it's nearly dead, Jim, based on the conversation
that we had just now.

Yeah. I think by the engineering department as
well as the ground crew. Let'slet's let's not send them cool
shirts.

Lois Perry (55:52):
No. No. Absolutely not.

Jim Lakely (55:54):
Yeah. I mean, just just to tie just to tie a little
bow on it. I mean, you know, ABCNews had a meltdown about this.
I do I don't have any clips forit, it's fine. But ABC News,
Mary Kay Bruce, she said, in theblink of an eye, president Trump
is wiping out the governmentscience that was the foundation
to keep the air pure and theskies clean.

(56:16):
He and then David Muir himself,the the anchor, said that
president Trump has repealed USpower to regulate climate in
this country, and it's dangerousnot just for the environment but
for your health. Guys, carbondioxide is not a pollutant, and
that was the reason why itdoesn't qualify under the Clean

(56:38):
Air Act because carbon dioxideis not a pollutant. Just because
it's emitted from a power plantor the end of a tailpipe does
not make it something harmful tohuman health and welfare. This
was always bullshit and a scam

Lois Perry (56:53):
trying to trying to use

Jim Lakely (56:55):
the the thinnest patina of legal justification to
implement sweeping controls overover the entire economy. It was
a it's a Marxist dream, and thatdream is over.

Lois Perry (57:08):
Yeah. Yeah. Good. Excellent.

Yeah. And I I just wanna say again to our
audience here, we have a lot ofpeople, including often myself,
who are slightly maybe a littlebit addicted to finding the or
ignoring all silver linings. Andeven if something is really not
a bad situation, finding a wayto turn it into a bad situation

(57:34):
or looking ahead at what couldgo wrong before

Lois Perry (57:37):
Yeah. We need to enjoy it.

That's gone right. So, guys, here's the
position that you need that youneed to embrace and internalize
here. Yes. There's more to do.But this is a step in the right
direction, direction and we need

Lois Perry (57:51):
to be

extremely happy about that. And also, I cannot
emphasize this enough becausethis is something the left has
been very good at and that wehave been very, very bad at. And
that is understanding the powerof media narrative. Right now,
the entire left wing media isrunning. We are losing doom and

(58:12):
gloom stuff against the wholeteam.

Lois Perry (58:16):
Yeah. That

is very good for us. We should not we should not
be trying to correct them. No.No. No.
You haven't lost yet. It's okay.You you Yes.

Lois Perry (58:25):
You're right. Yeah. Well, don't interrupt your enemy
when they're making a mistake.

Yeah. Exactly. You guys might win the midterms.
You can still win. Don't dothat.
Don't give them what will youdo? Say to you know, turn to
your representatives and say,you need to support Trump
because he's doing somethinggreat and we're winning.

Lois Perry (58:41):
Yeah. Be positive.

Like, what's our next step? We need to overturn
I'm forgetting what it's called.We need to oak there there are
Massachusetts versus EPA. Weneed to overturn Massachusetts
to EPA. That's our next bigstep.
It's as it's as big as Chevron.Uh-huh. It's it's very, very
important that we get that done.That is the next thing. It's

(59:04):
probably already in motion.
And and we need to be positivetowards future, not already
talking about how we're gonnalose. Like, please, you guys,
for for goodness sake, let's notlet's not, like, anticipate and
be excited about, failing. Let'sgo.

We're not anybody there. Is.

Jim Lakely (59:28):
We're just

pointing out reality. You know?

Lois Perry (59:30):
Yeah.

The left is coming after this with both
barrels loaded for bear.

Jim Lakely (59:33):
Yep. Yeah. Yeah. And the point, the the West Virginia
versus EPA decision from thesupreme court, I thought and
this this seems again, commonsense is finally starting to
catch up with political and andpolicy reality. You know, West
Virginia versus EPA said that,look.
Congress did not give the EPAthe power to regulate carbon

(59:53):
dioxide emissions of any kind.And that just seemed to sit
there, it didn't it didn't haveany effect on EPA policy because
the endangerment finding wasjust sitting there, and it took
action to overturn it. It wasjust going to stay there unless
somebody did something about it.And so this is a huge, huge
step. The supreme court,obviously, is going to can find

(01:00:17):
another reason.
I mean, the the MassachusettsEPA is about carbon dioxide
being a pollutant, and WestVirginia versus EPA is about
only congress has the power toinclude carbon dioxide as a
regulated gas. You put thosethings together plus the repeal
of the endangerment finding. Theclimate alarmists have nowhere
left to go. They have nothing tostand on anymore.

Lois Perry (01:00:38):
Still have a win. Let's enjoy the win. A win.

Jim Lakely (01:00:41):
Enjoy it.

It's a win. It's

an absolute home run. And so, look, if congress
wants to Lee Zeldin said this inthe press conference. If if it's
congress's desire to classifycarbon dioxide as a regulated
gas through the EPA, They'remore than they're they're
perfectly in their power to passa bill that says so. They have
never done so. They probablynever will do so.

(01:01:03):
So tough noogie's. We win. Youlose. Science is on the rise,
and and dogma is on the decline.Good.
Yes. Well, speaking of thingsthat should be on the on the
rise, that should be gold andother precious metal prices. And
that's why we are very happy totalk about the sponsor of this

(01:01:23):
here climate realism show. Thatwas good, Jim. That

was metal. If

you listen to a lot of conservative shows like I do,
you hear tons of pitches forbuying gold and silver and other
precious metals. And there are aton of companies out there. But
I wanna tell you why you shouldtrust our sponsor, Advisor
Metals, and that's the man whoruns the company, a good man
named Ira Brashatsky. He is themanaging member of Advisor
Metals, and he does not get intothose high pressure tactics or

(01:01:51):
deceptive marketing ploys likemany of the companies in big
gold. He also doesn't deal in socalled rare coins, which are not
really rare and you're notinterested in.
When you buy gold and otherprecious metals from Advisor
Metals, you are dealing inquality bullion, and that is so
much better when the time comes,if you may if you may desire to
do so, to liquidate that veryvaluable physical asset. And

(01:02:14):
when you buy from AdvisorMetals, you will have your
investment sent discreetly toyour very home. Another reminder
is that Ira Brashatsky isadvertising on this program
because he, like us, well, maybenot Lois, are America First
patriots. And Ira does notdonate to Democrats. He refuses
to work with proxies of theChinese Communist Party, and he,

(01:02:36):
like us, abhor the machinationsand schemes of the World
Economic Forum and the UnitedNations.
That is why we are so proud thathe is a sponsor. So if you wanna
diversify your investmentportfolio or if you wanna back
up your IRA with real physicalbullion of precious metals, go
toclimaterealismshow.com/metals.
You can leave your informationthere, and Ira will make the

(01:02:58):
process very easy for you.Climaterealismshow.com/metals,
and be sure to tell them whosent you because that helps us
while you're helping yourself.Thank you for your attention to
this matter.
I know I think, Anthony, youhave to go pretty soon, I think,
at the bottom of the hour. Sowe'll try to get through our q

(01:03:19):
and a in which Lanea takes over.So Lanea, take it away. Yay.

Linnea Lueken (01:03:32):
I can't believe Andy's not here and I still get
that inflicted on me. Ourlayouts are a little bit messed
up today, and it's our fault.But we're gonna we're gonna get
through this.

We are. There we go.

Okay, guys. Good segue, Jim. Good job.

Yeah.

Let's see.

Okay.

Anthony Watts (01:03:57):
Before you get into this, Lynne, I have a a
comment from a viewer that wereceived by email that I wanna
bring up about something I saidlast week.

Sure.

There was a question last week that asked
why are we getting all thesespikes in power, you know,
because of the cold snap in theSoutheast. And I had pointed out
that I thought it was because ofbaseboard heaters. And, I had a
a couple of emails from peoplesaying, well, why are you saying
that? Well, we had one from,mike j zero one seven eight,

(01:04:28):
who, sent this message. Says,please tell Anthony Watts that
the baseboard heating is veryefficient because there is no
chimney where heat can escapethe house.
Forcing air loses heat throughthe ducting and the furnace
sends some heat up the chimney,but electricity does cost more
than natural gas. Well, I agreethat, yeah, we're not losing any

(01:04:49):
heat from the chimney. But as aprevious owner of a house that
had baseboard heaters, I cantell you that in fact, the
difference having two houses hadan office and a house at the
same time, you know, the officewould warm up very quickly after
we, you know, turn things downfor the weekend. The baseboard
heater home took forever to warmup. Not forever, but literally,

(01:05:11):
it felt like that.
And here's the reason. And Idiscussed this with physicist
Tom Sheehan who also asked methe question. And I wrote to
him, electric baseboard heatersare often considered inefficient
not because they fail to convertelectricity into heat. They're
actually a 100% efficient atdoing that, but because they are
expensive to operate andineffective at distributing

(01:05:33):
heats around a room. Theyfunction like a giant toaster
using electric resistance togenerate heat, which is a high
cost method compared to otherheating systems.
They have no forced air throughthem, relying only on
convection, and that's the keypoint here. So there's very
little mass transfer exchange ofenergy. Therefore, you have to
run them longer thanconventional forced air heating

(01:05:55):
systems costing more to heat thespace. And physicist, Tom
Sheehan, agreed with me and saidthat, okay, I see what you mean.
A baseboard heater filament willheat a few nearby molecules to
very high temperatures andmolecular collision will quickly
bring the vicinity of thebaseboard heater to a warmer
temperature.
But warm air all over the roomis is slow to react and it's

(01:06:19):
achieved better by a convectivesystem, such as the fourth air
system. So when a basementfurnace burning gas or oil heats
the air being swept up or sweptin from cold air ducts and send
it forth through warm air ducts,the heat in various rooms is
distributed more evenly. So Ihope that settles the topic of
baseboard heaters.

Thank you, Anthony. And, actually, I have
another heating question for youfrom the audience here. This is
from d eight zero five zero onewho says, would you address the
endless warmer air holds moremoisture mantra? It's
technically true, but you musthave a source of such moisture.
They act as if climate changeaffects any given storm on

(01:07:01):
Earth.

Well, yes, it's true. Warmer air does hold more
moisture. However, warmer airalso is more prone to convective
activity. And we see this everyday at the inner tropical
convergence zone around theEquator, which acts as a giant
thermostat for the planet. Youknow, it's very warm and very
moist down there and we get allthese thunderstorms that build

(01:07:23):
up during the day.
They transport heat and moisturefrom near the surface up to the
higher altitudes throughconvection. And as a result, we
end up with all these clouds,you know, that are around the
equator after thesethunderstorms get going, you
know, when the Equator is in thesunlight, that section of the
Equator in the sunlight. Andwhat happens is that they those

(01:07:44):
clouds reflect more solar energyback into space. So it acts as
an automatic thermostat. And sowe we've seen the grand
experiment.
What happened in 2022 when theHunga Tonga volcano erupted and
threw all this water vapor intothe stratosphere. Unimaginable
huge amounts of water vapor. Andwhat happened? Yeah. Temperature

(01:08:05):
went up globally.
Of course, the climate alarmistsdon't wanna admit to this
because that just totally screwsup their whole c o two theory.
But what's happened is we'veseen a huge spike in
temperatures over a couple ofyears, and now they're current
they're coming down. If you golook at Roy Spencer's UAH
satellite, data, you can seethat we're now in a fast
downslope, and that's becausethe water vapor is finally

(01:08:26):
precipitating out.

And as a follow-up, Wheelman, a frequent
viewer of ours, so glad to seeyou here, Wheelman, Anthony, are
you describing the iris effect?

Yes. To a degree. And

What is that? What is the iris effect?

Well, it basically, it it it says that
the inner tropical convergencezone acts like a an iris that
opened and closed free forincoming solar radiation. And
so, you know, when the iris isopen, we get more sunlight
coming in, hits the equator. Butthen it automatically regulates,

(01:09:05):
creates these clouds, which thencreates reflectivity, and the
iris closes.

Awesome. Thank you very much. We we love the
science questions on this show.Alright. Let's get one for Lois.
Let me find one. I know we havesome.

I'm glad you didn't ask me about with that
particular last question.
Yeah. Lois, what's the I really have. Alright.

So Steven Lindsey asks, to Lois Perry, has Great
Britain News changed after somany loved presenters leaving or
fired?

I would say that GB News is is still the the most
non woke and and most open newschannel of all. But, of course,
the nature of the channel haschanged a little bit because if
you bring in new presenters andget rid of old ones, then things

(01:10:03):
are going to be different. Ithink GB News has well, it it
was threatened has beenthreatened with the by Ofcom. So
they've had to, evolve the waythat they, present the
information. They don't wannaget shut down.
I mean, GB News has been told byOfcom that they are in their

(01:10:27):
sights, that they want they wantthem gone, basically. But then
that's a compliment to to GBNews because why would a lefty
organization like Ofcom want toget rid of GB News if it wasn't
seen as a threat? And, actually,GB News is the number one,
rolling news channel in TheUnited Kingdom now. It's

(01:10:49):
actually bigger than Sky BBCNews what used to be called BBC
News twenty four. Now it's justrolling BBC News.
Yeah. It's it's it's bigger thanall of them. So my answer is
yes, but it's still the it itit's still the go to news
channel for me.

Excellent. Thank you very much. Alrighty. Let's
see. Chris Nesbitt says, whatabout any and all regulations
stemming from that finding?
Will it be a long, slow processgetting them removed? I would
say yes just because nothing ingovernment happens quickly.
Right? You know, it's not it'snot like next year's models of

(01:11:35):
cars are all gonna have no moreauto start thing or auto stop
start feature. It'll probablytake, like, a generation because
they're already, you know, beingproduced and stuff.
So just the same way otherdownstream things are gonna take
some time.

I'm looking forward to future models of
automobiles having a coal shoot.

Take rolling coal to a whole different level.
Yeah. Alright. Nuts and Boltsasks, and I think this might be
a little bit tongue in cheek, inthe interest of having a fair
and balanced discussion, do youhave time to invite Barack Obama
to join your panel? I would befascinated to hear what he has

(01:12:19):
to say.
I think he's trying to get awayfrom hearing what he has to say,
which is the trick. Right?

Yeah. I mean, actually, he said he he has a
tweet. I don't have time tobring it up, but he said he
tweeted this out yesterday.Today, the Trump administration
repealed the endangermentfinding, the ruling that served
as the basis for limits ontailpipe emissions and power
plant rules. Without it, we'llbe less safe, less healthy, and
less able to fight climatechange.

Also, fossil fuels price. Yeah. Also, the fossil
fuels to

make even more money. I commented on x this
morning. It's like, man, that'spretty low energy for, Barack
Obama.

I saw that tweet. But can I just make a a general
comment? Before we actuallystarted the show, I was talking
about the, the tone deafness ofof of the politicians in The UK
at the moment and in regards topushing an an agenda that the
public hates and wasn't in theirmanifesto. I was talking

(01:13:18):
specifically about ruling that'scome in that children can choose
their own pronouns and gender atschools without the parents'
permission, and also theexperiments that have been done
on children at the moment,puberty blockers. But but that
could apply equally to what youjust said, couldn't it, Jen?
Obama pushing forward with thiswhen nobody wants it. And and

(01:13:41):
the the polling showed inEurope, nobody wants it. The
leading party in the polls inThe UK is Reform UK, and they
don't they're saying they'regoing to abolish net zero. Trump
is obviously very popular in TheUnited States. And Obama is
still it's like, change therecord.
Change the record.

Absolutely. Alrighty. Will sugar asks, does
this mean that carbon dioxide isno longer classified as a
pollutant?

Yes.

Yep.

Alrighty. And David Maddox says, the people
making the climate rules areusually lawyers. They have no
knowledge of energy systems. Howcome nobody votes for
technicians or engineers?

Well, you know, we have the archbishop of
Randaberry who goes off onpolitical things. And and then
you have me that goes off onscience. And so a lot of the
time, you know, people don't getthe science. And so when the the
the engineers and the scientistsstart talking about things,
people's eyes glaze over. Youknow, they don't get it because

(01:14:54):
they don't understand thetechnology or the numbers or the
process or whatever.
And so it's very, hard for anengineer to get elected into a
position of of a public office.The exceptions to the rule are
when these engineers are heroes,such as what happened with a
number of people that wereastronauts, you know, who went

(01:15:16):
through the Apollo program andso forth. A lot of them ended up
being politicians because theywere heroes and people were able
to get past the whole eyesglazing over talking about the
engineering side of things.

It's also to do the specific skill set as well, like
the kind of skill set that youneed to survive the
Machiavellian trials andtribulations of politics are
completely different skill setsto people that are able to
analyze data, make things,design things, build things,
understand the science. Andyou're right. Sometimes you have

(01:15:52):
that combination of both, but,yeah, some some quite often, you
you so you have to be notalways, but you have to be quite
a slippery character to surviveeither on the hill or or or in
Westminster. So yeah.

Right.

Well and and to be fair too, I mean, it's not
like scientists and techniciansand engineers aren't also
susceptible to the same kind ofideological blindness

Oh, yeah.

That lawyers are. Right? I mean, we all are. So
you don't just as much as Idon't want to be run by a bunch
of left wing lawyers, I alsodon't wanna be run by a bunch of
left wing technocrats. Right?
Scientists can be I mean, justlook at some of the most famous
scientists, like, on televisionand stuff right now. They're
very smart in their particularfield, but I wouldn't want them

(01:16:43):
writing policy. So we have to becareful about kind of broad
strokes like that. We wantpeople to be informed on energy
systems and stuff. And that'swhat, like, our I'm forgetting
what the acronym is, but our wedo have a, like, a regulatory
body for the, like, grid andstuff.

(01:17:07):
I cannot it's just totally outof my brain what it's called.
Maybe one of the commenters canwrite it in. And they tend to be
staffed even when there's ademocrat in charge with some
fairly reasonable people interms of their job. However, it
doesn't mean that the democrat'sgonna take their advice. Right?
Alright. Let's go. Wait. Thankyou, Courtney. Wayne says, can

(01:17:37):
be done to keep the endangermentfinding dead?
Well, I think we kinda coveredit at the beginning of the show.
Right? Getting getting certainthere are there are a handful of
supreme court rulings that needto be overturned, and I think
that they will be because thereis there seems to be a will for

(01:18:00):
it in the court currently. Andwe also need to overturn the
current endangerment finding onpower plants as well to just
kinda put a kibosh to the wholething. Right?
There yeah. There's definitelymore steps. We need to make it
we need to make sure that theycan't just push this through the

(01:18:20):
regulatory agencies anymore andthat they have to go through
congress. That's the biggestpart.

Exactly. I mean, like, we we you kinda forget
that in two I mean, because itwas almost, you know, almost
twenty years ago that it was apretty it was brazen that the
EPA just decided to declare foritself out of thin air the power
to regulate carbon dioxide as apollutant. Yeah. It wasn't until
the the only lawsuit to reallychallenge that was West Virginia

(01:18:46):
versus EPA, and that took, what,sixteen years to get to the you
know, to become case law. Imean, it should have been
challenged Wow.
As a

Yep. Absolutely. Okay. Let's see. Will congress
have to act to drive a stakethrough its heart?
I don't think so. I think youcan do this without congress.
You can get it was done withoutcongress. It can be done again.
It can be gotten rid of withoutcongress.

(01:19:16):
Okay. Ian McMillan, one of ourother frequent viewers says, so
can we go back to high tensionpiston rings in cars now? Yeah.
Let's do it. Anthony would bethe best person, I think, to ask
that question.

Yeah. Well, you know, this is something that was
put together, you know, as partof the whole more efficiency,
whatever. Yeah. We can go backto that. In fact, I suggest to
everyone, go tear your engineapart right now and put in high
tension piston rings.

Maybe be careful.

Well, what what

this really does and and they won't they won't admit
it, but the CEOs of all theautomakers around the world,
especially that especially inThe United States, have gotta be
breathing a sigh of relief.Yeah. Only reason they were
manufacturing these electricvehicles was because of the,
CAFE standards that wereincreasingly jacked up by the
Biden administration, which madeit impossible to it would have

(01:20:09):
made it eventually possible by2030 to even manufacture an
internal combustion enginevehicle. So it was a way to
regulate cars that people likeand could afford, you know,
regulating them completely outof the market. And they were
expensive, and Ford and Chevyhave taken billions of right
time on these vehicles.
And so now they we don't have tomake those pieces of crap that

(01:20:32):
nobody wants anymore.

Yeah. Well, and, you know, it's I see I see kind
of, like, far leftists complaina lot, especially on Reddit
about, like, the size of pickuptrucks. And they make fun of
them because they're, thesegigantic pickup trucks, and
really a lot of them don't havethe best like, the biggest
engine in them either. Andthat's another thing that came
downstream from the greenhousegas endangerment. Like, it's

(01:20:55):
forced them to meet these, like,weight limits, for emissions
that are completely absurd fromCAFE standards.
And

so You

know, friend

people want those little if if you want a Hilux,
you have to get rid of all thesecrazy emissions regulations.

Yeah. My my Sorry. My friend congressman,
the late congressman Doug Lomofashared motorhead in this with
me, you know. He he liked hotrods. He was a Ford man.
I'm a Chevy man, you know. Butwe got along even with that
difference between ourselves.Right? But, you know, he said
the very same thing. Peopledon't wanna buy these cars.

(01:21:34):
Let's not force them down theirthroats because it's just not
working. And I'm sure he issmiling right now, looking at
this and saying, you know, Itold you so, and he was right.
And so here's to you, Doug.

Well, in The UK, we still have the the ban
apparently coming into force onon all new, electric sorry. All
new petrol diesel vehicles. Asas I said, you know, I've said
it a 100 times, but all of thosepolicies, if if Reform UK win
and, actually, the because theTories have been copying

(01:22:11):
everything that reform have beendoing, they're now saying
exactly the same thing that thethat that that that will be
overturned. So if, Labour lose,when they lose, because of the
work that we have done, a lot ofit to do with us, a huge amount
actually, that that will bereversed, the, the ban on, on

(01:22:33):
ICE vehicles.

Absolutely. We have a a question from a viewer
on Facebook, Don Williams, whoasks, are you folks actual
climate scientists? And I wouldsay for myself.

No. But we play we play one on TV.

For myself, I'm probably at least as much a
climate scientist as Bill Nyeis. So I've got that going for
me. Maybe a little bit more evenbecause I Yeah.

Well, I would point out that even Michael Mann
is not a climate scientist. Hishis degree was in astronomy and
math. And so Yeah.

And you hear more climate scientists. Than he is.

Yeah. Maybe.

But the point is that meteorology.

Yeah. The climates you're a climate
scientist is the universal, oh,well, you're not a climate
scientist? Well, I'm just gonnaignore what you have to say.
They they do that to our friendChris Martz all the time on x.
You know, they they say, well,you're not a climate scientist.
What the heck do you have to sayabout it? And then he said,
well, I'm a meteorologist. Andthen they go, oh, you're not a

(01:23:33):
meteorologist. You're you'resome dumb guy, you know, some
kid. Well, then he pulls up hishis meteorology degree, you
know, from MillersvilleUniversity and and points out to
them, yes.
I am, you doofuses. And theytend to shut up after that.

Yeah. I

mean, just another another shameless plug for the
climate conference coming upApril 8 tonight in Washington
DC. What you learned, and I'vehelped organize almost all of
these that we've put togetherover the years, is that it's
such a great opportunity to meetsome really, really important
and bright scientists. But wehave scientists from all sorts
of disciplines, you know,atmospheric scientists, know,

(01:24:13):
people who who study spaceweather. You have biologists,
and we also have a bunch ofengineers. Engineers are a lot
of fun.
And if you're lucky, you mightbe hanging out at the hotel bar
and and listen in to a to anargument, a very friendly
argument between scientists andengineers, which is always very

(01:24:34):
enlightening. So we hope to seeyou there.

Oh, I can't wait. And, no, I'm not a climate
scientist, but my argument tothat would be that I don't my
personal belief, is that thishas nothing to do with the
planet and saving the planetanyway. It's a political,
Marxist agenda, and I'm apolitical activist. So, you

(01:24:56):
know, I'm I'm I'm well placed toto help help you guys fight it.

Yep. Absolutely. Yeah. Kind of what it turns out
is that climate scientist meansjust anyone who has the right
opinion

according to Yeah. Yeah. About climate science.

Because I've seen people cited in, like,
Washington Post articles andstuff who are called climate
scientists whose educationalbackground is, like they have,
like, a bachelor of arts insome, like, political thing or
something. You know? Like soit's really it's it's it really
depends. Okay. Let's see.
I wanna get another sciencequestion here before Anthony has

(01:25:37):
to leave really quick. Let mesee if I can find one. Sorry for
the quiet moment here, you guys.

No worries.

There's never normally any quiet moments when
I'm around. So this is quiteunusual.

Speaker 1 (01:25:58):
There are

rare things happening all over the place.

I don't have another specific, like, weather
question or anything for you,Anthony, but I'll hand this to
you from Wheelman again whosays, if we electrify
everything, exactly where doesthe electricity come from?

Well, that's the big question.

That's a

$64,000 question. You know, the the the grid isn't
we don't have enough capacity inthe grid to supply what the
green dreams are for the future,you know, like for
electrification by 2035. It justwasn't either the capacity to
generate or to deliver. And sothat's the big question here.
And now it's becoming kinda mootbecause electrification of

(01:26:37):
vehicles is on the way out.
And speaking of being on the wayout, that's me. I have to drive
to California. So please prayfor me, and bye bye.

Yeah. My condolences. Bye bye. Thank you.
That was Anthony Watts, youguys.
He is here every week except forwhen he's not. Alright. Well,
gosh, we still have a whole lotof questions here. We have a we
have some good ones here forLois

Okay. Including

this one. Okay. L t Oracle of Truth who is over on
Rumble asks, how can Europe turntheir Titanic around with this
climate hoax? They are dug in.

Well, no. All you need to do is is to repeal the
the the correct acts inparliament and and abolished all
net zero policies. I mean, wehave a government at the moment
that is so committed to to tothese subsidies and renewables
that if as soon as you have agovernment that isn't and is not

(01:27:44):
interested and is drilling for,giving new licenses out in the
North Sea, for ex as oneexample, we're gonna start
fracking. The, the reform partyis committed to fracking as are
the Tories now because theycopied them. So once you've got
a government that wants toimplement the correct policies
and abolish the wrong ones, whynot?

(01:28:05):
Why why couldn't it work? Youknow? I I don't see any reason
why not. I really don't.

Awesome. Good good optimism. And I think
you're right too. I think youcan turn it around. It's not too
late.
Thank you. For anybody. It'sit's just it takes the will.
Here's a question fromClimateBell who says, why can't
we educate people on the fraudof climate science? This will

(01:28:34):
ensure it never comes back.
People learn the fraud of Enron.Jim, do you wanna take it?

Well, I mean, yeah, shameless plug again. You can
get educated on on climatescience by coming to the
sixteenth InternationalConference on Climate Change put
on by the Heartland Institute,April 2026 in Washington DC. Get
your tickets at heartland.org.But, seriously, I think, you
know, I I kinda joke sometimes.I mean, we've titled this show

(01:29:04):
the climate realism show, and inan ideal world, we have to
rename this show to somethingelse because the whole world
comes around to a scientificbased understanding of the
climate and some humility onhumans' ability to influence it
in any meaningful way.
And, you know, that education isongoing. There will always be

(01:29:27):
the miseducated environmentalzealots out there, so I probably
we will always have this showtitled this and coming to you
every single week to counter it.But, you know, again, you see in
polling that that the issue isjust not that it's not as
important to people when theyare really when they're really
forced to rank what issues arereally important to them. And

(01:29:50):
the more people understand aboutthe climate, the more they the
less they are worried about it.The the climate alarmist agenda
is being pushed because of twobig reasons.
One, the the zealots are well,there's few reasons. They're
very well funded. They're very,very loud. They have a lot of
pull and influence in ourculture from Hollywood to, you

(01:30:13):
know, to to Europe and GreatBritain and and TV shows. I
mean, this the propaganda isrelentless.
Yep. And and and and the the theother side of that is that
politicians who desire controland more power Mhmm. See it as
the perfect avenue. It's thecatchall. It it Yeah.
Answers it answers everychallenge to more government

(01:30:36):
control. Well, we have to do itbecause of the climate. People
are going to die. ABC News justyesterday after their appeal of
the engagement fund. This isgonna make people sicker and all
that stuff.
It's it's nonsense. C o two morec o two does not make people
ill, but they continue to pushthe propaganda because it is the
perfect, perfect avenue forgovernment control over your
life.

That's why they're working with
And what I would say to to that is the answer is to
just keep on keeping on. We'rejust gonna keep on doing what
we're doing, making it the thebreakthrough for me in The UK
when I was doing when I when Ioriginally started doing this
four years ago, just well,actually, more than that now,

(01:31:16):
four and a half years ago, wasthat when I when when it got to
a point where other the newspresenters or the TV presenters
on the channels that I was goingon set started to say, we should
challenge the science. And thenone or two of them said, I think
it's a scam, and that was it.Then it was like, you know, at

(01:31:38):
the, all of the at the emperor'snew clothes, you know, the
scouts falling away from theeyes. And then and then it
became acceptable for people tosay, well, I'm not sure, or I'm
not I don't know what themotives are.
And but there was an actualpoint where where it broke
slightly. And I think if youjust keep on pushing, pushing,

(01:31:58):
pushing, we will get there. Andas Jim just said, the polling is
showing. People, when it comesto the crunch, this is not a big
deal for them now. They justwant a higher standard of
living.
I'll tell you what does decreasepeople's life expectancy and
make people ill. Having a verylow standard of living because
their energy costs are so highand they're cold, or they're not

(01:32:20):
eating good food because theycan't afford to buy it, or
they're not taking enoughexercise because, you know, it
that that they are the thingsthat that will kill people, and
that comes from expensive energyprices, which is that which is
because of net zero.

Absolutely. Right. Well, we're kinda running
out of time here, you guys. ButI do wanna answer this question
by someone I have not seen inthe chat before. So welcome,
Castlebrook.
Right. Right. Yeah. So and andthis is a question that has been
asked by a couple differentpeople. Most of them are kinda
regulars for us.
So sorry to our regulars. I'mgonna try to prioritize some of

(01:32:58):
the new people in our chat here.But this Castlebrick asks, with
the endangerment findingstatement, what about New York
City's local law 97 requiringbuildings to reach 40%
decarbonization by 2030 and netzero by 2050? It went into law
in 2024, and the appeal wasupheld in 2025. So I would say

(01:33:22):
it depends.
I would have to see the actuallocal law, but I would say that
because this is not endangermentfinding with regards to power
plants and stuff, And this isjust on the, like, the tailpipe
emissions. I would say that thisprobably doesn't touch that.
And, also, states are stillgoing to be able to be crazy if
they want. Like, California isstill gonna be able to have

(01:33:45):
their own special little thing.But Trump administration got rid
of the California waivers, sothat means that other states
don't have to be tied to themand their decisions anymore.
So California can go off and anddeindustrialize and decarbonize
or whatever all they want, andthey can be a little, like like,
eighteen nineties conspiracy,you know, enjoying their their

(01:34:08):
horse driven carriages and stuffand their bullet trains that run
on no electricity because it's

out all the time

or the bullet trains that run on nothing
because they haven't been built.But, yeah, it's it's probably
not gonna touch something likethis. But I think downstream,
the more it becomes more andmore obvious that these policies
are doing a lot more harm thangood, I think they'll start

(01:34:37):
quietly dropping them. Like,California California and New
York City and and New York ingeneral probably are never gonna
come out and say, ah, we messedup. This isn't working out for
us very well.
We're gonna reel it back, andwe're gonna focus on affordable,
reliable energy. They're notgonna do that. But they might go
ahead and say, like, justquietly put, like, edit their

(01:35:02):
rules so that they can push themfurther and further into the
future like they have donebefore. So, yeah, it's that's my
guess anyway. Jim?

Yeah. Yeah. I think that's exactly right. I mean, as
you were as I was thinking aboutit while you were responding
there, I was thinking about, youknow, the rise of the so called
hard right and far rightmovements politically in Europe.
And, of course, that thatcharacterization is complete
bullshit.
And I only say that I only saythat to to to make the point

(01:35:32):
that, you know, there was a timeonly, like, five or six years
ago where far right parties incountries like Hungary and
Poland were becoming politicallysuccessful because they were
reflective of the desires oftheir own people. And what we've
seen over the last several yearsis and now you see it in
Germany. You see it now in TheUK with with Reform UK. You see

(01:35:53):
this I don't know. Normalizationisn't quite the term I want,
but, you know, political commonsense has its own momentum as
well, not just leftisttotalitarianism.
That's not the only thing thattrends. Political political
common sense also has its ownmomentum, and and I don't think
it would have been possible forfor Reform UK to be where it is

(01:36:13):
right now in in its power andits influence and its popularity
in The UK were it not for othercountries in in Europe never
even embracing those sorts ofthings. So, know, we we like to
talk about, like, kind of like apermission cultures. Like, you
know, it took a like, for COVID,it took a while for people to
have the permission to say, I'mnot putting that mask on anymore

(01:36:35):
because that person didn't, andthat person didn't, and that
person didn't. So good thingshave momentum as well, and I
think that's that's indicativehere in in radical climate
policy, politics, and everythingelse.

I think I want a bit of global warming next week
because I'm gonna be knocking ondoors in Gorton and Denton by
election in in in Manchester,which is always cold. And I'm
gonna be doing a lot of walking,a lot of banging on doors, but
it this if if reform win this byelection, then and, obviously,

(01:37:08):
I'm, you know, I'm not a memberof the party, but I'm up there
at Hartland UK. If they win thisby election, they've Pierce
Dahmer will probably have toresign because this particular
constituency has never beenanything apart from labor. It's
been labor since the labor partywas formed. So, anyway, so so I
want you to be thinking to menext week when am I in the

(01:37:30):
freezing cold and the rain.
It's always raining as well upthere. So so, yeah, that'd be
interesting.

Yeah. Jerry Palmer says take a good
umbrella, Lois.

Michelle. Yeah. No. I definitely have an umbrella.
Definitely.

And John says you'll probably need a boat.

Yeah. Yeah. I'll I'll let you know. I'll let let
when I come on the second Fridayof each month, which I've very
kindly been invited on to do, Iwill update you next month on on
my antics, but I'll be tweetingabout it as well on the
Heartland UK and Europe,Twitter, and my own personal
one.

Excellent. Alright. Well and I wanted to
say you guys too. Thomas Adamsin our chat here is making good
points as well saying thatpeople should be going to school
board meetings, speaking upduring public comments portions,
developing relationship withsuperintendents, all this stuff.
All of this stuff is completelytrue.
And this this counts for the,the climate issue too. Like Jim

(01:38:28):
said, there's a permissionculture, you can create it by
just going and being the oneperson. You don't even have to
take a hard stance. You don'thave to go up there and say,
this is communist propaganda,blah blah blah. No.
You can go up there and say,look. You know, maybe it's
global warming is a problem, butalso, I think that probably the
stuff that you guys are pushingis going too far. And here's

(01:38:50):
why. And you can give reasons.And you can you can soften your
approach and gets and justcreate the momentum of that of
that permission culture so thatpeople can start saying, yeah.
You know what? Maybe it is kindastupid to make all the school
kids eat bugs. So so let's But Iwill I will hand it back off to

(01:39:11):
you, Jim, because that is allthe time we have for questions.

Yeah. Thank you very much. I mean, you know, the soft
pedal approach, that works thatthat's somebody's cup of tea.
It's not always mine, but goodadvice for sure, Lynea. And I
wanna thank everybody who ishere with us today in the chat
to join us for the ClimateRealism Show in a very, very fun
one because we had to we got toreport on some very good news.

(01:39:35):
Lois Perry, director ofHeartland UK Europe, thank you
so much for being with us thisweek. You again next month as
well. Thank you, Lynea Luken.Thank you, Anthony Watts, who is
now absent. But, again, thankall of you, the viewers and
listeners of this podcast,because without you, there is no
show.
I wanna thank our streamingpartners again, Junk Science,

(01:39:57):
CFACT, CO2 Coalition, ClimateDepot, what's up with that, and
Heartland UK, Europe. Go toheartland.org today and get your
tickets for the sixteenthInternational Conference on
Climate Change. Seating islimited, and we wanna see you
there. And we will see you hereagain next Friday. Bye bye.

Bye. Thank you. We did it. We did it, Joe. You're

(01:40:44):
gonna be

the next president of The United States.

All Episodes

The Endangerment Finding Is Dead. Here’s Why It Matters — The Climate Realism Show #190

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

Crime Junkie

.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 Endangerment Finding Is Dead. Here’s Why It Matters — The Climate Realism Show #190