Unlearning Climate Alarmism – The Climate Realism Show #191 - Environment and Climate News Podcast

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

Anika Sweetland (00:12):
We are in the beginning of a mass extinction.

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

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

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

Jim Lakely (00:29):
The ultimate goal of this renewable energy, you know,
plan is to reach the exact samepoint that we're at now.

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

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

Jim Lakely (00:56):
That's right, Greta. It is Friday, and this is the
best day of the week. Not justbecause the weekend is almost
here, but because this is theday the Heartland Institute
broadcasts the climate realismshow. My name is Jim Lakeley.
I'm executive vice president,Heartland Institute and your
host.
The Heartland Institute is anorganization that has been
around for forty two years, andwe are known as the leading

(01:17):
global think tank pushing backon on climate alarmism.
Heartland and this show bringyou the data, the science, the
truth that counters the climatealarmist narrative you've been
fed every single day of yourlife. There is nothing else
quite like the climate realismshow streaming anywhere, so I
hope you will bring friends toview this livestream every
Friday at 1PM eastern time. Andalso like, share, and subscribe,

(01:39):
and sure to leave your commentsunderneath this video. We do
read them, and these allconvince YouTube's very
mysterious algorithm to get thisshow in front of even more
people.
And as a reminder, because bigtech and the legacy media are
not big fans of the way we coverclimate and energy on this
program, Heartland's YouTubechannel has been demonetized. So
if you wanna support thisprogram, and I really hope you

(02:01):
do, please visit heartland dotorg slash t c r s. That's
heartland.org/tcrs, and you canjoin other friends of this
program who help bring it to theworld every single week. And we
also wanna thank our streamingpartners who help us get this
show out in front of a lot ofpeople, junkscience.com, CFACT,
What's Up With That, c o twocoalition, and our friends at

(02:24):
Heartland UK Europe. Oh, we gota big show today, so let's get
started.
We have with us, as usual,Anthony Watts, senior fellow at
the Heartland Institute andpublisher of the world's most
viewed website on climatechange, what's up with that? We
have Sterling Burnett. He's thedirector of the Arthur b
Robinson Center on climate andenvironmental environmental
policy at the HeartlandInstitute and also known as the

(02:46):
archbishop of Rancherberry. Wehave Lanea Lukin, research
fellow for energy andenvironment policy at Heartland,
and we are so happy to welcomefor the first time a very
special guest, Anika Sweetland.Anika is a former energy adviser
with a degree in climatestudies.
She gave an address on herawakening to climate realism at
Heartland's World ProsperityForum just last month. You can

(03:07):
find those videos right here onthis very Heartland Institute
YouTube channel. And she's nowand also has been one of The
UK's best public opponents ofthat country's stupid net zero
policy and keeps a keen eye nowon the climate communism of the
European Union. Annika, so happyto have you on the show.

Thank you. Yes. Great to be here. Really good.

Jim Lakely (03:28):
Yes. Not a and and and, what's really neat is that
when I first met you in inSwitzerland, last month, you
said that you were a fan of theshow. You watched the show
before we even met, and notevery fan of the show gets to be
a guest, so congratulations.

Thank you. Yeah. I mean, I'm genuinely a
real life fan of this show. Youknow? On Fridays, if I'm lucky,
I'm out on my scooter, fullymanual, none of this electric
stuff, and listening to theshow, and I feel like a kid
again.
And life feels good becausethere's something profoundly
cathartic about hearing thetruth spoken without apology.

(04:02):
So, yeah, it is definitely oneof my favorite shows.

Jim Lakely (04:04):
Oh, fantastic. Well, we're so happy to have you on
the on the show today, and I'msure you will not be a stranger.
And before we get into our themain part of this show, good
reminder, Anika is gonna be oneof the speakers at the Heart
Institute's sixteenthInternational Conference on
Climate Change, which is comingup April in Washington DC. Space

(04:25):
is limited, and it is startingto fill up pretty full. So if
you want to join us and meetAnnika and great speakers like
Willie Soon, John Clauser, aNobel Prize winner in physics,
is going to be giving a keynoteaddress because he knows from
looking at the data that humancaused climate catastrophe is
complete BS.
You don't wanna miss that. Ourfriends at CFACT and the c o two

(04:48):
coalition and what's up withthat are cohosts of this event.
It is the place you need to beif you're interested in this
topic and really interested inlearning the very truth about
this topic. There is no otherclimate conference like this
anywhere, and we are the oneswho've always put it together
with our friends and cohosts. Sogo to heartland.org.

(05:09):
You can see a feature rightthere on the front page that'll
take you to thespecialclimateconference.heartland.org
website where you can learn moreinformation, look at the program
as it's coming together, look atour speaker list so far, and
also get your tickets. You'renot gonna wanna miss it. April,
coming up sooner than you thinkin Washington DC at the Hotel
Washington, just across just ablock away from the White House.

(05:32):
So it's a great time to be inDC. Alright.
So with that out of the way, Iwant to start our show as we
always do with the crazy climatenews of the week. Hit it, Andy.

(05:59):
Thank you very much, Bill Nye.We'd be happy to have you debate
somebody on climate change atour conference, by the way, if
you're interested in coming. Sojust let me know.
Jlakeley@heartland.org, and wecan make that arrangement.
Alright. Our first item today,I've titled chop chop dummies.
This comes to our good friend,Joe Nova, in Australia from her
great blog, joannenova.com.au.Headline is scientist's new plan

(06:22):
to save the world by choppingdown boreal forest and tossing
it into the Arctic Ocean.
Joe writes, the great NorthernBoreal Forest has expanded by
12% since 1984, which means ithas locked up all this extra
carbon in it. Instead of waitingfor it to catch fire and burn,
the thinking is that we couldcut it down now and throw the

(06:45):
logs in a river that leads tothe Arctic Ocean where they will
sink eventually, maybe, and takecarbon to the sea floor. The
journal New Scientist thoughtthis was a good idea. Future
anthropologists may file moderneco science with arsenic cures
and radium toothpaste. In orderto save the environment, says
New Scientist, I guess, we needto cut down 180,000 square

(07:08):
kilometers of forest and toss itinto the river every year.
And Joe Nova asks, how manytrees do we have to kill to stop
a cyclone in twenty one hundredAD? Had a peek over at the New
Scientist article to get wherethey are coming from with this.

Write (07:26):
Cutting down boreal forests and sinking the felled
trees in the depths of theArctic Ocean could remove up to
1,000,000,000 tonnes of CO2 fromthe atmosphere each year, but it
could come at a cost to theArctic ecosystem, you don't say.
Coniferous trees prone towildfires could be felled and
carried to the ocean by sixmajor Arctic rivers including

(07:46):
the Yukon and Mackenzie wherethey would sink in about a year
according to a team ofresearchers. Is now a forest
that is sequestering lots ofcarbon.
But now the next thing is how tostore it in a way that won't get
burned, said Ulf Buntkin of theUniversity of Cambridge.
Alright. That's enough of thatnonsense. Anthony, I'll start
with you because you picked thisone for us this week. So you

(08:09):
win.
This is, without a doubt, thecraziest climate news of the
week. And can can you work outhow this even works?

Well, this is one of those things where the
scientists that never get out ofthe office and live in the real
world come up with these crazyideas that they think will work
based on models and calculationsand whatever. It it is they also
don't pay any attention tounintended consequences. What
are the unintended consequencesof totally, you know, making the

(08:41):
Arctic full of logs? You know,is there gonna be a beaver
population explosion, you know,which then brings in more wolves
or whatever. I mean, they justdon't know.
And it's just like the wholeidea that was pushed a few years
ago where let's put some ironfilings and iron oxide rust into
the ocean to help make theplankton go, you know, and
that'll sequester more carbondioxide. And it's just nuts. It

(09:07):
is just nuts. They they don'thave a clue. This is just
another appeal to feel good inthis.
We're saving the planet, youknow, and listen to us. We're
scientists. We know what we'retalking about when they really
don't. They have no idea whatwill happen down the road. And
quite frankly, why would wewanna throw away all that wood?
It's usable. You can stillsequester wood by putting it

(09:30):
into buildings or whatever. Youknow? You don't have to sink it
in the Arctic. The whole idea isjust beyond absurd.

Jim Lakely (09:38):
Right.

Oh, Sterling, actually, you I could have

Jim Lakely (09:41):
been wrong in our discussions this week. You may
have actually picked this crazystory. But but look, I'm trying
to figure this out. So we usethe trees to sequester c o two,
then we determine, by theexperts, we'll determine when
they have served their usefulpurpose. And then we cut them
down, and then we send them tothe Arctic Ocean.
And then, what, do we plant newtrees? I mean, what's the carbon
footprint of carrying out thiscrazy scheme anyway?

It's it look. This is idiotic from the get go.
First off, as I wrote in climatechange weekly this week, the
boreal forest is actuallyexpanding. And all these young
trees that are growing areabsorbing more carbon. It's it's
completely throwing a monkeywrench into the carbon balance

(10:25):
that is assumed in climatemodels because the forest are
taking up more c o two thanthey, assume.
And these guys say, oh, well,forest, which are absorbing
carbon, let's cut them down nowbefore they might possibly catch
fire. Now I've got no no problemwith logging. I have advocated,

(10:47):
logging for a long time innational forest. What we know is
older trees, real old trees,stop absorbing carbon and start
putting carbon back into theatmosphere. And then, of course,
there can be forest fires.
So they wanna just clear cutwhole swaths of forest rather

(11:08):
than sort of selectivelycutting, the trees that are have
reached their, maximum absorbsand started to go downhill. And
as Anthony points out, why throwthem into the, ocean or the
river to get down to the oceaneventually, as opposed to

(11:32):
building houses where they alsowill not rot? Building all sorts
of things that, stores thatcarbon. It stays there. It's
it's not like it's it's leakingout while it's in your, your
main patio chair.
And, now I'm gonna disagree withAnthony on one thing. The iron

(11:54):
filings is not a stupid idea.I've advocated it for a long
time, and the reason is it'sgood for ocean life. I don't
care what it does for carbon.What it does is you put them in
the dead spots of the ocean, andit creates the whole food chain,
which is good.
We have more fish. We have moreplankton. We have more

(12:15):
everything that the oceans seemto like. Why just leave dead
spots of the ocean dead when wecan make it better? And if
you're worried about c o two,take c o two out of the
atmosphere.
Well, look. Look. Trees.

Jim Lakely (12:29):
They they I mean, the trees will float. I mean,
have you guys ever seen picturesof the the logging industry from
the late early twentiethcentury? Look. Hey. Polar bears
need something to play with upthere besides seals, and so they
might have a little fun on thosefloating log.

Yeah. Well, we created our own natural lake
here in Texas due to floatinglogs, but this is just a stupid,
stupid, really what's that thatmovie? Really, really, very bad
day? Well, this is a stupid,stupid, very bad idea.

Jim Lakely (13:00):
Alright. Anyone any other comments before we move
on?

There's lots of crazy stuff.

Look. I'm a bit more cynical in believing that
this is nothing more thananother piece in their puzzle to
destroy our natural world. Backin the early global warming
days, deforestation was evil,and once again, they've moved
the goalpost to suit theirnarrative. Now they're pro
deforestation all of a sudden.There are some unique habitats

(13:24):
and ecosystems in these forests,and to destroy them, first of
all, goes against all of theirbiodiversity propaganda.
Surely, wouldn't want toaccelerate their mythic sixth
mass extinction event. So Ithink we need to take a little
bit of a closer look as to howthe removal of these trees is
going to benefit their financialinterests. There will be a money

(13:47):
trail. We just need to find it.

Mhmm. Good point. For sure.

Jim Lakely (13:50):
And I I find it ironic that they refused. They
steadfast steadfastly refused tothin out the tinderbox forests
of California, which Anthonyknows very well. Yet this scheme
here is in place or is proposed,at least. It's never gonna
happen.

Well, you know, we've got ways to deal
with forest fires. Timberlogging is, you know, logging is
one of them, but, just clear cutlogging, you know, you you can
fight forest fires. There's allsorts of things you can do.
Right. But my suspicion is ifyou log these things to store

(14:26):
the carbon, you're gonna lose asmuch in carbon absorption as you
would end up putting out intothe atmosphere.
Remember, it all balances. The co two is locked up in them. If
it burns, it reaches theatmosphere. If it goes into the
ocean, they're no longer takingthat amount of carbon out of the
atmosphere.

Jim Lakely (14:45):
Yeah. Right. Alright. Well, speaking of
California, our second itemtoday, I've titled unrefined
California idiocy. This comesfrom our, good friends at the
Daily Caller.
Headline, California importingforeign fuel after running
refineries out of town. So youmay have noticed that, you know,
governor Gavin Newsom has beenpreening on social media all

(15:09):
week about because Trump withgot rid of the endangerment
funding for carbon dioxidethrough the EPA that he says
that Trump might be giving up onstopping climate change, but
California won't. Well, this onethis one cost of this is having
one of the highest gas prices inthe nation in California. Truly
stupid policies. So good luckrunning for president in The of

(15:31):
The United States on that onthat record.
But, anyway, let me read fromthe story a bit. So California
imported a record amount ofgasoline in November after major
refinery closures tied to yearsof golden state leaders imposing
strict regulations according toBloomberg News. Over 40% of
imported gasoline to Californiahailed from The Bahamas, with
Asian nations like Japan andIndia contributing additional

(15:54):
volume According to data fromVortexa, California politicians
have imposed harsh regulationson the oil and gas industry for
years, enacting America'shighest tax on gasoline and
implementing a cap and tradeprogram for emissions that some
policy experts have linked torising energy costs in the
state. The state has the mostexpensive gas prices in the

(16:17):
nation at $4.58 a gallon,standing in contrast with a
national average of $2.92 agallon, according to the most
recent AAA data. Bloomberg Newsreported that added shipping
expenses are further burdeningCalifornia's already costly gas
market.
Two major refineries are alsoclosing shop in California, with
Phillips sixty six winding downits California refinery, while

(16:39):
Valero is set to shutter itsBenicia facility and a record
$1,000,000,000 write down ontheir books. Bloomberg News
reported that the Bahamian traderoute is now a crucial part of
California's strained supplychain with two tankers carrying
gasoline arriving from TheBahamas in 2026 so far. In 2025,

(16:59):
California imported moregasoline from The Bahamas than
it had in the nine precedingyears combined. Linea, you are a
still a a trained petroleumengineer, so I wanna go to you
first. This does not seem a veryefficient way to go about this
and is doing more harm to theclimate, if you actually believe

(17:20):
carbon dioxide emissionsseriously harm the climate.
But we should put Kevin Wilsonat his word and hold him to his
own standards. Refine your gasin California instead of putting
it on ships from the other sideof the continent with each ship
having to travel 8,000 nauticalmiles round trip. It's
completely insane.

Well, it's it's there there are two parts to
this that I'd comment on. One,it's the usual, like, left wing
abuse of major industry where,you know, Gavin and all of his
will say, we don't need theseguys here. They suck. They're
destroying the planet. We wantthem gone.
We're gonna sue them out ofexistence if they operate in our
state, and, we hate them. Goaway. And then as soon as the

(18:01):
companies are like, alright.Fine. We'll leave.
I guess we can't afford to workhere anymore. The same people
will sue them for leaving, andwe'll be all upset with them for
trying to escape. It's it's it'san abusive situation. It's kind
of remarkable to watch. Butalso, yeah, once again, this is
just outsourcing your pollution.
So pollution. We don't believethat carbon dioxide is pollution

(18:25):
on this show, but you areoutsourcing your emissions to
China, to India, to othercountries. It's the same thing
as when California has chasedother major industries out of
their state and to internationalsources. It's I don't know. It's

(18:45):
there's there's if if climatechange is caused by carbon
dioxide emissions and there's nonet decrease globally in carbon
dioxide emissions from whatthey're doing, then then what
are they doing other than virtuesignaling?
You know? Nothing. Absolutelynothing. They may even be making
it worse as you indicated. Youknow, shipping is not free.

(19:08):
They're not using sailboats todo it. And even if they were,
everything that you need inorder to construct a sailboat
comes from oil and gas at thispoint in time. It's it's I don't
know. California is completelyout of control.

Yep. You could you could ship all that oil much
more easily, safely, and withless carbon emissions if you did
it through pipelines to therefineries. Pipelines that
exist, by the way. That's howthey've been getting their oil
that and and tanker, you know,trains. You know?
And the funny thing is, youknow, we have this story. At the

(19:42):
same time, California's activelyasking these refineries,
refineries that they're shuttingdown that are shutting down due
to climate regulations at a costto the refiners. They're now
begging them to stay opendespite the climate rules
forcing them to close. They theythey've accurately gone out and
said, please stay open. What canwe do to get you to stay open?

(20:03):
Well, you know, the answer isget rid of your climate rules
and let us operate. You know, Idon't know if Gavin Newsom will
ever be president. But if he is,it reminds me of, when I was
young, one of the bands myfavorite bands in my youth was
the Psychedelic Furs. They had asong called president gas. Well,

(20:23):
he would be president gasbag orpresident gas price because
that's, that's what he is.

Jim Lakely (20:32):
Yeah. I mean Go ahead, Anna.

Can I just jump in quickly? This topic, you
know, it saddens me because it'sexactly what's happening here in
The UK. In the last few years,we've gone from 19 oil
refineries to four, and Ifigured out that the reason this
is happening is because theseclimate alarmist extremists,
they're fanatical about thiszero balance, this zero number

(20:56):
on their carbon ledger. They'reobsessed with getting this net
zero number on their ledgersheet. So regardless of whether,
you know, 10 times more carbonemissions are created in the
world somewhere, as long as itdoesn't reflect on them in their
country or, constituency, thenthey don't care.
It's, yeah, a bit ironic and abit sad.

Well, some people in our notes have
commented that, Newsom ismaking, you know, is allying
with Ed Milleband over there inEngland. They have similar goals
and similar dreams, and thattells you, as far as I'm
concerned, that should tell youall you need to know about
whether he needs to be presidentof The United States because no
offense to you, Melaband is iscalled mad Melaband for a

(21:40):
reason.

I take absolutely no offense from that
whatsoever.

Jim Lakely (21:45):
Didn't think so.

He's completely out of his mind. Most of the
people in government herecurrently are. So, yeah, it's
yeah.

Jim Lakely (21:53):
Yeah. Well, by the way, I did you guys have have
hinted at it, but I actuallylooked this up. So about what
the carbon footprint would befor and in this scheme. And it's
this idea of just kindaoffshoring your your carbon
footprint as if that reallymatters, and in fact, makes
things a lot worse. So just a aone way trip from The Bahamas to
Long Beach, California, which iswhere all the imports come in.

(22:14):
They have to go through thePanama Canal. That is 4,000
miles one way. That expels aboutsix according to Grok, I asked
them to do the calculations forme, 6,000 tons of c o two
emissions. And if you have a 20mile commute to work every day
in your car, it would take youuntil the year 3051, taking

(22:38):
those daily commutes five days aweek every day to to match that
one trip in the tanker. That'sone thousand six hundred and
twenty five years from now.
But California is green, and,you know, it's it's it's it's
madness. And these things needto be pointed out, and that's
the whole net zero thing is ascheme to offshore things as
well because it's not gonnahappen.

Jim, you you're you're such an optimist.
You say that these will gothrough the Panama Canal. Large
oil tankers can't go through thePanama Canal. They have to go
around the tip of South Americato come up to California, Add
thousands and thousands of milesto that round trip. Small or mid

(23:19):
sized oil tankers, which they'regetting rid of, don't don't fit
to the Panama Canal.

Jim Lakely (23:24):
Well, great. Then it won't be till the year, like,
4212 then. You know? No worries.Alright.
Let's move on to our next itemhere. Nature doesn't lie. Right?
Well, we'll see. This comes fromthe Japan Times.
I believe Sterling put this forus to look at this week as well,

(23:46):
suggested it. Headline, Japan'sgodless lake warns of creeping
climate change.

Mhmm.

Jim Lakely (23:52):
And forgive me for the length here. It's gonna take
a little bit of setup here, butit's gonna be worth it. Settle
in. Story begins. The priestsand worshipers gathered before
dawn, hoping that climate changehad not robbed them of the
chance to experience anincreasingly rare communion with
the sacred.
A few dozen men, mostly in theirsixties, were headed to Lake

(24:13):
Suwa in Nagano Prefecture insearch of a phenomenon called
God's Crossing that has gonefrom reliable to elusive in
recent decades. Known asomiwatari, it occurs when a
crack opens up in the frozenlake surface, allowing shards of
thinner ice to break through andform a ridge where local deities
are believed to cross. Forcenturies, the priests of the

(24:37):
nearby Yatsuguri Shrine has ledan annual watch for the
crossing, contributing to aunique record of a changing
climate. This year's watch beganon January 5, with Kiyoshi
Miyasaka, a priest in the Shintoreligion, leading the flock. One
man carried a worn flag, anothera giant axe.

(24:57):
All wore jackets bearing theshrine's crest. They set out
with hope, despite a seven yearstretch in which God's Crossing
had not appeared once. Quote,this is the start of the
decisive thirty days, Miyasakatold them. But as they neared
the water, dark and choppy inthe predawn light, Miyasaka's
staple smile disappeared. Howpitiful, he said, lowering a

(25:20):
thermometer into the water.
Miyasaka's predecessors notedwhen the entire lake surface
froze and when the Omigatariappeared. More recently, priests
have added temperature readingsand ice thickness. Consecutive
records date all the way back to1443 the shrine's priests only
took over the job in 1683. TheChronicle shows data taken at a

(25:45):
single location over hundreds ofyears and thanks to it we can
now see what the climate waslike centuries ago. We find no
other meteorological archivecomparable to it.
Global researchers who studyclimate history see it as a very
valuable set of observationrecords. God's crossing has not

(26:06):
appeared since 2018, an absencethat both scientists and
believers attribute to climatechange. We are seeing the signs
of climate change in many placesof the world, and Lake Suwa is
no exception, Miyazaki said.Nature doesn't lie. Well, I
guess that settles it thenbecause it's been said at that

(26:29):
at that holy lake there.
So Sterling, I'll start with youhere. What did what what do you
make of this? Because I knowthere's there's a lot of, you
know, so called or quote unquoteancient but long standing
weather observation posts thatgo back centuries that that we
do tend to look at from time totime. So what do you make of

(26:51):
this?

Well, you know, I think this would
certainly be longer standingrecord than anything than any
you know, you got proxy databeyond that. As far as
temperature stations, they don'tgo back, I don't think, to the
sixteenth or or fourteenthcentury. To know what I think

(27:13):
about this, I'd have to knowwhat the record is in in the
sense that, are you telling methat there's never before in the
history of this lake been aperiod when God's Bridge did not
appear? They don't say that inthe story. They say it hasn't
happened since 2018, but theydon't say there's been no
comparable period in the past.

(27:35):
So I wonder about that. But evenif it were to be the case that
there is no comparable periodpast, remember when they started
recording this during the littleice age that the Earth
experienced. So you startrecording in the depths of the
little ice age. You know, goback to England two hundred

(27:56):
years ago, and the Thames isfreezing over. If you start
recording then suddenly, theThames

is well, it's never freezing over anymore.

Oh my god. Must be climate change. And and
I guess it is climate change.It's a recovery from the little
ice age when they first startedrecording this. It it it's
unclear to me that solely c otwo emissions has anything to do
with this happening.

(28:26):
I'd like to look at the longerrecord, but even like I said, if
if you start recording during aparticularly cold spirit period
that's unusual and it warms up,then the warming and the lack of
ice formation isn't thatunusual. My suspicion is this is
what this has waxed and wanedover the centuries. Maybe it was

(28:47):
more consistent in the earlypart of the, Little Ice Age, but
has become less consistent sincewe came out of it.

Jim Lakely (29:00):
Yeah. I mean, we we've we I don't know if we've
mentioned it much on this show,but I know that there are
several there are severaltemperature stations in The UK
that go back, you know, a couplehundred years, and they have
they don't show the kind ofspikes that the models show and
that the, you know, temperaturehas been well within natural

(29:20):
variation. So I I'm I'm not I'msurprised, not surprised that a
counterexample like that was notincluded in this as well.

Well, I would also ask

Jim Lakely (29:32):
You're muted, Anthony. You're you're you're
talking you're our temperaturestation guy. Go ahead.

Yeah. Okay. Sorry. I had muted myself
because I've had a coughing fitthis morning. You know, the the
these older stations, you'reright, they don't show these
spikes.
And the article itself, theydon't wanna have any other kind
of, you know, constrainingproblems or whatever. It's

(29:59):
talking about real facts. That'sa problem that we see in the
media time and again, which iswhy we have climaterealism.com,
where we go in and debunk themedia on a regular basis. For
example, I just did a aninterview with the Toledo Blade
newspaper in Toledo, Ohio askingabout, you know, shorter
winners. And the data that theyused from Climate Central, which

(30:21):
is an advocate group, went outand looked at all of these,
urban stations, you know,airport stations and so forth
and said, well, based on thetemperature, winters are getting
shorter.
Well, duh, UHI. And they paid noattention to that whatsoever
because that's inconvenient.That doesn't fit the narrative.
So when I pointed it out to theToledo Blade reporter, he

(30:41):
actually put it in because, youknow, it makes sense. If you
have temperatures that arewarming in cities alone and the
cities are growing, gettingbigger, more concrete, more
asphalt, more jet exhaust, allthat stuff, you're gonna see
warmer temperatures, and you'regoing to see what appears to be
shorter winters based on thosetemperatures.
But that doesn't mean climatechange is causing it.

I I don't wanna be sacrilegious, but, you
know, does god really need? Canhe not form a bridge on his own
if he wants to to, form thatbridge or not need a bridge at
all, perhaps? I just

I mean, you know, water is traditionally
very important in religion. So Iunderstand the fascination of
seeing a particular climateevent to do with the water might
occur and create traditions,etcetera, like the frost fairs
in England. But, you know, thereare the fifteen hundred year

(31:43):
events, which are the warmingand cooling cycles. So as you
said, Sterling, you know, whenthey took these first records,
the earth was in the little iceage, and a lot of people don't
realize that actually this wasglobal in nature. You know,
they've studied many proxies,bee, pollen fossil, you know,

(32:10):
all of the proxies.
And, basically, this was aworldwide thing. So, you know, a
lot of people think that thisonly happened in Europe. But so
they would be coming out of thatinto warmer weather, and,
eventually, it will descendback, and they will get the
bridge again.

And we'll all be suffering because the ice age
came back and crops startfailing and

Well, we're hoping for some technological
advances that will save us, Ithink.

Build the dome. Yeah.

Jim Lakely (32:48):
Yep. Alright. Well, that just interesting. It's like
and, you know, another thing wewe cover, we call it the crazy
climate news because, you know,literally anything can be tied
to you know, tragic tragicallyto human caused climate change.
So even even even that.
So alright. Go

ahead. Sorry. I said it's as I've said before,
Jim. It's like it's a it's aclimate hypochondria.

Jim Lakely (33:16):
Absolutely. Yep. That's a great description of it
for sure. Alright. Our fourthone here is, we're gonna be talk
I wanna talk a little bit aboutclimate well, supposedly, the
fight against climatedisinformation in Europe.
And we wanted to have we werehoping to have Annika on a few
weeks ago when I saw this tweetthat she had to talk about this,

(33:37):
and now we're so lucky enough tohave her here with us today to
talk about this. Andy, it's inthe show notes. You might be
able to bring the tweet up forus. In fact, I'll grab it on my
own over here. So, you know,looking at this tweet, you had
you had said this was back onFebruary 2, I believe.
Mhmm. You said, news. EUendorses landmark declaration on

(34:00):
information integrity on climatechange. And you said this
matters because now it's only amatter of time until denying man
caused man made climate changebecomes illegal. And here, I'll
read from their own statementhere, and then you can you can
tell us more about it, Annika.
This comes from the EU. There'sa lot of talk about climate

(34:21):
change, but some of it isdesigned to mislead. Climate
disinformation is theintentional spread of false or
misleading information aboutclimate change and climate
action. This show is very guiltyof that. It can take many forms,
from denial and conspiracytheories to softer, more
insidious arguments that seek tomuddy the waters.
Those who push climatedisinformation deliberately

(34:44):
finance, create, or spreadcontent to destruct climate
action. For example, they try tocast doubt on the scientific
consensus or sway people'sopinions in order to reduce
pressure to regulate pollutionor prepare for the impacts of
climate change. And this comesfrom the European Commission's
director general for climateaction. So, Annika, we are all

(35:07):
on this show very, very guiltyof everything the EU is is now,
as you say, might even turn intoa actual crime one day.

Yeah. I mean, that's the way it's going. You
know, the idea that youcriticizing or disputing the
climate alarmist narrative mightbe illegal, I mean, that's very
worrying. Here in The UK, peopleare getting locked up every day,
multiple people, for justwriting their opinions online

(35:38):
because it doesn't fit thesigned off narrative that the
government wants people tothink. So in effect, the EU have
shown their true colors here.
The EU seem to be narcissists.The technique that they're
deploying here is known aspsychological projection, and

(35:59):
it's where someone attributestheir own thoughts, motives, or
behaviors to another person. Sofirstly, they're denying their
behavior, lying about the originof climatic change. They're
attacking us, the realists, forraising it, and then through
this climate facts mattercampaign, they flip the script

(36:20):
so that they become the victimand we become the aggressor. And
the scariest part is that I knowthis is just a precursor to
making it illegal, To havepodcasts like this, to post
about it online, they're, youknow, throwing people in prison
all over the place.
And, you know, if you take alook at the wording, it's just

(36:43):
missing a few words on the end,so I will add those words now.
Those who push climatedisinformation deliberately
finance, create, or spreadcontent to obstruct climate
action, for example, try to castdoubt in the scientific
consensus or sway people'sopinions in order to reduce
pressure to regulate pollutionor prepare for the impacts of

(37:04):
climate change will beprosecuted to the full extent of
the law. And those are just themissing words. Whether it's
coming in six months, or sixweeks, I don't know. Now the
reason they're doing this,that's the most important
factor.
They're doing it from the fearthat they're finally being
exposed, which they are. Andthey're doing this because

(37:28):
people are waking up, andtherefore, their policies are no
longer being put through tofilter trillions of dollars to
them. They're seeing asubstantial financial loss, and
I think this is why we've seenthis.

Jim Lakely (37:41):
Yeah. I mean, we've seen this in The United States.
I mean, it it was it was thisway until, frankly, Elon Musk
bought Twitter, but thegovernment was conspiring with
social media companies tosilence anyone who questioned
the dogma of catastrophic humancaused climate change, who
presented data and facts thatdid not meet the, you know, meet

(38:02):
the narrative, were suppressed.This channel has been suppressed
like crazy, The Heartless PeaksYouTube channel, because of this
show and the positions thatwe've taken for a long time on
it. They're not arresting peoplein The United States for this
just yet.
Yet. Yet.

Yeah. I call America the free world. I think
you guys are going to be a lotsafer than we will overhear. But
the fact that, you know, theshow was demonetized, I mean,
that that is just that'scompletely out of order.

You know, it sounds to me, and I've been
following what's going on in UKon free speech, not on climate
not just on climate, but on avariety of other matters. You
know, people being locked up forspeaking about religion. It's
1984. And, if you go to youknow, Jim, when he first started

(38:52):
reading it, he said somethingabout they do the if they're
doing this with the intention ofmisleading or something like
that, I forget what the actuallanguage was, but the the word
intention was there. Intentionis a is is is important in
criminal law.
And I would just say, what ifyour intention is just having

(39:16):
you know, presenting data, forothers to consider? We used to
call that education, or debate.And does it have the intention
to persuade? Yeah. To persuadethem that, you know, this view,
but not to say climate doesn'tchange doesn't occur.

(39:38):
I've never disputed that. Now Iwill dispute whether there's
evidence it's a disaster. But,is my intention to mislead? No.
My intention is to inform.
And if all they're saying is ifyou inform people about
something we don't like, yourintention is necessarily to

(40:00):
mislead, well, then we've reallygone down the nineteen eighty
four rabbit hole.

Yeah. You know, I'm probably on the hit list as
far as, people who are breakingthe law with what's up with that
and, you know, the law as theysee it, you know, because we've
been doing this for twentyyears. We've been pointing out
facts instead of disinformation.Of course, they call it
disinformation because itdoesn't align with their
worldview. And, you know, I'vehad calls from people saying

(40:28):
that, you know, I should bejailed.
Some people had said I should bekilled. I mean, you know,
there's all these whack jobs outthere that think that we are
preventing the planet fromhealing. Well, that's not the
case at all. The planet's doingjust fine. We've got a more
greening going on.
We've got more productivitygoing on with our populations.

(40:49):
Everything is great. We live ina golden age of success success
as far as the planet isconcerned, and the planet's
actually doing better itselfbecause of the greening and so
forth. Yes. There are somepollution out there.
Yes. There's some problems withthat, but even so we've made
great strides since theEnvironmental Protection Agency
was put together in the earlynineteen seventies by Nixon, I

(41:11):
will point out, a republican.And, you know, we've got cleaner
air, cleaner water, you know,cleaner everything, but it's
never enough for these people.And if you push back against
them, they call you a climatedenier. They call you an earth
wrecker.
They call you a a a planetmurderer. All these crazy ideas.

(41:32):
So, yeah, I could probably endup getting arrested if I go into
the EU, but I have no plans tovisit the EU any soon.

Jim Lakely (41:41):
Might Well, I guess you're not coming to if we go
back out there to counter theDavos conference, I guess you
can't come. We'll just we'llpipe you in this way. But I just
wanna point out that, as Andy,our our producer extraordinaire
in the background, noted in ourlittle private chat that What's
Up With That was the most citedskeptical website globally on
Reddit from 2020 I'm sorry, 2014to 2022. So Anthony Watts has

(42:06):
even a bigger target on his onhis forehead from the people in
the EU when it comes to pushingskepticism. But as everybody
knows

I think maybe I should change my I think maybe I
should change my subtitle herefrom, at Watts up with that to
outlaw. How's that?

Jim Lakely (42:22):
There you go. Global outlaw, Anthony Watts. Yeah.
Because everybody knows whenyou're winning the argument and
you have the facts and and andthe the moral high ground on
your side, the first thing youdo is shut up and jail everyone
who opposes you. So everybodyknows that.

You know? The most stupid you know, in my
opinion, the most stupid thingabout the whole climate debate,
all of this, is the idea thatwe're damaging the Earth. The
Earth's not a living being, andregardless of what we do, the
Earth will abide. There was agreat science fiction book
called Earth Bites. It was itwas here before man.
It will be here after, manmankind and or humankind, not to

(43:01):
be gender biased. But, you know,the problem the problem with all
of this is that the people whoare worried about climate
change, they have a what I whatI call a time slice view of the
world. They've got an idea forthis is the perfect environment

(43:22):
for the Earth. Why why this? Whynot the middle of an ice age?
The Earth doesn't care whetherit's an ice age or hotter than
today. Did the Earth complainwhen the dinosaurs roamed the
Earth? You know, they're pickingthe point of view that they
think is best from the onceagain, their god's eye point of
view. They know better. Theythey say they follow nature.

(43:45):
Well, okay. Nature goes all overthe place if that's what you
really want. From a a humanfecundity and, flourishing point
of view, higher c o two isbetter for us than lower c o
two.

Yep.

But they've got somehow they picked, I don't
know, the eighteen seventies orthe seventeen hundreds or the
nineteen twenties as the ideal,climate global average
temperature. And it's like,where where did they come with
that? You know, why why that andnot some other? It was made out.

(44:21):
Well,

that was actually a measurement to
distinguish different planettemperatures from one another.
There was only ever a globalaverage so that they could say
the Earth is 30 degrees. Venusis 400 degrees, etcetera. It was
only ever meant to be used tocompare planets against one
another.

Jim Lakely (44:41):
There you

go. So it's useless.

Jim Lakely (44:44):
Great. Well, alright. Well, I wanna move on.
I wanna talk a little about, youknow, the main topic on this
thing in the thumbnail is, youknow, about kind of a a realism
a journey to climate realism.And and, Annika, you are joining
us as a speaker at Heartland'sClimate Conference, April in
Washington DC.
Be sure to get your tickets now.Go to heartland.org. And as I

(45:06):
mentioned earlier, you're withus in Switzerland for the
Heartland Institute's WorldProsperity Forum, and your
speech was very popular withviewers. In fact, people have
mentioned it in the chat today.So so I wonder if you could talk
to our audience a little bitabout, you know, for lack of
better term, climate realismjourney.
You know, where did you start?You know, what did you think

(45:26):
about the climate and thescience at the time, and why?
And how did you end up here withus today having fun on the
climate realism show?

Well, so I had been bombarded with global
warming propaganda my wholelife. I grew up in the most
isolated city in the world,Perth, and was very sheltered.
And after convincing myself thatI could find a solution to the
world's problems, I decided toembark on a four year climate

(45:55):
studies degree at the Universityof Western Australia. But what I
was taught wasn't the cuttingedge science I was assured I was
learning. It was actually just aclimate scientist training camp.
They were training me to be oneof the 97% of scientists that
agree on the science of climatechange. There were no textbooks.

(46:18):
We just read journal articlesthat comfortably fit the climate
alarmist narrative, andtherefore our lectures were the
main source of information. Somy lecture notes felt like the
Bible, and most of the time, itdidn't feel like an open
scientific debate. It feltalmost religious in tone.

(46:42):
So in that spirit, I thought I'dhave a bit of fun and turn what
I was taught in university intothe 10 climate commandments. Are
you ready?

Jim Lakely (46:53):
Yes. Let's go.

Thou shalt declare that c o two shall heat
the globe until the oceans boilover. Thou shalt speak of
consensus and not ofuncertainty. Thou shalt speak
not of the sun, sea, norvolcano, for man alone holdeth
the thermostat of the earth.Thou shalt measure all storms
against the year 1850. Thoushalt erase the medieval warmth

(47:21):
and the little ice age, for theytrouble thy narrative.
Blessed are the off setters forthey shall inherit moral
superiority. Thou shall notquestion the model projections.
Thou shall repent of thy carbonfootprint. Thou shall sacrifice
thy gas boiler for the greatergood, and thou shall treat each

(47:42):
storm as prophecy fulfilled. Sothat is basically what I
learned, and it was like a cult.
Now I see that. But, you know, Ibelieve this stuff. Like I said
in Zurich, I thoroughlyrespected my professors, the

(48:02):
institution of universityitself. You know, I worked
really hard in school to getinto the best university in my
state. And, yeah, I reallythought I was learning the
cutting edge stuff in the world.
So going back through my lecturenotes and when I saw things like
carbon dioxide will starvetrees, yeah, I mean, now that

(48:31):
sounds so obvious. Right? Foranyone listening, they're
probably like, how did youbelieve that? But it was at the
higher level of carbon dioxidethat trees would starve. I mean,
when you're brainwashed, there'sjust no logic.
So and for one of our practicalassessments, we were assigned
roles in a mock conference ofthe parties. You know, some of

(48:51):
us were fossil fuel nations,some were small island states,
some some were negotiators, somepress, and it normalized the
climate problem as somethingthat needed to be negotiated,
something that was political innature, and this was the tragedy
that they were never trainingscientists. They were simply

(49:13):
training socialists to enacttheir agenda. Yeah. And so the
things the science, it didn'tadd up.
I remember thinking in climatemodeling, energy in doesn't
really and it equal energy outin the real world. And I

(49:33):
remember emailing one of myprofessors because I did things
like hydrology and environmentalsystems engineering as well. And
so when I was doing all theredox reactions and all of that,
I could see from the math thatthere was loads of unaccounted

(49:54):
energy in the system, loads ofunaccounted for energy. And so I
emailed one of my professors,and I said, look. Actually, I
know this is what we're doing,but I think, actually, energy in
doesn't equal energy out.
And I just never got a reply.And by that point, I was getting
pretty fed up because thingsweren't adding up. And, yeah, it

(50:15):
was a journey, you know, torealize that this thing I
dedicated my life to was notreal. And yeah. So now that I
know the truth, I'm kind of liketheir worst nightmare.
And ever since my speech cameonline in Zurich, I've had a

(50:35):
plethora of haters come after mebecause they are afraid that one
of their climate scientists it'slike, I've escaped a
concentration camp, and I'mtelling everyone what they're
doing to people. Like, that isthe reality for them. One of
their brainwashed has becomeunbrainwashed, and, that's a
dangerous place for them to bein, And that's the story.

Jim Lakely (50:58):
That's a great story, and it it's you know, you
had some fun with the 10commandments of climate
alarmism, but it's it's aproposbecause we've we it is a
religious I mean, maybe noteverybody on this show agrees
with me, but I can it's a cult.It's I call it the climate cult,
and it because it is impervious.The the people that are in this

(51:19):
climate cult are impervious toreason and data and science. Not
all of them, obviously. You'renot you're not one of those, and
and there are many others whohave been pulled out of the
cult.
But it is extremely difficultbecause there's two factors at
play. If you allow data andobservation and logic to

(51:39):
penetrate your belief system,that's a lot. It's a belief
system, and so it's verydifficult emotionally and
spiritually to pull away fromit. I think our our friend Tom
Harris from Canada, who'sanother climate realist, former
climate alarmist, and who youknow, one of the rare people
that saw the data himself anddecided and changed his mind

(52:02):
because of that. He he makes thepoint when I speak to him on
occasion that, you know, youcan't if somebody reaches a
position based on emotion, youcan't get them out of it via
logic.
And if they if that you need tohave make an emotional appeal.
Maybe that's not universallytrue, but it seems generally
true.

I I wrote a series of articles. I wrote
started with writing for humanevents, and then I wrote for
National Review calling climatethe the climate change belief a
religion and not not scienceseventeen years ago seventeen,
eighteen years ago. Because Ijust did an explanation of what
what religion does and howscience works, and I pointed out

(52:45):
that the climate science wasn'tworking like science. They take
model assumptions and modeloutputs as a matter of faith,
and faith has a a role in ourlives. I I I'm a religious
person myself, but faith andreligion is not science.
They they they they satisfydifferent needs for human

(53:09):
processing. And, you know, themain thing that got me was in
science, you make a theory. Youyou, you set up a hypothesis,
then you develop a theory tobasically explain a phenomenon,
and then you test it againstreality. And, if you claim that

(53:35):
if humans put c o two in theatmosphere, it causes warming
and warming causes morehurricanes and more hurricanes
aren't occurring, that shouldlead you to question not the
data, but the theory. If if youif you do the same thing about
tornadoes or wildfires, thennone of those things are and
pretty soon, as the data mounts,as as as your different prongs

(53:55):
of predictions are disconfirmed,you should start saying, well,
maybe we need a need a betterexplanation for the phenomenon
that's going on than humans arecausing c o two, human c o two
is causing warming that's acatastrophe for the Earth, but
they never questioned that.
In fact, they can makediametrically opposed
predictions for the same placeand same right now, you can find

(54:17):
newspaper articles that say, themonsoon season is getting worse,
and the monsoon season isgetting less severe, both of
which either of which are badfor the farming in monsoon,
prone areas because they dependon the monsoon rains. You can
find, you know, that all overthe earth. You can find

(54:38):
predictions that just pick yourclimate catastrophe, and they
will say worse or better. Youknow? The snow.
Just recently, snow's been thewe will find the end of snow.
New York Times ran two separatearticles over the years called
the end of snow. Then they runarticles saying, oh, climate

(54:59):
change is causing more snow, andwe can explain why. It's like,
look. It can't cause both lesssnow and more snow in the same
location in the same timeperiod.
It can't. That's calledimpossible. That's a religion.
You know, in religions,impossible things can happen,
not in science.

Jim Lakely (55:17):
Man caused climate change is the alpha and the
omega. Don't you know that,Sterling?

Well, that's why I'm the archbishop for
Rannerberry. I'm the archbishopfor realism.

Yeah. I mean, I forgot to mention my key thing
about when I said all thesepeople came after me. I forgot
to mention that I know they arepaid by the climate
establishment establishment toto do do that. That. Just like,
you know, in the fifties inAmerica, you had misinformation
officers going to people'shouses and saying, look.
I know that you think this, butwe're experts, and, actually,

(55:50):
it's not true. So I know thatthey're paid. I know they're
just doing it as a job, so I'mactually not huffed by it.

Yeah. We just had a story on on WhatsApp with that
just yesterday, I believe itwas, where there was
$2,000,000,000 worth of moneybeing sent from the EU, not the
EU itself, but from Europe, toThe United States to fund these
kinds of outfits. $2,000,000,000and yet at the same time, the
left accuses us of, you know,taking big oil money. We we've

(56:21):
never gotten a freaking dime,not 1 dime. And, you know, they
are just simply telegraphingwhat they're doing themselves.
It's Yes. It's pathetic. There'sthe article right there.

Al Al Gore I I don't often say Al Gore is
right, but he he made one claim.You know, he was citing someone
else, but it's something to theeffect. It's hard to admit
you're wrong about somethingwhen you're paid to believe
something.

Jim Lakely (56:53):
Mhmm.

Yeah. The another example of this recently that I
was kind of, like, pulling myhair out this morning looking at
article came out from ScienceDaily News, and it was a study
from Queen Mary University ofLondon that said that it's
actually like they now thatthey've looked at the data on, I

(57:17):
guess, like, invasive speciesor, like, species overturn in
different niches, ecologicalniches. They used to say that
climate change was gonna causethis to happen rapidly, and it
was a bad thing because, youknow, species that were used to
being in these environments arebeing pushed out. And so new
species are coming in, and it'sa bad thing. Well, now they've

(57:40):
come out with this study thatsays, actually, what they're
calling now, like, eco ecosystemturnover is slowing down, and
that's a bad thing because itmeans that they aren't adapting
fast enough.
And they don't you know, thefact that invasive species
aren't coming in is a bad thingbecause it means that it's just
collapsing. And it's like, youdon't get to have it both ways.

(58:01):
I'm sorry. You've you've run outof

They have no say.

Everything can't be a bad thing. It's not
possible. Yeah. I I just don'tbelieve you anymore.

Everything is a bad thing, Linea.

Okay. Come on, Linea. Get with the program.
Climate change causes everythingbad that changes.

Yeah. All change is always bad. That's what I've
learned from the news.

Jim Lakely (58:24):
Well, even if you wanna paint we can wrap it up
here. But even if we if youwanna paint us as the doubting
Thomases of the of the climatecult, you know, at least at
least in the Bible, Thomas wasconvinced of the resurrection by
seeing proof, and he wasconvinced of it. And the the
trouble with the climatecultists is that there is no
proof. They can't all of theirmodels are are false. They are

(58:47):
not if if we were presented andwe mean this.
We say this on the show a lot.If you present us with evidence
that we are wrong, that our ourview our views on climate and
energy use and is wrong, bringthe evidence that will convince
us because our positions are notemotionally based or spiritually
based. They are logic and databased. And if you can show us

(59:09):
the data that proves us wrong,bring it on. And, again, Bill
and I any of you alarmists, weknow that some of you I'm sorry
to say alarmists, but you'rejust gonna have to deal with
that.
Gonna be I've been called adenier for the last twenty
years. You're gonna have to putup with alarmists. I'm sorry.
But if you wanna come to ourclimate conference and challenge
the positions that thescientists that we're gonna have

(59:29):
there are presenting, you'rewelcome to it. This is not
invitation only.
Buy your tickets today. Go toheartland.org, and it's it is
filling up, so you're gonnawanna be there.

Sorry, Jim. Did you wanna continue?

Jim Lakely (59:42):
No. No. I just wanted to get into I I have no
segue. None. So I'm just goingto talk about our sponsor for
this program that helps make itmake it happen.
Boo. And that I know Boo and Linis booing. I had one, and then I
lost it. So oh, well. So with ahorrible segue, I can still tell
you about the sponsor of thisprogram, which is Advisor

(01:00:04):
Metals.
If you listen to a lot ofconservative shows like this
one, and I do, you hear tons ofpitches for buying gold and
silver and other preciousmetals, and there are a lot of
companies out there asking foryour business. But we wanna tell
you why you should trust thesponsor of this program, and
that's Advisor Metals. And it'sbecause of the man who runs the
company, Ira Brashatsky. Ira isthe managing member of Advisor

(01:00:26):
Metals, and he doesn't employhigh pressure tactics or
deceptive marketing ploys likemany of the companies in big
gold. He also doesn't deal in socalled rare coins, which are
probably not rare and you're notinterested in.
When you buy gold and otherprecious metals from Advisor
Metals, you're dealing inquality bullion, and that is so
much better when it comes timeto liquidate your very valuable

(01:00:46):
physical asset. And when you buyfrom Advisor Metals, you will
hear have your investment sentdiscreetly and directly to your
own home. I wanna mention thatIra is advertising on this
program because he believes inthis program and in the
Heartland Institute. He is anAmerica first patriot. He
doesn't donate to Democrats.
He refuses to work with proxiesof the Chinese Communist Party,

(01:01:07):
and he, like us, abhor themachinations and schemes of the
World Economic Forum and theUnited Nations. That is why we
are so proud to have AdvisorMetals as a sponsor. So you
wanna diversify your portfolio,you wanna back up your IRA with
real physical bullion ofprecious metals, go to
climaterealismshow.com/metals.You can leave your information

(01:01:28):
there, and Ira will make thewhole process very easy for you.
Climaterealismshow.com/metals,and be sure to tell them who
sent you because that helps thisshow while you're helping your
financial future.

Sterling Burnett (01:01:41):
Yep. If Thank you for

Jim Lakely (01:01:42):
your attention to this matter.

If I could just say, I found the quote. Was
up in Sinclair that that Gorewas quoting, and it says, it's
difficult to get a man tounderstand something when his
salary depends on notunderstanding it. That applies
so well to all the academicsworking on climate change and
all the bureaucrats, staffingagencies who are raking in, and

(01:02:05):
who have raked in billions ofdollars on climate change.
Meteorology, climatology,meteorology, those departments
have raked in more money in thepast fifteen years on the
climate scam than theycumulatively received throughout
history before that. What?

(01:02:28):
If it goes away, their fundingdoes. If we start devoting
funding to actually some curingsomething like hunger in the
developing countries or cancer,they're out of work.

Well, we've we've said it on this program a
million times. I mean,Greenpeace spends more on
catering than the entire budgetthe annual budget of the of the
Heartland Institute and ourallied organizations. And it's
just the whole idea that we'reswimming in in fossil fuel
money, you know, if oh, if itwas only so. It is totally not
so. We say what we say onprinciple, and we are supported

(01:03:00):
by other men and women ofprinciple who think the message
is important.
That's it. We don't take moneyfrom NGOs. We don't take money
from government. It's it'salways look. We have another
program called In the Tank fromthe Heartless Institute.
We talk about lots of things,not just climate. And, man,
leftism is just projection allthe way down. Everything they

(01:03:21):
accuse their opponents of doingis exactly what's actually
happening in their own shops, Sodon't get me started on that.
What we should get started on,though, is the q and a,
everyone's favorite part of theshow. So, Lanea, take it away.

Linnea Lueken (01:03:45):
Alright. I wanna bring up this comment that
ClimateBell, frequent viewer ofours, had. It wasn't a question,
but I thought it was good toread. He said, there are honest
but careless climate scientistswho assumed someone did their
computations properly and parrottheir narrative without
checking, but others whoknowingly support dishonest

(01:04:08):
science. Yeah.
And that's the thing that'sfrustrating across the board in
this area. There are scientistswho are earnest, but maybe a
little bit lazy or at least alittle bit too trusting in their
colleagues and assume thatpeople are doing checking when
they're not doing checking.That's a big problem in peer
review right now in every areaof science is people not

(01:04:31):
actually checking the math theway that they're supposed to
when these papers are going up.So, yeah, that is a difficult
situation. Alright.
So Spirlock. I I'm not sure howto pronounce this Spirularch.
Spiral arch. Spiral arch. Yes.
Is I have not seen you in thechat before, I don't think so.

(01:04:52):
Welcome. But I'm going toaddress this question here.
Alright. Anthony, this is foryou.

Anthony Watts (01:04:56):
Well, hold on a second. I'm doing some research.
So

I'm

gonna defer that question, and come back to it.
Okay? Sure. Alright. There was a

book published there was a book published a
couple years ago called BlackCarbon, and it argues that a lot
of the, change in albedo andwarming is due to soot that has
fallen upon, white surfaces,causing the melting and, causing
heating.

Sterling, you gotta let me address the
question first so that our ouraudio only listeners know what
we're talking about. Alright. Sothis question was, what

percentage I got an answer.

Anika Sweetland (01:05:32):
Okay. What percentage of

the darkening of Earth's albedo or reflectivity
to space is due to theproliferation of near black
solar panels?

You have to actually surprised me. I You

gotta you gotta let her finish. She just
told me that. You need to listentoo.

Okay.

Sorry. So I had a calculation done. Okay. And this
is based on 2024 data. So thisis using capacity and acres per
megawatt to help calculate this.
The earth's land surface area isabout 149,000,000 square
kilometers. Solar panels occupyroughly One twentieth of 1% or

(01:06:22):
about point o four to point o 5%of the Earth's surface is
covered by solar panels. Sothat's not a lot. And therefore,
probably is not a factor in anykind of changes in in the
climate. We we see changes thatare larger than that based on
seasons.

Well, you might see local changes. Right?
If if we talk about the urbanheat on effect. Well, local
albedo might change. The heatingmight be caused some of it might
be caused by solar panels, butnot you know, global average
temperature doesn't seem likeprobably largely affected.

Yeah. Alright. Awesome. Okay. Sterling, this
one's for you.
From Wheelman, he says ironfillings are a good thing or
iron filings are a good thing tospread in the ocean.

Yeah. This is an old

I think

she said the question was

for me, Anthony. Alright. I think that's
disagree. Go ahead first. Yes.
K. So we don't have a shortageof iron filings. We do milling.
We have a lot of it. There areplaces in the ocean that are
called dead spots because theydon't have minerals, for life to
congregate.

(01:07:38):
They don't start the,phytoplanktons and the
planktons, the whole food chain.And they did experiments where
they could dump, iron filings inthe ocean. It doesn't cost a
lot. The filings are consideredwaste anyway. And they started
the food chain, and, fisheriesimproved.

(01:07:59):
And they were worried aboutcarbon dioxide. Turns out it
takes carbon dioxide out of theatmosphere. Now I'm not worried
about the latter. But if we cancreate more places where sea
life thrives, that doesn't seemto be a bad thing to me. I'm I'm
I'm not one of those that sayswe don't tamper with mother
earth.
Every time we log, we tamperwith mother earth. Every time we

(01:08:19):
build a new subdivision, wetamper with mother earth. I
don't see this, but just onemore thing that we might do to
make life a little bit better.

Yep. It's the same reason you, not sinking
logs in the, Arctic orAntarctic, but sinking logs in a
pond to make fish habitat is afun thing to do as well. Not
worrying about carbon dioxide onthat one. Alright. So Ma Mason
says the graph by Hapr Linzen toshow how concentrations go up,

(01:08:54):
how when concentrations go up,the greenhouse effect does not
go up linearly.
Is there a way that we candescribe how this works if
someone can visualize it?

I mean, I would just say that because c o two
doesn't really have a hugerelationship with temperature I
mean, that's the reality really,isn't it? Not a direct
relationship, not one we've seenproduced again and again.
There's so many variables thatgo into it. So yeah. Lynne, do

(01:09:28):
you think that that would be anequation as it were?

Well, of course. Yeah. There's an equation.
That's what they're referring tohere is the logarithmic,
basically, relationship betweentemperature and carbon dioxide.
Anthony has a good model forthis.
I also have a model for this.There's a whole bunch of
different, like, examples thatyou can give. Mhmm. I can let
Anthony tell his, I think, thesoup model, and I can also tell

(01:09:56):
my windowpane model. ButAnthony?

Yeah. Well, the soup model is basically you go
to a restaurant, you order abowl of soup, you taste it.
Yeah. It's kinda bland. I needsome need some salt.
Put some salt in the soup. Tasteit again. It's a little better,
but I need some more salt, Ithink. So you salt it yet again
and you accidentally put toomuch salt in it. Now you taste

(01:10:19):
it and it's too salty.
Well, no matter how much moresalt you would add to it at that
point, it's still going to tastetoo salty. Your taste buds
response to the salt issaturated, and that's how it
works with the atmosphere. Asyou get more and more c o two,
at some point, you reach asaturation point, and no matter
how much more you add, theresponse is the same. And so

(01:10:43):
that's my model on it or myanalogy.

Yeah. And and I had a professor in college when
I was taking remote sensing thatexplained it like, if you have a
window pane and you put stripsof masking tape that's semi
transparent, you know, kindalike painter's tape on it. You
know, the the strips for carbondioxide only go in a certain
location, only block certainwavelengths of the light coming

(01:11:09):
in through the window. And everytime you add more, you're just
putting the same strips on topof where strips already are. And
there is a little bit of ablurring effect over time, but
at a certain point, they're notblocking any more light no
matter how many more you add.
So that my example works a lotbetter if you can, like,
actually see the see the windowpane example that our professor

(01:11:32):
gave, but that's the one that Ihave. So there's a couple
different examples. Yeah. Andabove us only Skye mentions that
Will Happer has a red paint onthe barn example as well.
There's tons and tons.
So alrighty. And l t Oracletruth also says, I've been
getting a lot of articles in mynews feed about orcas and

(01:11:53):
Greenland warning of climatecatastrophe. What's up with
that? I have not seen an orcathing.

I haven't seen one either.

I I've seen it, and, basically, it's just
another, unverified claim. Youknow, climate change is killing
the orcas, making the orcas getless food. You know, pick any
argument you want. It's justanother it's just like the the
polar bears. You know?
The polar bears, they can'treally exploit that too much
anymore. So now they're goingafter the orcas.

Yeah. It's harder to count a a whale, I guess.

Except I've seen how the orcas play with
their food, and I have a lotless sympathy for them than it
it it's hard for me to generatetears after seeing an orca toss
around a seal so his kid canlearn how to hunt.

Yeah. Albert says, question. Will you please
talk a bit about the BBC lyingabout the state of the Great
Barrier Reef? I did see thisone. That it was pretty
remarkable recent article.
The BBC said that the GreatBarrier Reef has suffered the
worst, like, coral die off inall of history or whatever. And
the way that they framed it madeit sound like the coral the

(01:13:05):
Great Barrier Reef is just gone.It's just devastated. And then
you look at the chart, you canthere's available current data
on coral extent, and it's stillat, like, all time highs. So
it's just nonsense.

Yeah. It is. But, you know, it just goes along
with their narrative of we'reonly gonna report what's changed
and what's bad. We're not gonnareport anything that's good like
recovery as that would beagainst the narrative.

Well, it's also confusing bleaching events
with death. You know, they'vehad some large bleaching events.
They've had multiple years oflarge bleaching deaths in the
last I mean, bleaching events inthe past decade. But the vast
majority of the coral recoveredand other parts of the coral
will grow continue to grow. Soit keeps setting records despite

(01:13:52):
these bleaching events, whicharen't death.

Right. And the bleaching events are actually
part of the natural cycle forcoral. Coral has a symbiotic
relationship with these, youknow, little tiny, algae
organisms and so forth. And, youknow, they're basically, you
know, renting space in thecoral. You know, the the coral
is an algae high rise, so tospeak.
Right? So every once in a while,the coral says, hey, you know

(01:14:16):
what? I'm cleaning house. Getout. And then once it does that,
then the spaces are availableagain and they come back right
back in.
It does not mean death, just asSterling said.

Mhmm. And a little interesting note there is
that corals also bleach in coolwater, not just warmer water.

Yeah. They bleach in response to all sorts
of they bleach in response toall sorts of things. Silt, farm
runoff, all sorts of things canmake it harder for them to,
colonies to expand.

Yep. Alright. We have a great question here for
Annika from our friend, mJohansson, who says, is Annika
working with any of the climaterealism groups here in the EU
SSR? That would be the GlobalWarming Policy Foundation or
Clintel, etcetera.

I hope to. Do get in touch if you're with one
of these organizations. I wouldlove to be affiliated with all
climate realism groups. Yes.That's all I can say, really.

I advocate Lois reach out to her, and she
works with Heartland UK Europe.

I would really like that. Yeah.

Alright. I have another question for Annica.
This one from Above Us Only Skywho says, would you consider
consulting with any politicalparties in The UK on climate and
energy issues in futureelections?

So I think I'll kind of answer that question in
reverse. So I've been sort of intalks a little bit. Basically,
the only political party here inThe UK that is aligned with my
views on energy, excluding thenew political party that came
out a couple of days ago, isreform. So they're the only

(01:16:10):
party that would want to dothings like leave the climate
change act, leave United Nationsinfrastructure just like America
has. So, yeah, I actually wrotea paper, a net zero paper, which
I've shown to the party, andwe've been talking about it and
discussing it.

(01:16:31):
So, yeah, that's actually what Ialways wanted to do in
university, was be an adviser,an energy adviser to the
minister for climate change. SoI definitely want to, you know,
work on energy policy in thiscountry. I mean, it's in a dire
state at the moment. And, as weall know here on the show, the
solution is really obvious as tothe optimal kind of energy

(01:16:54):
strategy. So definitely, yes, Iam, and, watch watch that space,
I guess.

You're muted, Linea.

Man, it got me.

She pulled the gym.

You did it.

With gym today. Okay. So here's here's a kind of
a little bit of a sarcasticquestion from Minnesota
Beekeeper who says, wasn't theyounger driest global warming
caused by the Clovis culturedriving SUVs and heating caves
with evil fossil fuels?

Well, yeah, that's that's just about as good
as any other crazy theory I'veheard.

That that's currently the reigning theory.

Thank you very much.

They they used

to do their climate models on abacuses, and
they were and and the math themath added up.

Yeah. They push bones around on the cave floor.
Steven Lindsay says, question toAnnika. How many times once told
by your professor did you think,well, that doesn't add up? Were
the contradictions overwhelmingand same to everyone else?

Only towards the end did I kind of realize
this isn't adding up and, youknow, I wasn't on campus as much
because I was working on mydissertation. So you know? But
when I didn't hear back from theemails, and I got kind of frosty
reception from my professorsabout a few questions. I mean,

(01:18:22):
when you're in that powerdynamic, you're not kind of,
like, brave enough as, like, a20 year old to be like, I must
be right, and they're wrong. Ithought, oh god.
That must have just soundedreally stupid. Oh god. I'm just
not worth even replying to. So,you know, it wasn't until I very
much was out of the system andgrew up a bit that I could

(01:18:46):
reframe the narrative.

Alrighty. Awesome. Okay. So another
question for Annika from ourgood friend Stan Goldenberg who
says, what are the currenthopes? So make a forecast, so to
speak, for The UK to come backto their senses regarding man
made climate change.

Well, I mean, I was asked this recently. You
know, do I think that the nextpolitical party of the day
should come out and say, hey.Look. We don't believe in this
man made climate change theory.And my response was that I don't
actually think it's necessary tosay something so controversial
because, obviously, the mediawould have a field day with it

(01:19:32):
and all of that.
But I think actions speak somuch louder than words. So I
think just leaving the climatechange infrastructure would say
everything that needs to besaid, And my forecasts are that
we do exactly that. We repealthe climate change act, scrap

(01:19:53):
net zero, and all of that othernonsense to take back our
economy. You know, at themoment, there's these crazy
taxes, people trying to drilloil in the North Sea, which has
just become illegal, and we havethe highest quality crude, gas
here in the world, and, we'renot allowed to drill it. And
companies that are here at themoment drilling it, they're

(01:20:16):
taxed 78¢ on the dollar.
So it is simply not profitable,and this is exactly what's been
happening with oil refineries.They've had to shut down because
it's too expensive. So, yeah,I've come to my senses. Lots of
people in the country have cometo their senses. It's just when
will we get into parliament sowe can make those changes.

Can would it help to just shift the
conversation? You said you saidjust start taking actions. Shift
the conversation to what they'vedone here, which is
affordability. Look. Do youwanna keep heating your home?

It's Yeah.

It's we we recognize. We. I am now whatever
party you want me to be. I amnow recognizing that we have an
affordability crisis, and here'sthe solution. Get rid of things
that are making energy morecostly, that are restricting
access to energy.
They just happen to the climatepolicies that, by the way,

(01:21:09):
haven't stopped temperatures orc o two emissions from rising at
all, but we're gonna focus onaffordability. Let let Miliband
and and his talk about climatechange.

Yeah. And this is the argument that is being
pushed, you know, is theeconomic argument. It's
completely making the countrypoor. It's making our bills the
highest in the developed world.Commercial energy prices here
are the highest in the developedworld.
But even so, you know, the leftstill say, well, there's so much

(01:21:40):
money in green energy, and,actually, our bills are going to
be cheaper one day. So they justsay the exact same thing we're
saying. It's just it's beyond,but people are definitely
feeling it in their pockets bigtime.

Absolutely. Alright. So we're we're almost
out of time here, but I'm gonnaget us this question, which I
think is quite good from AboveUs Only Sky. This is a question
for the whole panel, so we'll goaround to everybody. But when
did you each have your lightbulb moment, if you did have a
light bulb moment, that theclimate change narrative did not

(01:22:17):
match reality?

I'll go first. My moment came when I met the
former state climatologist ofCalifornia, James Goodridge. And
he started showing me some ofhis work. And his work was all
data driven work. But he alsointroduced me to some of the

(01:22:40):
weather stations that he hadfound in California where one,
for example, at the MountHamilton Observatory, you know,
where they've got telescopes andscientists running around like,
you know, everywhere.
They had the temperature shelterright next to an incinerator.
And so it's like, what? Really?And then he showed me another

(01:23:01):
example like that. And he saysthere's bunches of these all
over the state.
And and that's when I startedlooking into it. And that's what
got me really going, lookinginto these the way these
temperature stations were placedand how they'd been compromised.
And once I saw the magnitude ofthis problem, I realized the
temperature record can'tpossibly be correct. That was my

(01:23:22):
light bulb moment.

I'm I'm not

sure I had a

light bulb moment. I look. I came at it
from a as a skeptic from thestart. I think that's the
position you start with with anynew theory. They had a they had
a novel theory.
They predicted lots of things,and I said, let's see how it
works out. Let's see how thetheory plays out in reality. I
will be skeptical until I'mconvinced, and I've just never

(01:23:49):
been convinced.

That's a really good question. I think for me,
it was when I saw the ice coredata, and I saw that, you know,
the temperature had been higherat different times in history
and that it was a kind ofpredictable cycle. That's when I
realized.

Jim? Yeah. I mean, for me, I mean, I I mentioned
this, I think, a couple of showsago. I was a journalist at the
Pitt News, the University ofPittsburgh student newspaper,
back in the early nineties. AlGore was sending out free copies
of his book, Earth and theBalance, and I started flipping
through that.
And even though I'd only taken afew science courses, I was
trying to be a writer after all,I thought he was I thought he

(01:24:34):
was full of shit right from thebeginning. None of that really
made sense to me. So my lightbulb my light bulb has been
screwed in the top of my headfrom the beginning.

I would like to amend my first answer to say
that I the real light bulbmoment for me came when I got my
$2,000,000 check fromExxonMobil.

That's getting clipped. Oh, boy.

Yep. Oh, they're gonna spread that all over the
Internet now.

You know what? Let them because it it wouldn't
matter. They they would do itanyway. They all. Every one of
those people thinks that we arein the pocket of big oil when
we've never gotten a dime.
You know? It's crazy. The

I guess, I think I've mentioned part of my I
mean, I was always prettyskeptical just because I'm I'm
not a like, I grew up in afairly conservative household
and stuff with people who werefairly skeptical. But the moment
where I realized that, like, oh,nobody knows what they're
talking about was when I was inmiddle school. And I this is,

(01:25:42):
like, petty, but this is where Ibecame not just like a whatever.
Who cares? This stuff iseverywhere.
It's whatever, like, skeptic.And into, like, actively
researching mode was when I wasin, like, seventh or eighth
grade, and all of our classeswere in this pilot program where
they introduced climate intoevery single class that we were

(01:26:05):
taking. So I was being justbombarded with it left and
right. And then a author that Ihad been enjoying, like, their
book series, one of their bookshad, like, a climate narrative
thing in it. And it wasliterally like a young adult
novel series and it made nosense for them to just shoehorn
it in there.
And so I was already kind oftired of it. And then one of my

(01:26:27):
teachers told me that polarbears were not good at swimming.
And so that's why they werebeing killed because the ice was
melting and they were going todrown. And I thought, well,
that's not true. I knew itbecause I was that kid that had
the, like, zoo books.
You know? And so I knew thatwasn't true. So then I was like,
oh, my teachers don't know whatthey're talking about either. So

(01:26:48):
now I'm, like, actively againstthis, not just, like, passively
against this. But Alright.
Jim, I'm handing it back to you.That is all the questions that
we have.

Alright. And that will do it for this episode of
the Climate Realism Show. Beforewe go, I wanna remind everybody,
again, well, I think the thirdor fourth time, we are putting
on the sixteenth InternationalConference on Climate Change in
Washington DC, April. The thewonderful, Annika Sweetland will
be on the program. So you'regonna if you wanna meet her and

(01:27:19):
hear her speak in person, you'regonna wanna be there.
And you can go to heartland.org.There's a feature there that you
can click to go to the specialclimate conference webpage where
you can get your tickets, seemore of the list of speakers and
the program that we have. Wereally hope to see every fan of
this show there or at least asmany as we can fit into the
ballroom. I wanna thank ourstreaming partners, Junk

(01:27:40):
Science, CFAC, c o twocoalition, Climate Depot, What's
Up With That, and Heartland UKEurope. I wanna thank our
regular panelists, of course,Anthony Watts, Sterling Burnett,
Lanea Luken.
And, again, thank you so much,Annika Sweetland, for being on
the show. I hope this not gonnabe your last time you'll be on
here again because I think weall had a lot of fun. And I
wanna thank our audience,especially those of you in the

(01:28:01):
chat that watch us live everyFriday at 1PM eastern time on
Fridays, and we will see youagain next Friday. Bye bye.

Bye. How dare you?

All Episodes

Unlearning Climate Alarmism – The Climate Realism Show #191

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;}Unlearning Climate Alarmism – The Climate Realism Show #191