Good News: Climate Cult In Decline — The Climate Realism Show #184 - Heartland Daily Podcast

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Donald Trump (00:00):
Country is to decisively defeat the climate
hysteria hoax.

Great Thunberg (00:05):
We are in the beginning of a mass extinction.

Jim Lakely (00:09):
The ability of c o two to do
the heavy work of creating a climate catastrophe
is almost nil at this point.

Anthony Watts (00:15):
The price of oil has been artificially elevated
to the point of insanity.

Sterling Burnett (00:20):
That's not how you power a modern industrial
system. The ultimate goal ofthis 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
for Germany.
Their factories are shuttingdown.

Linnea Lueken (00:39):
They really do act like weather didn't happen
prior to, like, 1910. Today isFriday.

Jim Lakely (00:49):
That's right, Greta. It is Friday, and this is the
best day of the week. Not justbecause the weekend is almost
here in a holiday month, butbecause this is the day the
Heartland Institute broadcaststhe climate realism show. My
name is Jim Lakeley. I'mexecutive vice president of the
Heartland Institute.
We are an organization that hasbeen around for forty one years.
We are known as the leadingglobal think tank pushing back

(01:11):
on climate alarmism. TheHeartland Institute and this
show bring you the data, thescience, the truth that counters
the climate alarmist narrativeyou've been fed every single day
of your life. There is nothingelse quite like the climate
realism show streaming anywhere.So I hope you will do us a big
favor and bring friends to viewthis livestream every Friday at
1PM eastern time.

(01:32):
Oh, and also like, share, andsubscribe, and be sure to leave
your comments underneath thisvideo. All of these very easy
tasks help convince YouTube'smysterious algorithm to smile
upon this program, and that getsthe show in front of even more
people. Oh, and as a reminder,because big tech and the legacy
media do not really approve ofthe way we cover climate and
energy policy on this program,Heartland's YouTube channel has

(01:54):
been demonetized. So if youwanna support the program, and I
hope you do, please visitheartland.org/tcrs. That's
heartland.org/tcrs, and you canjoin other friends of the
program who help bring this tothe world every single week.
Oh, and we also wanna thank ourstreaming partners. That being z

(02:14):
o two coalition, CFACT,junkscience.com, What's Up With
That, and our friends atHeartland UK Europe. Alright.
Let's get going. We have withus, as usual, Anthony Watts.
He is senior fellow at theHeartland Institute and
publisher of the world's mostviewed website on climate
change. What's up with that? Wehave Sterling Burnett, the

(02:36):
archbishop of Rancherbury, andhis day job is being the
director of the Arthur bRobinson Center on Climate and
Environmental Policy at theHeartland Institute. And we have
Lanea Lukin, research fellow forenergy and environment policy at
Heartland, and we are very happyto welcome back to the show our
friend and fan favorite, SteveMolloy. Steve is the founder of
junkscience.com, a fellow at theEnergy and Environment Legal

(02:58):
Institute, a member of EPAtransition team in the first
Trump term, a board member atthe Heartland Institute.
That's a lot to go over, so youcan just call him the climate
hoax slayer. Welcome, Steve.Thanks for having me. Yes. Good
to have you.
I don't wanna apologize alreadyto our audience. If if there are
any production screw ups, it'sall gonna be my fault,

(03:19):
unfortunately. Well, fortunatelyfor them, Andy Singer, our
producer, is on PTO enjoying alittle bit of time off today. So
we will do our best to keep theshow flowing as well as we can.
So without further ado, becausewe have so much to cover today,
let's start off as we like toevery week with the crazy
climate news of the week.

(03:52):
Thank you very much, Bill Nye.And I was gonna say hit it,
Lynea, but I forgot to ask youto hit the button. So I

Oh, yeah. I'm sorry. Well, you got it. I'm
yeah. And, guys, if I'm slow ongetting comments up or if I miss
some questions and stuff today,sorry about that.
I'm also helping to produce. SoI'm not gonna be able to have my
eye on the comments quite asmuch as I normally do.

Jim Lakely (04:11):
We will do our best. Alright. This first item for
today comes from Hot Air and Ihave oops. I should switch the
what do we got here? Oh, yeah.
Switch our switch our thing. Ican't find it. So we'll do it
later. Oh, there it is. Myapologies.
Zillow mellows out. This comesfrom our friends at Hot Air.

(04:34):
Jeez. Now everything's messingup on my computer. Alright.
But this comes from, Zillow, aseverybody knows, is the world's
most used real estate listingsite. They partnered last year
with a company called FirstStreet to provide climate risk
assessments for each individualproperty. And those scores were
aimed to quantify each home'srisk of floods, wildfires, wind,

(04:57):
extreme heat, and poor airquality. Those climate risk
assessments, as you mightexpect, affected the price of
homes, and people weren't toohappy about it. Well, now Zillow
is going to pull the plug,writes John Sexton over at Hot
Air.
But what prompted this appearsto be complaints from the
California Regional MultipleListing Service, which
complained about the accuracy ofthe models by First Street. And

(05:19):
here's a quote from a storyabout it in The New York Times.
Displaying the profitability ofa specific home flooding this
year or within the next fiveyears could have a significant
impact on the perceiveddesirability of that property.
No kidding. When we saw entireneighborhoods with a 50%
probability of the home floodingthis year and a 99% probability
of the home flooding in the nextfive years, especially in areas

(05:43):
that haven't flooded in the lastforty or fifty years, we grew
very suspicious.
Philip Zariello, a retiredhydrologist previously with the
US Geological Survey, firstbegan questioning the first
street flood risk scores when hewas browsing properties on real
estate listing websites and, ona whim, decided to check his own
home located on the top of ahill. Quote, my house that I

(06:07):
still own was rated a seven outof 10 risk, Zariela said, what
1st Street describes as a severerisk of flooding. I've been here
twenty five years and never evenhad something that came close to
a flood risk. Well, you know,what do you know, Philip
Zarielo, whoever you are? You'rejust a hydrologist, but you're
at a flood risk because the,experts in the climate cult said

(06:27):
so.
By the way, just to put a wrapon this story, Zillow does not
allow sellers to remove theclimate risk data on their
properties at their own request.So it's kinda like Wikipedia.
It's your property. It's yourlife. It's your story, but you
have no control over it.
Redfin and realtor.com actuallyallow you to do that. So let's
get into this a little bit.Lanea, you shared this story

(06:48):
with the group this week and onour, you know, messaging to each
other. And Anthony said this ishuge. Do you think this
represents a significant moveaway from junk science?
Yet another instance in whichkeeping up with the narrative of
climate disaster crumbles whenit hits the reality of economics
and people wanting to have thetruth and not having any

(07:09):
control.

Yeah. I mean, how frustrating. You live at the top
of a literal hill and and somerandom model that obviously
can't take into account eventopography apparently is telling
you that your house is in amajor flood zone risk. Yeah. I
mean, a lot of the stuff that'srun by what is it?
1st Street? I think 1st Streetis there's some kind of a, like,

(07:33):
a finance company, aren't they?

They're, yeah, financial adviser firm. They
they

Yeah.

They're like a little bit like BlackRock in
them.

Yeah. So why would Zillow even care what
their opinion on who is in aflood zone is? Like, what what
makes them an expert on that?They're not. They might they're
we've cut those comments infront of Sterling.
Can we drop the comment?

Drop that then, please.

We've got an echo. We've got an

Jim Lakely (08:01):
echo here. Oh, it's probably it's probably an echo
here. My fault? Maybe. Maybe.
We'll stop. Okay. Go ahead,Lanay.

We are just all kinds of trouble today. Anyway,
no. I it's it's frustrating foreveryone. It's frustrating for
realtors. The the idea that, youknow, like, a professional
photographer is gonna tell StateStreet that that or or Street
that they are, you know,completely and utterly wrong

(08:34):
with their analysis.
And then to have Zillow stillnot remove the thing, but just
or, like, still getting advicefrom these guys even if they're,
like, provably wrong isridiculous. Yeah. There really
isn't much to say about it otherthan that it's dumb and and
Zillow is dumb. So

Well, yeah. Plus that, you know, it's like it's
like a pox on your house, youknow. And it basically means
somebody else's opinion andthat's really all these climate
ratings are. Somebody else'sopinion basically devalues your
house house, you know? You know?
That kind of a thing. You justcan't even think about it being

(09:20):
something you can sell. Youknow? Hold

Jim Lakely (09:25):
on. So just one second. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I
keep muting you.
You need to stay muted. I'msorry.

Oh, okay.

Jim Lakely (09:33):
And maybe come back come back. Maybe dump out and
come back again. There you go.Alright. Apologies, everyone.
Go ahead, Anthony. I'm sorry.

So, yeah, as I was saying, it's just like
having a pox on your house. And,you know, why should you let
someone else's opinion devalueyour home? Particularly since
there may be no othercorrelation to anything else
other than this rating by, youknow, Front Street. And we have
debunked Front Street time andtime again for their wildly

(10:08):
inaccurate press releases thatthey put out to the media. We've
done that time and time again onclimaterealism.com.

Steve Milloy (10:54):
And this is this is just more proof of that.
They've never been right.They're never gonna be right
because their fundamentalassumptions are wrong. And, you
you know, this is I guess if theall this is imploding at once,
and we'll I guess we'll talkabout that a little later.

Well, what's crazy too is there's entire
industry, you know, that'sdevoted to determining flood
risk and flood zones and stuff.There are all sorts of people
who are devoted to that science.So why would anyone lean on
First Street's opinion on thatover, you know, the official,
like, state geologists andstuff?

Is it 1st Street or State Street?

It's 1st Street.

Jim Lakely (11:34):
1st Street.

Yeah. It could also be that 1st Street is
running out of money, and Zillowwas requiring money for the I
don't know. We we we we don'tknow what the backstory is, but
it probably involved money.

Jim Lakely (11:44):
Well, I it seems to me that the the proper entity to
determine flood risk is aninsurance company, not some sort
of third party, you know,climate alarmist outfit that is
trying to grift off, you know,these sorts of determinations.
And the the the thing that Ithat struck out at me, and I
mentioned it in the setup, washow, you know, it it apparently

(12:05):
worked like Wikipedia. I mean,don't do not look at the
Heartland Stews Wikipedia entry.It's complete garbage. I've done
I've talked about this on thispodcast a few times.
Unless you want

a laugh.

Jim Lakely (12:14):
Yeah. It's unless you want a nice laugh. But, you
know, the only thing it getsright, I think, is her address,
but it might have the wrongaddress on there at this point.
Who knows? But, you know, thepeople that are actually the
subject of entries in Wikipediaare a 100% completely powerless
to correct falsehoods, and it'sthat way by design.
So all of these third party,outfits makes me think maybe

(12:35):
I'll trust AI more than I willtrust biased people when it
comes to this kind of garbage.

Well, 1st Street has to be profiting from
this in some way. My suspicionis they put out reports, and,
they're paid for these reports.And regardless of where the
reports turn to be right,they're paid for the
information. You would thinkthat, someone like Zillow or

(13:01):
real estate, you know, realestate agents themselves would
say, look. We we won't rely onsomeone who keeps putting out
this kind of bad, faultyinformation.
And, hopefully, this is a youknow, this would be a shot
across the first Street now.

Yeah. Look. The bottom line is this kind of
information does not helphomeowners sell houses. It does
not help real estate agents. Andno doubt real estate agents
said, what are you doing?
Right? Right.

Jim Lakely (13:28):
They're big clout. They're big Yep. If you if

I live in the Gulf Coast, I'm never gonna I'm never
gonna sell a house again.

To be fair, though, I mean, I wanna say
this. Look. Their job is not tosell houses. Their job is to,
analyze risk to real estate, andmarket conditions. And why they
bought the the climate Kool Aid,I can't explain that.
Why Zillow relied on them on theclimate Kool Aid, I can't

(13:58):
explain that. But, you know,that's what they they claim
they're doing is this, oh, theclimate risk. Well, they're
looking at bad data. First FirstStreet? Yeah.

First Street is just an alarmist outfit. I mean,
they're it's just like anactivist group. It's not a
legitimate, you know, riskassessment type group. It's just
it's an activist grouppretending to be some sort of
risk assessment operation.

Jim Lakely (14:23):
Yeah. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

I was thinking of First Street Capital. My
mistake. Ellen did tell him Isay never mind.

Jim Lakely (14:32):
Never mind. Alright. Well, let's let's move on then
to our next, oops, to our nextitem, which is oops. That's the
wrong one. So there.
Here we go. It is a hugealarmist retraction, and this
comes from the New York Times.This is pretty big, pretty big
story. The headline is topjournal retracts study

(14:54):
predicting catastrophic climatetoll. In April 2024, the
prestigious journal Naturereleased a study finding that
climate change would cause farmore economic damage by the end
of the century than previousestimates had suggested.
The conclusion grabbed headlinesand citations around the world
and was incorporated in riskmanagement scenarios used by
central banks. On Wednesday,Nature retracted it, adding to

(15:18):
the debate on the extent ofclimate change's toll on
society. So you hear that, guys?By the way, they bury the lead.
There's a debate on climatechange.
It's now been stated in the NewYork Times, so it actually
exists. That's great. Thedecision came after a team of
economists noticed problems withthe data for one country,
Uzbekistan, that significantlyskewed the results. If

(15:38):
Uzbekistan were excluded, theyfound, the damages would look
similar to earlier research.Instead of a 62% decline in
economic output by 2,100 in aworld where carbon emissions
continue unabated, global outputwould be reduced by only 23%.
Of course, erasing more than 20this is from the New York Times.
Of course, erasing more than 20%of the world's economic economic

(16:00):
activity would still be adevastating blow to human
welfare. The paper's detractorsemphasize that climate change is
a major threat, of course, theydo, as read them recent meta
analyses have found, and thatmore should be done to address
it, but they say unusual resultsshould be treated skeptically.
Reactions have become moreretractions have become more
common in recent years accordingto Retraction Watch, an

(16:24):
organization that trackscorrections in scientific
journals. But they are stillrare amounting to about one in
500 articles published.
Economists have long struggledto incorporate granular,
sometimes subtle impacts ofclimate change into models that
forecast far into the future,especially when combining them
with something as complex as theglobal economy. You know, that's

(16:45):
enough. The New York Times goeson to, you know, make pains to
say this is really no big deal,this correction, but it's it is
a fact that this paper that wasretracted was the second most
cited climate paper in media andsocial media since its release.
Thousands and thousands oftimes, about at least 5,000. But
I guess oh, well, never mind.

(17:07):
Steve, I'd love to start withyou since you're the junk
science You know? This is junkscience.

You know, why was this study ever even published?
You know, since climate idiocybegan circa 1990, global GDP is
up almost 400%. The the note andthe notion that someone can
predict what global GDP is gonnabe in 2100, you know, plus or
minus a couple percent becauseof plant food emissions is just

(17:35):
is just absurd. And if we'regonna start, you know,
retracting climate studies,there's there are probably
hundreds of thousands of climatestudies that have all been wrong
that all need to be retracted.That's my my my sort of general
comments.
Now yesterday, so and and thisstudy that's being retracted
came from the Potsdam Institutein Germany. So yesterday, I

(17:57):
posted something about, weatherin Washington DC and how it you
know, you know, global warming'sgot nothing to do with anything.
And and this morning, I openedup my Twitter, I see that Stefan
Ramsdorf from Potsdam decided toreply to that. He goes, no
wonder they call you JunkScience. Well, I named myself

(18:18):
Junk Science my website JunkScience, and so it's my handle
on Twitter.
It's not you know, nobody callsme that. But but, you know, the
irony, is that here, the dayafter this study from the
Potsdam Institute, this highlycited study is retracted, I hear
from Stefan Rumsdorf of thePotsdam Institute criticizing me

(18:39):
when he really should be, youknow, asking his institution,
what the hell are you guysdoing?

A little self reflection would have been
warranted there. Yeah. You know,when that study first came out,
guys like myself, I think you,Steve, some others, immediately
jumped on it. We saw it. How cantiny Uzbekistan their economy is
is nothing in the global GDP.
How could the impact on themdrive, the huge losses these

(19:11):
guys predicted? We knew that waswrong. We knew that they had
used false alarming scenarios.What they called business as
usual emissions is nowhere nearbusiness as usual. They made so
many errors, but it got throughpeer review.
It got through peer review. Itdid its damage. It's been cited

(19:32):
everywhere. We criticized it atthe time. They're now having to
come back and basically confirmevery one of our complaints.
But as you said, Jim, The NewYork Times and all the others
covering it say, still stilllend support to the study of its
findings. First, they say, well,now its findings are in line
with what others have said.That's not true. It's still

(19:55):
higher than almost everybodyelse has ever projected for
losses. But it's not losses.
It's reduced economic growth inthe future. And, if you can't if
if they get if they're sogrossly wrong, and it's gross,
you know, a 40 something percentdrop in their estimates, but you

(20:15):
can trust their new estimates.Now that they stripped out
Uzbekistan, that's the onlyproblem. Strip that out and it
turns out, oh, well. It's okay.
They're still at 23% losses. No.It's BS, folks. If if they make
that one mistake and it's had tobe withdrawn, don't trust that,
well, what still remains, theymust be right about that.

So so, Sterling, you're you're a lot more curate
you were a lot more curiousabout this study than I was. I
mean, the notion that peopleare, you know, plus minus few
percent GDP seventy five yearsfrom now is just absurd, number
one. Number two, let's say itwas a legitimate estimate. None
of us are gonna be alive to seewhether it was true. So what's

(20:58):
the point?
It's just propaganda. Right?It's not it's not science. It's
not analysis. It's garbage.
It always was all all of it.Anything anytime you see
somebody making a projection, ahundred year seventy five, a
hundred years, even twenty, youknow, if it can't be there
verified with you know, in somereasonable way within a
reasonable time frame, it's justjunk science to coin a phrase.

Jim Lakely (21:23):
Yeah. Well, Anthony, I mean, I wanna get you in here
too. You know, in the show noteshere, I mentioned maybe Lania
can bring it up on the screen,but, you know, you had shared
this with us as well.Remembering when they said that
climate change was gonna cause amass extinction. And in fact,
Greta's quote of that isactually in our opening, our

(21:44):
opening, theme song there.
But it shows that, let me justread a bit because you posted
about this on What's Up WithThat. And you meant it mentions
here that prominent researchstudies have suggested that our
planet is currently experiencinganother mass extinction based on
extrapolating extinctions fromthe past five hundred years into
the future and the idea thatextinction rates are rapidly

(22:06):
accelerating. But a new study byChristian Sabin and John Weins
at the University of ArizonaDepartment of Ecology and
Evolutionary Biology revealedthat over the last five hundred
years, extinctions in plants,arthropods, and land vertebrates
peaked about a hundred years agoand have declined since then.
So, more shaky science and more,Emily Litella. Never mind.

(22:32):
You're on mute, Anthony.

Hold a Jim. Yeah. These people you know, I was
having a conversation withCharles Roder, my editor in
chief over at WhatsUp thismorning. We were talking about
the fact that these people thatwrite these things seem to be
completely blind to everythingexcept what their tunnel
visioned on. You know, theirtunnel visioned on completing

(22:59):
this paper, They're tunnelvisioned on the result and the
claim and the headline.
But when the the reality aroundthem, they don't pay attention
to that. I mean, WillisEtchenbach published an essay on
Whatsapp with that over tenyears ago, basically saying, so
if all of these animals aregoing extinct, where are the
bodies? We're not seeing youknow? Imagine, if you will.

(23:22):
Let's say, so we have the an oilspill happens around Florida.
And, of course, the media runsdown there, and all the
waterfowl and so forth that getsoil on them. That's front page
news. Oh. Oh. Oh.
So where's the body's front pagenews about, you know, some rare,
whatchamacallit, bird goingextinct? You know? And we're
finding more and more storieslately in the media of stuff

(23:45):
they thought went extinct nowbeing, oh, there it is. Gosh. We
didn't realize it was stillalive.
That's I I can think of at leastthree or four instances in the
last five years where that'shappened. They claim extinction.
It doesn't happen. Nature findsa way. End of story.
It's just junk science.

I I I wrote about this

Good term.

I wrote about this more than thirty years ago
in my dissertation. All theseclaims of mass extinction going
back to the Ehrlichs. They wrotea whole book. The book is called
extinction. Hundreds of millionsof animals are gonna go away.
It's the fastest rate ofextinction is since the

(24:28):
dinosaurs died, when when thecomet struck the earth. You
know, it's like, they've beensaying this for years. It's all
based on island biogeography,which is, by the way, discussed
in this paper. It was never agood fit for any land based, you
know, something that's notisolated somewhere where animals

(24:49):
can't leave the area when youdestroy habitat. What they
confirmed is that habitatdestruction is still the biggest
cause of extinction, someinvasive species.
But the bottom line isextinction rates are lower now
than they have been in fivehundred years. Climate change is

(25:10):
going on all around us, I'mtold. It's very alarming, and
yet extinction rates are low.We've been told that, as Greta
says, we're experiencing massextinctions. The only mass
extinction we're experiencing isthe extinction of climate alarm.
All the studies that are havingto be retracted, all the

(25:30):
falsehoods that are beingdebunked daily at climate
realism, for instance. I I, youknow, I wrote about this in
climate change weekly this week.This is just more evidence. But
like I said, I was writing aboutthis thirty years ago in my
dissertation. We knew that themass extinction things I went
through all the litany of thedifferent studies that said,
this is the right.
This is the right. This is theright. None of them confirmed.

(25:52):
None of them could be confirmed.You know, we we discover new
species every year.
We discover species that areextinct, as Anthony said, that
aren't extinct after all. And wehave to guess. Pure

How dare you?

Yeah. It's pure speculation. Pure
speculation as to how manyspecies exist on Earth, and it's
pure speculation as to how manyor the rate of extinction of
those species. Yeah. So it's,and yet when they talk about
species extinction, you knowwhat they don't ever show?

(26:31):
The pictures are never a snailor a small crustacean in a muddy
pond, which are where they saidmost of the extinctions have
come is ant you know? Negafauna.Sea life. Yeah. They show polar
bears, which are, increasing innumber or, you know, other

(26:52):
things that people care about.
The beautiful big eyed seals.They show a seal. They say
extinction. The or they show,you know, something that yeah.
Shows Well, there you go.
Well, I I I get a lot of those.

You you know, the the irony of the whole
extinction thing is that, youknow, the Earth is greener now
than it has been in the pastthanks to warming and more c o
two. And it's so green, even theoceans are turning green because
there's more, you know, planktonlife going on. So there's more
more fish and other marine life.And there's just no basis to any

(27:31):
of this ex I mean, I am waitingfor someone, and I've been
asking this for more than adecade now. Please show me some
species that carbon dioxide hasmade extinct.

Steve, what are you talking about? If if forests
expand and the deserts shrink,then where are the Sidewinders
going to live? It's going to bea terrible viper apocalypse for
those poor little critters.

Jim Lakely (27:57):
Save the side wide side wide Maybe they'll adapt.
Yeah. That feels like a T shirtin the making. Alright. Makes
sense.

But that's another look. That's another point. You
know, like, so all these people,you know, they they love to
bring up Darwin and howconservative is, not really on
board with Darwin, etcetera. Soif you believe in adaptation,
then things can adapt. Right?
Sidewinders aren't gonna go andit's a good everyone's gonna
adapt.

Jim Lakely (28:23):
Right.

Yeah. But they they have a view of the world
that the world should stay as itis at some point in time that
they pick.

Sterling, for

for the spotted owl for the spotted owl,
they want it to be like thenineteen seventies. And so no
barred owls are going intospotted owl territory territory
Yeah. And interbreeding. So wegotta start shooting a lot of
barred owls.

Jim Lakely (28:41):
Look. Look. The the the human species adapted to ice
ages and coming out of ice ages.Other animals can do it too, and
we didn't have any technologythen. So I think everyone can
calm down.
Alright. Let let let's move on.Here's a let's get to a little
bit of data. We'd like to have alittle data.

That was our red meat episode, by the way.

Jim Lakely (29:00):
Yeah. Alright. This is, this is called chilling out
in November. It is, onlyDecember 5. So this is from the
Electroverse Substack.
Global temps cooled in November.So let's do a quick check of
this data. Global temperaturescooled again according to the
latest University of Alabama atHuntsville update. The month

(29:22):
came in at 0.43 c versus thenineteen ninety one to twenty
twenty mean down from 0.53Celsius in October. The steepest
cool downs were noted across,one, Australia, which saw a drop
from 1.67 c to 0.37 c, theArctic, which fell from 1.42 c

(29:43):
to 0.78 c, and the SouthernHemisphere overall, which pulled
from 0.55 c to 0.27 c.
Overall, the 2023 twenty twentyfour Hunga Tonga eruption
warming spike continues tounwind with global temperatures
now having fallen roughly half adegree Celsius from the recent
peak. Australia now looks and wehave a lot of viewers in

(30:05):
Australia. Hello over there. Nowlooks to be continuing its cool
down into December at leastacross the East. A win a wintry
like blast gripped Victoria, NewSouth Wales, and parts of
Queensland on Monday deliveringamong the coldest summer
temperatures ever logged.
Sterling, no other man than thisbrick climate expert Al Roker on
the Today Show assures me thateven colder temperatures are the

(30:27):
fault of global warming.

Well, everything is the fault of
global warming, Jim. That's whythey call it global warming and
not climate change or I mean,that's that that's why they
shifted to climate change ratherthan global warming. It's hard
to say colder temperatures arethe fault of global warming. The
I I wanna I wanna endorse, bythe way, the sub the substack

(30:50):
channel Electroverse. They do ifyou wanna know about what's
going on around the world, coldtemperature wise, that's the
place to go daily.
They highlight all the recordsthat are falling, you know,
whether it's in Canada, whetherit's in Europe, the early snows
in the Alps, wherever. Greatstuff. And he highlights all

(31:13):
these places. You know, younever hear about it. New York
Times doesn't report on it.
The Financial Post in Canadadoesn't report on it. When
records are falling now I saw Ithink the Washington Post,
published a story this week. Itwas the Post or maybe New York
where you'll see records fall,in the in the next week, cold

(31:33):
weather records. Those coldweather records were set more
than a 100 years ago. All the co two emitted into the
atmosphere, all the risingconcentrations, and they're
setting new records for cold?
I'm sorry. That's not what theysaid would happen in 1988 when
James Hansen, which firsttestified before congress. In

(31:54):
fact, they're saying, we'regonna see the end of snow. Our
children won't know what snowlooks like. Instead, snow's
breaking out all over.
Cold weather's breaking out allover, and so they just have to
change their tune. It's onemore, it's more one more claim
in the extinction hit list ofclimate alarmist. Anthony?

Well, you know, I'm gonna use a commonly used
phrase to describe what's goingon here. It's not the heat. It's
the humidity. And the thethey're exactly right, about
Hunga Tonga. You know, HungaTonga threw all of this water
vapor into the atmosphere in2021, 2022.
And as we all know, water vaporis the most potent greenhouse

(32:36):
gas. Without water vapor, we'dall be in the frozen zone. And
so water vapor keeps the earthcomfortable. It also exchanges
heat, you know, and all sorts ofother things through convection
and everything else. So it'ssuper important.
But the fact is is that that biginjection of water vapor is now
slowly coming out. And if we goback to look at the graph

(32:57):
briefly, you can see that, justa couple of years ago in the UAH
graph, it peaked. And now we'reon our way down. Can we bring
the graph back up somebody?

Jim Lakely (33:09):
Yep. Linea is on it. Linea is on it. Right.

There we go. Thank you. So look. We have that
peak that happened in 2024. Bigpeak.
Biggest peak of the whole, youknow, period of measurement or
back to 1979. So now we're onthis slow slide downward, and it
mirrors what happened in 1998.Look at that one. That's when we

(33:33):
had the monster El Nino. Andthat monster El Nino warmed the
planet up.
It was the basis for everyonefreaking out and saying climate
change is real. It's happening.Oh, no. Look at the temperature.
But look.
It came down. It came down andwent below the normal. So the
same thing's gonna happen herewith the water injection from

(33:56):
Hunga Tonga that we saw in 2024peaking out. It's going to dry
out. The atmosphere is gonna dryout.
The temperature's slowly gonnacome down. Whether it'll come
down to previous levels, youknow, like what we saw in 2019
or or maybe a little furtherback in in 2011 or 2012, I don't
know. But the bottom line is isthat that peak, neither of those

(34:18):
big peaks on that graph werecaused by climate change. And
anyone who tells you they wereis full of carp.

It's full of carbon emissions.

Full of carp.

Yeah.

Or is it perhaps bull shark?

It's full it's full of methane is what they're
full of.

So let let me explain to you how cold it is
outside. Now I don't livewherever the average global
temperature is. I live inWashington DC. And to Washington
DC today, the high will be 34degrees, which is pretty cold.
And that 34 degrees is colderthan every daily high except for
one for this calendar datebetween 1872 to 1899.

(35:00):
Today's 34 degrees will be, whatis it, five degrees lower than
well, I'm sorry, one degreelower than the minimum for a
hundred hundred and fifty yearsago today. Today's temperature
will be 18 degrees below thecalendar day average, 41 degrees
below the calendar day high.That's how cold it is, and that

(35:22):
is despite a hundred and fiftyyears of urban heat on effect
and emissions and manipulatedtemperatures and all that. I
wonder how cold is it reallyoutside?

Jim Lakely (35:33):
Yeah. Well, I'll tell you it's cold in the
Northwest Suburbs of Chicago. Itwas 14 degrees below normal
yesterday. It was four degreesat 06:00 at night on December 4.
I mean, this is it's you know,it's just but, hey, that's cold
weather.
We're having a little cold.

The the weather We must get to net zero because
every emission matters. That'swhat they think.

It's pretty funny too. I was reading an article
this morning working on a postfor climate realism. It'll
probably go up next week about aWorld Meteorological
Organization report on, like,the Arab region talking about
how, you know, it's so hotthere. Everyone's burning up and
stuff. And this Financial Timesarticle reporting on it is

(36:18):
talking about how all of thisthese heat waves and stuff are
due to climate change.
And 2024 is because, you know,climate you know, human driven
climate warming has caused, youknow, deadly heat and flooding
and also everything else you canimagine across the Arab
Peninsula and North Africa andstuff. So they they they're

(36:41):
going on at length. And thentowards the end of the article,
they say, though this year isprobably gonna be quite a bit
colder because of the naturalphenomena of La Nina driving
temperatures lower. There is I Iword searched on this article.
They don't, like, mention ElNino once in the article.
So El Nino isn't natural, andthat can't be the reason why the

(37:02):
spike was was high last year.But La Nina is driving
temperatures down, you know,extra, and it's natural. What? I
just I hate this stuff. Itdrives me up a freaking wall.
The the the media is a scourge,honestly.

You know, here in Dallas, we had a a warm
October for the most part. We wehad a a warm October. We had a
few days that are cold. But, youknow, it's just December. We
haven't entered winter yet.
Now in Dallas, we are ten andfifteen degrees below the
average temperature. The averagetemperature right now you know,

(37:38):
Steve Steve brought this up. Theaverage temperature for Dallas
at this time is where is it? Thehighs are are can be in the
seventies or the sixties. Thelows rarely below, the fifties.
We went we were in the thirtieslast night. We were in the

(37:58):
thirties. Two we were in 20 high22 twenties two nights ago. We
were in the thirties now. It'snot Chicago cold.
I know that. It's not SouthDakota cold where I've lived or
Ohio cold where I've lived. Butfor Dallas, it's pretty cold.
It's, it's not average ortypical weather, and you'd

(38:22):
wonder why that is because, youknow, Dallas is not a small
city. Like you said, Stevetalked about, we have an urban
heat island effect here.
I'm living in it. Yeah. Butstill, we're well, well below
average temperatures. Thisproves once again, it's not
emissions. It's weather.

Jim Lakely (38:39):
Well, if it gets to 34 degrees here in Northern
Illinois again, I'll be outthere in my flip flop and shorts
finishing the shoveling job inmy driveway. Alright.

I I don't need to you've now imprinted that
image on my mind.

Jim Lakely (38:53):
Gary, you need to do that. I I didn't say the only
things I'd be wearing would beshorts and flip flops. No. Yeah.
Alright.
Moving on. Let's see. Yeah. Thisis you can put this in the good
news from our perspectivedepartments, and that is kind of
the theme of today's show. Thiscomes from our friend Joe Nova,
and this is the Sierra Club isshedding members.

(39:16):
Joe writes the phrase the thephase change continues. The
Sierra Club loses 60% ofmembers, and 350.org is
suspended. She writes alreadysome US grassroots organizations
are having an existentialcrisis. Actually, the Sierra
Club has been struggling forthree years, but no one wanted
to mention that. Francis Mentonat the Manhattan Contrarian

(39:39):
points out the extraordinarycollapse of the largest US
environmental group, the SierraClub.
The Sierra Club is in the middleof what would might be called an
implosion. The New York Timesreported on the story on
November 7, and here's anexcerpt. The Sierra Club calls
itself, quote, the largest andmost influential grassroots
environmental organization inthe country, but it is in the

(40:01):
middle of an implosion leftweakened, distracted, and
divided just as environmentalprotections are under assault by
the Trump administration. Thegroup has lost 60% of the
4,000,000 members and supportersit counted in 2019. It has held
three rounds of employee layoffssince 2022, trying to out of a
$40,000,000 projected budgetdeficit.

(40:23):
Must be nice. This year, theTrump administration returned
better organized and betterprepared than its first term.
The Sierra Club was theopposite. While mister Trump
boosted coal power, canceledwind farms, and rolled back
pollution limits, the club wasconsumed by internal chaos
culminating when the board firedits executive director, Ben
Jealous, former president of theNAACP.

Ben Jealous? Is that a real name?

Jim Lakely (40:47):
That is a real name. I remember him being president
of the NAACP when I was in thenews business. Alright. Anyway,
Joe goes a note what we hadmentioned couple years ago, and
that's that, 350.org, BillMcKibben's lucrative climate
cult project is, lucrative nomore. It suspended operations,
and surely, that suspension,would think, is gonna be

(41:07):
permanent.
Joe also mentions a piece by ourfriend Steven Hayward, who wrote
for, Civitas the CivitasInstitute titled the death
rattle of apocalypticenvironmentalism. Steve writes,
quote, none of the American TVnews networks sent reporters to
this year's COP down in Brazil,and major print media are
rapidly cutting back on climatecoverage. A few reporters at the

(41:30):
COP down in Brazil filed storieswondering wondering whether this
would be the very last COPmeeting. I will start with you,
Anthony, after that setup. TheSierra Club losing 60% of its
members and running a$40,000,000 deficit.
By the way, put this up on thescreen in a minute, but the
Sierra Club reported a$173,000,000 of revenue in 2023

(41:54):
and a hundred and sixty ninemillion dollars of revenue in
2024. So don't cry too much of ariver for those guys.

I have one comment. All I need to say,
really.

Jim Lakely (42:09):
Lene is killing us with these drops. It's great.

Oh, I didn't do that.

Oh, that was a That's me.

Jim Lakely (42:14):
Oh, boy. Yeah. We shouldn't give everybody the
keys to the back end producer.

I'm not on the back end. I got it right here
linked into my microphone.

Jim Lakely (42:23):
Oh, great. Anyway, let me just show you. There's
there's something here. Let'sremove that. Add this to the
stage.
Yeah. I just wanted to put uphere. So Sierra Club, yeah, if
they've shed 60% of theirmembers, maybe those members are
tired of the Sierra Clubfocusing on climate alarmism
when they thought they weredonating to an ecological
organization. But you see therethat Megan, Steve can Steven and

(42:46):
Anthony probably are good peopleto weigh in on this. This idea
that the that our side, thatpeople skeptical of climate
alarmism are the ones who arejust swimming in in big oil
money and all this other stuff.
This is one organization. Thisis just a Sierra Club. A
$169,000,000, which was downfrom the previous year. The

(43:09):
heartless juice barometer fortyone years. I'd have to do the
math.
I don't think we've raised thatmuch money in forty one years.

Yeah. You know, you you could add up all the
money that deserving groups getfor climate, and it doesn't even
come close to just one year forthe Sierra Club.

Yeah. They as I mentioned earlier, Sierra
Club's not the only one, youknow, 350.org, multimillion
dollar lost in a year to shutdown. Greenpeace USA may be shut
down soon due to a a lawsuitthat they lost.

Jim Lakely (43:46):
Natural Resources Defense Council is another one,
big one. Yeah.

Yeah. Six Greenpeace was levied an initial
fine of $600,000,000 for theirlosses. Greenpeace International
said we can't pay that. We'regonna fight. They, on appeal, it
was cut back to, I think,$400,000,000.
Greenpeace USA may not survive.Now it's indicative. I think the

(44:12):
dollars people are waking up,but, also, I think some people
who really like theseorganizations in general think
they've left their coremissions. You know, Great Peace
used to defend whales. Now theywant offshore wind farms that
kill whales.
Sierra Club used to be aboutprotecting wild lands. Now

(44:34):
they're about erecting windfarms and solar panels, solar
facilities, which destroy wildlands. The Audubon Society is
supporting wind and solar. I betthey're shedding members and and
and money because they'resupporting technologies that are
killing birds. When whenenvironmental groups with a long

(45:01):
history of certain kinds ofbeliefs start getting into
social engineering and socialtopics that's not really in
their wheelhouse, people who'vealways supported them start to
pull away.
Look. About a decade, decade anda half ago, Sierra Club got into
the immigration debate, andthere was a huge split.
Directors had to leave becausethey wanted they joined with

(45:23):
conservatives, wanted to stopimmigration because all these
immigrants were coming in andtaking up our land, and we gotta
preserve this land. So it's, itdoes not hurt my soul to see the
decline of all theseorganizations. I only wish that
that decline in membership wouldbe matched by a big drop in

(45:46):
funding like it has with350.org.

Jim Lakely (45:51):
Yeah. I mean, I I used to joke that, they spend
more on catering than theentire, you know, their events
than we do, as entireorganization. It's pretty it's
pretty outrageous. Alright. Solet's get to our what I would
call our our main topic today,and that is the end of the
climate cult.
You know, on this show, a lot ofa lot of our fans come into the

(46:13):
chat as much as an hour early tostart exchanging their their
thoughts and and saying hi toeach other. And I saw early on
in the chat that some weretalking about, that they don't
think that this is the end ofthe climate cult, but, that has
been making the news today. Andand the prompting for this was a
piece in the spectator by MattRidley that's gotten a lot of

(46:34):
attention, and it was titled theend of the climate cult. Again,
we've been using that theme onthis show for quite a while,
especially in the last yearsince the twenty twenty four
election. And you're gonna I'mgonna read from this, and you're
gonna hear a lot of what ifyou're a regular listener or
viewer of this program, a lot ofthis is gonna sound very, very
familiar, but it's a very goodpiece.
I will after the show, I'll putthe links to all of this in the

(46:56):
show in the description so youcan read these things for
yourself. It's definitely worthdoing it. But this is pretty
fun. Let me read from it foryou. Finally, thankfully, the
global warming craze is dyingout.
To paraphrase Monty Python, theclimate parrot may still be
nailed to its perch at therecent COP summit in Berlin,
Brazil or at Harvard or on CNN,but elsewhere, it's dead. It's

(47:19):
gone to meet its maker. Kick thebucket. Shuffled off this mortal
coil. Run down the curtain andjoin the choir invisible.
By failing to pledge a cut infossil fuels, Kop achieved less
than nothing. The venue caughtfire. The air conditioning
malfunctioned, and delegateswere told on arrival not to
flush toilet paper. Bill Gates'recent apologia in which he

(47:40):
conceded that global warming,quote, will not lead to
humanity's demise after heclosed the policy and advocacy
office of his climatephilanthropy group is just the
latest nail in the coffin. InOctober, the net zero banking
alliance shut down afterJPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Bank
of America, Morgan Stanley,Wells Fargo, and Goldman Sachs
led a stampede of other banksout the door.

(48:04):
Shell and BP have returned tobeing oil companies to the
delight of their shareholders.Ford is about to cease
production of electric pickupsthat nobody wants. Hundreds of
other companies are droppingtheir climate targets. Australia
has backed out of hosting nextyear's climate conference.
According to an analysis by theWashington Post, it's not just
Republicans who have given up onclimate change.

(48:25):
The Democratic Party has stoppedtalking about it, hardly
mentioning it during KamalaHarris's campaign for president
last year. The topic has beendropped to the bottom half of a
table of 23 concerns amongSwedish youths, Greta's home
country. Even the Europeanparliament has voted to exempt
many companies from reportingrules that require them to state

(48:45):
how they are helping to fightclimate change. It has been a
long, lucrative ride predictingthe eco apocalypse has always
been a profitable business,spawning subsidies, salaries,
consulting fees, air miles,bestsellers, and research
grants. Different themes tookturns as the scare du jour.
Overpopulation, oil spills,pollution, desertification, mass

(49:07):
extinction, acid rain, the ozonelayer, nuclear winter, falling
sperm counts. Each faded as theevidence became more equivocal,
the public grew bored, and insome cases, the problem was
resolved by a change in the lawor practice. But no scare grew
as big or lasted as long asglobal warming. The activists
who took over the climatedebate, often with minimal

(49:29):
understanding of climatescience, competed for attention
by painting ever morecatastrophic pictures of future
global warming. Quote, I'mtalking about the slaughter,
death, and starvation of6,000,000,000 people this
century.
That's what the sciencepredicts, said Roger Hallum,
founder of Extinction Rebellionin 2019, though the science says
no such thing. Scientists knewthat pronouncements like this

(49:53):
were nonsense, but they turned ablind eye because the alarm kept
the grant money coming. Now thealarmist scare is fading. A
scramble for the exits isbeginning among the big
environmental groups, anddonations are drying up. And
this I just wanna read theconcluding paragraph by the
great Matt Ridley.
The climate catastrophe has beena terrible mistake. It diverted

(50:14):
attention from realenvironmental problems, cost of
fortune, impoverished consumers,perpetuated poverty, frightened
young people into infertility,wasted years of our time,
undermined democracy andcorrupted science. It's time to
bury the parrot. Now as I said,thank you for your indulgence
and your attention to thismatter. I really enjoyed reading

(50:36):
that, and I hope you enjoyedlistening to it.
Steve well, all of us on thispodcast well, most of us, three
of the five have been in theclimate policy game for a very
long time. Steve, there wasnothing in that story that you
have not heard before, but itmust have been nice to see it.

Yeah. I mean, I have mixed feelings about it. I
don't I don't really thinkthey're going away. I mean, I
they are having difficulty.They've been having difficulty
for the last couple years, andand we've all talked about that
a lot.
They have a but they have a lotinvested in this. Right? They
still have there's still$500,000,000,000 worth of green

(51:18):
new scam money. You know, Chinahas got a dog in this fight. We
were just laughing about theSierra Club.
You know, their donations goingfrom, like, what, a 173,000,000
down to a 169,000,000. Theystill have a lot of money. You
know, they they have taken bighits, big losses, but they got

(51:39):
plenty of resources. And I thinkit's just a matter of time
before they come back. If we geta democrat president, in 2028,
then, you know, all this stuffis gonna come rushing back.
So, you know, I'm not I'm notcounting my chickens yet. I know
that we've got a long fightahead of us. It it you know,

(52:00):
maybe it's in a bit of a swoonright now, but they'll come
roaring back.

Jim Lakely (52:07):
Yep. Sterling, you wanted to get in here?

Yeah. Well, you know, it's not just, the
story you quoted by Matt Ridleythat's meant that doing this,
but the Los Angeles Times posteda story today. It was also
published in Newsweek. I don'tknow where it appeared first.
Now you gotta remember, LosAngeles Time, more than a decade
ago, said they would never everallow a climate skeptic to

(52:32):
publish in their paper again.
They know there was no questionabout climate alarm. There was
no question that humans weredestroying the environment. They
would never take letters to theeditor. They wouldn't take
editorials. That was theirstance.
And now we see this, the welcomedemise of climate change,
climate catastrophism. And itgoes through this litany of

(52:53):
horribles that that, that reallywent through. Looks at some
different ones. Now I I shareSteve's concern that this made
might not be the permanentdemise, but no environmentalism,
as far as I can tell, has everbeen the permanent demise. He
and I both been around longenough to see lots of different

(53:16):
things, be hyped as the next bigscare.
Climate change is, a good onefor them because, well,
climate's always changing. So soit it's a control knob for
everything. Not everything, notall the other causes. But if
they move off of you know, if ifif climate change if a stake is

(53:38):
finally driven through itsheart, and and we won't know
that for a few years. We we maynot know it until after the next
presidential election.
And they but they start movingthey're gonna start shifting to
another cause of climate change.They can't resurrect it. And and
the public poll shows there'svery little appetite for

(54:01):
resurrecting it. They've hardlymoved the needle with thirty
years propaganda for thepublic's concern. The public
doesn't wanna pay for it.
The same peep the same peoplethat believed it before believe
it now, though a few less ofthem. And so the question is
someone raised, well, if climatechange goes array over in the

(54:21):
comment section, what's next?Well, we're already seeing some
of it. Microplastics. They'rekilling us.
Chemicals. Some of the stuffthat's coming out of the NIH
scares me when it comes tochemicals. We can't have colored
cereals anymore because,evidently, they've been killing
our children for seventy years,and we just didn't know it. You

(54:45):
know, my my, the the Froot LoopsI ate, when I was a kid. I guess
I'm I'm due for cancer anytime.
But the the point is they'llalways have something. There'll
always be some disaster forthese people to grab onto and
take your money. The question iswhether climate change will make

(55:06):
the comeback and be the bigthing it was. And the one reason
for thinking it might isbecause, you know, you can get
rid of the color in cereals. Youcan, fix plastics, solve that,
clean it up.
You can't control the climate,and that's what they say they
need to do. So they can alwayscome back to it. So, anyway but

(55:28):
like I said, that story thatthat Jim read, Matt Ridley, it's
not the only one that'srecognizing this. Right?

Jim Lakely (55:35):
Oh, no.

It's skepticism. What we've been
championing for decades, it'sbreaking out all

over. Anthony? You know, it's it's it's it's
the nature of humanity to fearsomething unknown in the future.
I've seen this happen time andtime again. You'll you you can
go back and look, you know, topremodern times, and people
feared all sorts ofcatastrophes, you know,
happening to them.
Actually, some of them are real,you know. But the point is is

(56:06):
that there always seems to bethis fear of catastrophe in the
future. It seems to be ingrainedinto us as if it's some sort of
a a defense mechanism that'sbuilt into our, you know, our
genes, our makeup. But thebottom line is is that almost
every kind of future catastropheimaginable that we've seen come

(56:28):
into the media and into thescientific literature over the
past century has not occurred. Imean, you go look at what
happened with, you know, the thefear of extinction and the food
crisis back in the seventies.
You know? That never happened.And yet the guy who who
published on this, Ehrlich, hewon't even admit that he was

(56:49):
wrong even though it nevermaterialized because guess what?
It was peer reviewed.

Yeah. I like to point out, Anthony is a 100%
right. They've always done this.

People have never had that happen. Thank you.

Thank you. A hundred and fifty years ago,
people stood on the streetcorners with placards saying,
repent. The end is near. Andsane people crossed the streets
to avoid them. The it was it wasalways the same problem.
Human sin, in this case, it itmodern times, it's the sin of

(57:27):
using fossil fuels of ofdevelopment. In the old times,
it was different kinds of sin,but it was the same. Repent. The
end is near. Humans are atfault, and there's a path
forward.
And now we invite these samepeep these same placard wielding
people, these same screamers totestify in the halls of congress

(57:50):
rather than avoiding them or atthe UN if they want to if
they're a 16 year old, then 16or 15 year old youth because we
all know youths know more abouteverything than anybody else.
Just ask my

When when Ehrlich wrote population bomb, do you do
you know what his specialty isit academic specialty was?

I don't know.

It was butterflies. He's a butterfly.
And then he, you know, he gotthe chance to write this book,
and and he you know, no one noone pointed that out at the
time. He is a he was always afool. He was always stupid.
And, I mean, you're right.People will always you know,
there are there's just thispermanent cat catastrophist

(58:37):
element to society. But what waswhat was different about climate
is it developed this politicalagenda. You know, the
environment used to just be, youknow, like Sterling was said,
people cared about theenvironment, but then it became
politicized. And andpoliticization is what made it
this huge force.
It got at the trillion dollars,you know, out of the inflation

(59:00):
reduction act and got it to theUN and, you know, all the
different agendas just sort ofmelded together to push the
politics up.

Jim Lakely (59:09):
Yeah. I mean, Steve, I know you're you're more
skeptical than I am about, youknow, the the end is near for
the climate cult or the climatecult's in decline. I I get that.

Well, they're not gonna go the left is not going
away. K? The I mean, the left isthere to implement the left's
agenda. They you know, this hasbeen tremendously successful. So
it's had a burp for, you know,the past year or so, but it will
come back.
I I I've seen it right now. Inthe Washington Post, this week,
there's big article aboutphthalates. Phthalates are
chemicals used in plastics. And,you know, we debunked this

(59:42):
twenty five years ago, but theyjust recycle this stuff because
Gen Zers have never heard of anyof this stuff.

Jim Lakely (59:48):
Well, that's my point. It's like you don't have
to reorganize all of societybecause of microplastics. You
have to reorganize all ofsociety because carbon dioxide
emissions by humans are causinga climate catastrophe from which
we'll never recover. That theoryis being fully debunked. And
when you see mainstream orlegacy media outlets finally
allowing other people to say sopublicly, that has an effect.

(01:00:12):
I mean, climate catastrophismhas had such a firm grip on our
politics and our pop culture, onour societies, and I see that
grip loosening. If not you know,they're not gonna drop it all at
once. But when you see Europeanwith that story I mentioned how,
like, Europe is now realizingNet Zero is a we're never gonna
get there. It's gonna we'regonna be run out of here with

(01:00:34):
pitchforks and torches if if wekeep this up. It's it's not a
winning political messageanymore.
It's gonna be abandoned. It'sstarting to happen now. I think
that's worth celebrating.

Sterling Burnett (01:00:43):
Yeah.

Steve Milloy (01:00:44):
Well, I don't you know, look. The European
leadership has not given up onclimate. All those guys that
were part of the net zerobanking alliance, they have not
given up on climate. The carcompanies have not go to their
websites. They have not given upon the hoax.
And they're gonna wait till, youknow, there's a December day in
Chicago when it's 90 degrees orwhatever the, you know, the

(01:01:06):
maximum is for Chicago. Youknow, that will happen, and
they're they're gonna see see,we were right.

Yep. No offense, but it sounds like
that's some commie gobbledygook.I think you that's I think
that's, to some extent, right,that he what he just said,
commie. So people when I firststarted doing this, they were
talking about watermelons.Right?
Green on the outside, red on theinside. It's really about power.

(01:01:35):
I always defended the communistagainst this claim because I had
red marks as part of mydissertation, and I knew that he
wouldn't have been anenvironmentalist at all. For
Marx, there were two things,people and resources. And if you
weren't a people, you were aresource for use by people.
So it's a weird kind ofcommunism. It's it's one that
takes the environment as moreimportant, but, really, it's

(01:01:57):
just the elites. It's it'speople see this as a way of
torquing power. And if they canno longer if they can no longer
gain power on the back ofclimate fears, they will find
another cause.

Linnea Lueken (01:02:12):
What I find frustrating what I've always
found frustrating about thisparticular worldwide grift is I
mean, there are environmentalissues that are real and that
aren't just real, but have aimmediate physical solution that
could be implemented. Like, the,like, Asian trash problem and

(01:02:35):
stuff. If they if they devoted aquarter of the money that they,
you know, swallowed up for thegreen blob towards solving those
types of problems, just like geta whole bunch of sieves. I don't
know. I don't know what thesolution is, but you can clean
it up.
They could have had some ofthese real issues solved. But

(01:02:56):
then, of course, once it'ssolved, there's no further
funding. Right? So the the bestscam in the world is the climate
scam because there is nosolution, actually. There is no
end to it.

Well, you know, Reagan recognized this way
back when is is, you know, thatyou create an agency to solve a
problem, and it never ends. Theproblem is never solved. It just
grows and grows and grows andoften with mission creep. Right?
HUD was supposed to solve thehousing crisis.

(01:03:30):
Anyone think the housing crisishas been solved after sixty
years? You know? Worse. All theall the different all the
different agencies, the alphabetagencies, you pick one, not one
that was formed to solve aparticular problem has ever
solved that problem. In fact,since the time they were formed,
the problem has only grownworse.

Yeah. I just wanna underscore what what Linea said.
You know, we do have realenvironmental problems in this
country. You know, in inSouthern California, they've got
Mexico dumping 50,000,000gallons of raw sewage into
Southern California every day.That would seem to be a pretty
easy fix.
Virtually every city in thiscountry has Yeah.

Anthony Watts (01:04:06):
We just get Trump to bomb Mexico. There you go.

Yeah. There

you go. We we

There goes there goes our chances of of
remonetizing.

Yeah. A lot of cities in this country have
serious storm water, wastewaterproblems. We have groundwater we
have all sorts of real problems.None of it gets addressed
because there's no money orattention. All the money
attention goes to the climatehoax.

Jim Lakely (01:04:33):
Yeah. I mean yeah. We'll we'll wrap this up. We'll
get to q and a. But, you know,it wasn't that long ago that we
had John Kerry worrying aboutthe war in in Ukraine, not about
people dying, but about itscarbon footprint and and and
floating out ideas that we'regonna have electric tanks and
and troop carriers and stufflike that.
I mean, so that kind of madnessis now falling away, and I think
a lot of other madness is gonnastart falling away as well.

Yeah. You can't have electric tanks without
having an ever ready chargertruck coming up behind the
tanks. You know?

Yeah. Right. Alright. Great great
conversation, and and thankeverybody in the chat. We have
tons of questions to get to.
But before we do that, I want totell you about the sponsor of
this year program, and that isour friends at Advisor Metals.
If you listen to a lot ofconservative shows on YouTube

(01:05:21):
like I do, you hear tons ofpitches for buying gold and
silver and other preciousmetals, and there are so many
companies out there where youcan purchase those things. But I
wanna tell you why you shouldtrust our sponsor, Advisor
Metals, and that's the man whoruns the company, Ira
Brashatsky. Ira is the managingmember of Advisor Metals. He
does not employ those highpressure tactics or deceptive

(01:05:41):
marketing ploys like many ofthem in big gold.
He also doesn't deal in socalled rare coins. When you buy
gold and other precious metalsfrom Advisor Metals, you are
dealing in quality bullion, andthat is so much better when the
time comes to liquidate thisvaluable physical asset. And
when you buy from AdvisorMetals, you will have your
investment sent discreetly toyour very home. And also, good

(01:06:04):
to point out that Ira isadvertising on this program
because he is an America firstpatriot. He does not donate to
Democrats.
He refuses to work with theproxies of the communist,
Chinese party. And he, like us,abhors the machinations and
schemes of the World EconomicForum United Nations. That is
why we are so proud to have himas a sponsor. So if you wanna
diversify your investmentportfolio or if you wanna back

(01:06:26):
up your IRA with real physicalbullion of precious metals, go
toclimaterealismshow.com/metals.
You can leave your informationthere, and Ira or someone on his
team will be in contact to makethe process very easy for you.
Again, that'sclimaterealismshow.com/metals,
and be sure to tell them whosent you because that helps us

(01:06:47):
while you are helping yourself.Thank you for your attention to
this very important matter.Alright. It is time for q and a.
Take it away, Lynea.

Andy is not here and you still managed to hit the
drop. Alright.

I did manage to hit the drop even with Andy not
here.

Just for you.

Okay. Lovey. Let me grab a couple more here. We
didn't have a whole lot ofquestions, but we did have a
whole lot of funny comments,which I definitely want to
highlight because our audienceis hilarious. So one of but one
of the questions that we did getwas from Darren t who said, will
the retracted stuff make themainstream?

(01:07:33):
What I think they mean by thatis will all the retracted
articles and whatnot actuallyhit mainstream media the way
that they hit mainstream mediawhen they were released in the
first place.

Well, some of them already have. Right? The
New York Times did have to coverthe retraction that they had
touted.

Yeah. But it's not much of a retraction, Sterling.
I mean, it's right. I mean, it'sI mean, no. They have they have
to retract everything.
And it's you know, there's notenough there's not enough ink or
or or bites to do that.

Yeah. And and I've yet to see anybody. I could
be wrong, because I haven'ttracked every mainstream media
outlet, but I've yet to see anymainstream media outlet cover
the study that shows extinctionsare not going on.

Yeah. Or the

or the study that I covered this week that
Greenland, temperatures werewarmer in the in the past than
they are at present, that theywarmed up in the nineteen
twenties and thirties faster,than they warmed up in the
latter half of the century. Ihaven't seen any coverage of
that.

The the climate realism show will have to go on
indefinitely.

Yes. You're welcome. Okay. We're gonna start
funneling money to the SierraClub just so we have something
to talk about into the future.Curious KL, who I don't think
I've seen in our chat before, sowelcome, said, what about
winters caused by massivevolcano eruptions?
Is that something that we shouldbe worried about? Or is that

(01:09:10):
something that

the climate cold would ever

even cry winter, but

an extended global winter.

Yeah. They they can make it cooler. Yeah. We
Mount Pinatubo in 1991 causedsome global cooling. I guess the
big one was was Krakatoa in1815, 1816.
Mass global cooling. If we getif we got a couple of those, we
would be a serious problemserious trouble.

But it would be temporary. But it would be
temporary. It would be for acouple of years.

Always know people would die.

Yeah. Those those cooling events because of
volcanic in part because ofvolcanic eruptions, in part
because of, like, the little iceage and stuff kind of doubling
down on it, you know, are majorcauses of Famine. Plague and
famine and all sorts of awfulstuff. So that's definitely I
would much rather some warming.So is the consensus gone based

(01:10:09):
on that article that said thatthings are up for debate?

Yeah. Well, there never was a consensus. Right? I
mean, we there's no there's noconsensus in science. But the
consensus she's talking about,yeah, those people are still
they're hardcore.
They're still there. Bill Gatesstill believes that climate is a
thing. Bjorn Lomborg stillbelieves climate is a thing. All
these peoples, Al Gore, they allstill believe climate's a thing.

(01:10:32):
The consensus is real.

And this is I mean, Bill Gates Bill Gates, he
he came out with his article andsaid, oh, it's not the biggest
disaster. But I just sawheadlines today that, you know,
he's he's one of the guyspushing well, it's not a
disaster, but what we need to dois to put a lot of pollution
into the air to block the sun.He's one of the big backers of
that crap. Right. And his bigwhat what what's this article?

(01:10:58):
It just popped up while I wasonline. Oh, yeah. He backs
modern hydrogen. Despite climatechange, you gotta have hydrogen
energy. His company just wentbankrupt.
They're laying off people. So

I I wanna highlight this very important
comment from Chris Nesbett, is avery frequent viewer and
commenter of ours. He says,Lanea needs to give Jim a lesson
or two on how to do the perfectsegue. So true. I'm really good
at my segues into the ad read

on

the I do have to how we can teach him how to do
that if he can't remember tounmute his microphone.

Well yeah. Yeah. I'm sorry. I'm not capable. I'm not
capable of that.

Alright. This is a this is a rhetorical question
I thought you guys would get akick out of. CHBE says, oh, come
on. Don't you know climatechange caused November's
cooling? Yep.
Sure did. Alright. DJ Bow,another frequent viewer, says
November was cool. Anybody wannabet bet me that the usual
suspects will be out byChristmas saying it was one of

(01:11:59):
the hottest Novembers ever? Theyalready are.

Yeah.

Yeah. They say it's, the third hottest since
the nineteen eighties orsomething.

How yeah. Serious question. How how do they get
those numbers? I mean, how dohow what is the justification
for saying that? Because theyhave said it and it hasn't been
true.
I mean

Well, you can you can look at Roy Spencer's his
his satellites, and it it youknow, as far as how he
calculates it, it was a warmNovember. But, you know, of
course, it's been warming forthe last twenty thousand years.

Alright. Got a couple of good science questions
that some of which I'm gonnapitch to you, Anthony. Joe
Tripp, who I don't think I'veseen in our chat before, said,
will the Earth's weakeningmagnetic field have an effect on
climate?

No.

Okay.

I'm sorry. It just doesn't. A weakening
magnetic field has beensomething that's happened, you
know, all throughout Earth'sentire history. It's just not
something that affects ourweather or our climate in an in
the short term in anysignificant way. So what does it
do?
Well, it does provide less, whenwe have a weaker magnetic field,

(01:13:15):
we have more cosmic rays thatcome in. And there's a theory
that says, well, we might getmore cloud cover, low level
cloud cover because of that. Butthat hasn't actually been
proven. There's been people thathave been looking for that for
about a decade or so now andstill haven't completely found
it. But there's no directcorrelation between weather and
Earth's magnetic field or athirty year climate period in

(01:13:38):
Earth's magnetic field.
And the magnetic field hasflipped before during Earth's
history and everything survived.

If if sometime in the future, the magnetic
field completely goes away,we'll be in trouble because
we'll be bombarded by deadlycosmic rays. It'll look like
Mars. Our atmosphere themagnetic field keeps our
atmosphere in place. So butthat's not happening now. It's

(01:14:08):
nowhere near happening now.

Alright. This question from David, who I also
don't think I've seen. We have alot of new people today. So
welcome all the new people. Wasthe water vapor of Hunga Tonga
more to blame for the affectingthe climate than carbon dioxide
emitted?

Absolutely. Absolutely. Because water vapor
has an immediate effect ontemperature. The more water
vapor you have, the more heat isretained in Earth's atmosphere.
And anyone can prove this tothemselves simply by spending a
day, you know, in Atlanta in thesummer, in the evening versus in

(01:14:46):
Tucson.
The the drier atmosphere inTucson allows temperatures to
plummet at night, much cooler atnight in Tucson than it is in
Atlanta. You know, you mighthave a high in Atlanta of 92 and
a low of 77. Whereas in Tucson,you might have the same high of
92, but a low of 45. And so, youknow, water vapor immediately

(01:15:08):
affects things. And, yeah, itwas the reason for the spike.

Alright.

Oh, that's David again. Let me try to get someone
else. Already got that one.Okay. Kurtz says, what are you
going to do with all of thescrapped wind turbine blades
after failure or their lifespan?
Guess throw it in a volcano orwhat? Hey. That'd be a pretty

(01:15:36):
good idea.

It it might be a better solution. It might be a
better solution than what theyhave now, which is stacking them
up on fields in West Texas andjust having blotting the earth,
letting them rot, soak their,over time, their wear, soaks the
trash into the soil and thechemicals into the soil. Maybe
the volcano idea is not

a bad bad plan. It's a perfect plan. I mean, it gets
rid of them, and it also itgives you a sacrifice to their
climate god, the Earth. Right?It's absolutely perfect.
I am for that a 100%.

And I kinda just wanna see what happens if you
throw one in.

Yeah. That's cool. Get a

grown up here.

That you don't actually and I should have known
this with my geology background,but I just never thought about
it. You don't sink in lava ifyou jump in lava, which is kind
of sad. You just catch on fireand die. But

Which is also sad.

Which is also sad. Okay. Jerry Palmer says,
rule number one, everything isdue to carbon dioxide. Rule
number two, if not, rule numberone applies. Yeah.

That is how science seems to work now.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely.

We're use that.

Lake lady says, so as climate change slowly
walks off into the sunset, whatmoney making grifting scheme is
next on the horizon? Steve, ifyou're wrong and if the climate
thing does fade, what what'stheir what are they gonna use as
the next thing to continue theirnonsense?

It's simple. I mean, they're just gonna go back
to the scares they had before.You know, they used used to be
water pollution, air pollution,chemicals. Now you even have the
Trump administration trying toscare people about chemicals.
You know, Robert f Kennedy andthe whole mahis, you know,
against pesticides.
I think they have to restrainhim physically restrain him on

(01:17:32):
that. But, you know, you hearthis from Trump administration
officials, that agent, MartyMakary, all those guys. They're
they're constantly talking aboutchemicals. The the the crazy
woman that they want to make asurgeon general. She's all
freaked out about chemicals andpesticides.
So they'll just go back to theirold playbook, and then climate

(01:17:52):
will come back in some time.That's a point.

They'll they'll they'll go back to fears
of radiation as as new nuclearplants are built. Right. Well,
yeah. The chemo folks will comeout of the woodwork again or
gain prominence, you know,

into these.

And they already have the stuff with
microplastics. Right? That's thethe plastic stuff. Yeah. You
remember when when the movie,the graduate

When you say the chemo folks, are you talking
about the chemtrail people?

Not just. No. No. We're not we're

not gonna trigger you trigger you with that one
today, Andy.

You know,

well, I will tell you this.

Back late back in the late sixties, there was a
movie called the graduate, andthe the father of, the woman
said, remember this, plastics isthe future. You know? Plastics.
Well, now they're trying to takeaway the future. Right?
The future became present, andit's been successful. It's made
our lives so much better, andnow they're trying to rob us of

(01:18:46):
that. Mhmm.

Yep.

Alright.

Always a scare in the future.

Yeah. Question from Steven who says, are any of
you familiar with Woodbury'sbook, The Great White Mantle?
Not I. Sorry.

Nope.

C l Palmer asks, I saw a video recently that
carbon dioxide at current levelsstill impacts temperature due to
its existence at various levelsin the atmosphere. Thoughts?

Well, yes, carbon dioxide does affect our
temperature, but in a minimalway. I mean, it's very clear.
We've we've got a graph, infact. If you go to
climate@aglance.com or buy ourbook, Climate at a Glance, it
talks all about that. It tellsyou why carbon dioxide does in
fact affect the temperature, butwhy it's minimal and why

(01:19:43):
increases in carbon dioxide willhave less and less effect as you
go on and on.
It's all covered in our book,Climate at a Glance, which you
can get on Amazon for theincredibly high price of $14.95.
And, I challenge you to find abook packed with so much
information for that price. Imean, you look at some of

(01:20:05):
Michael Mann's books and some ofthese other books, and they're,
you know, in the $40.50 dollarrange. Ours is a bargain. And
once you get the book, you candownload a digital copy of it.
There's a a QR code on theinside inside where you can
download a digital copy, and youcan share it with your friends.
This makes a great stockingstuffer to put in the stockings
of your liberal friends, and itwill drive them batshit crazy.

Yeah. It's concise it's concise and
accurate, so you can read it ina a single sitting. But

Yeah. I just wasn't you know, I we all agree.
I mean, carbon dioxide is agreenhouse gas. It does have a
warming effect. The controversythe global warming controversy,
though, is what is the effect ofemissions?
And there is a theoretical, youknow, impact of emissions, and
there's what we can actuallyobserve, measure, discern, which

(01:20:59):
is zero. And and that's reallythe controversy. It's not about
whether carbon dioxide is agreenhouse gas. It is. But what
what do the emissions, you know,add to the equation?

And I'm not sure. The question said
something about, where it liesin the atmosphere making a
difference. I'm not sure ofthat. You know? Earlier, when
they were talking about I saw inthe comment section, someone
talked about the hole in theozone that disappeared.
Let's be clear. There was nevera hole in the ozone. There was a

(01:21:31):
thinning of the ozone layer, incertain areas of the earth. That
thinning has slackened, butthere was never a hole in the
ozone. And ozone ground levelozone, different in a in a sense
than upper level ozone, has hasgone down in recent decades.

(01:21:54):
Should we be concerned aboutthat? Probably not. Uh-huh. No
one seems to like ground levelozone. But why that didn't drift
to the upper atmosphere, noone's ever successfully
explained to me, know, why itdoesn't break why it breaks up
or doesn't get to the upperatmosphere and then fill our
hole.
But there was never a hole.

There was a thinning.

This is a good joke from Redneck Screw Loose
who said, do y'all hear thenews? The library burned down.
They lost lost both coloringbooks. That's pretty good. Mars
Rock, who I've not seen in awhile.
Hello, Mars Rock. Asked onRumble, is climate catastrophism
declining at the United Nations?

Nope. It's on its way up. I mean, remember last
year, the oceans were boiling.

How much worse could it get? They'll find a
way.

The the less climate catastrophism is feared
and believed in outside the UN,the harder they fight for it
within the UN. They they theycling I think it was Hillary
that talked about or or or Obamathat talked about stubbornly
clinging to their god and theirguns. Well, this is the UN's god

(01:23:08):
and guns. They stubbornly claimthe climate change regardless of
the evidence.

Yeah. You know, it would have been great if they
had had a camera on AntonioGuterres' face as Trump was
ripping climate, a new one inSeptember at the UN. That would
have been awesome to watch.

And did you see that United Nations Geneva post
on Twitter? I retweeted it, butit was it said it was a quote
from Gutierrez where he wassaying, the United Nations is a
moral compass for the world. Andmy mind's just flashing back to
dudes with guns and blue helmetsand

I'm looking for a a vomit drop here, but I don't
have one.

What? What? Of Syria and and Iran on their
human rights commission,something like that. It's like,
that's the moral compass? InIran, they had a a a small child
lop off a head in publicyesterday or the day before.
Jeez. That's the moral compass?

JPS says greetings from Belgium. Hasn't
it been proven that firsttemperatures go up and c o two
follows centuries later?

Yes.

That's what the proxy data shows
historically. If you look at theif you look at the historical
record, that great graphic thatAl Gore likes to use, hundreds
of thousands of years. If you ifyou parse it out, every one of
those increases in temperatureprecedes the increase in c o
two.

Yeah. And I think I think part of the explanation
for that is off gassing fromoceans. But Yep. Yep. Well And
there was never any positivefeedback loop from that, so go
figure.

Yeah. If you splice in some tree some tree ring data
in there, you'll make it work.

Select selected tree ring data, Jim.
Selected tree ring data.

Selected, That is a next I didn't think from Grifbo.
That's a joke our audiencedefinitely gets.

Yeah. Most of our audience. Okay. Ian McMillan
says, yet they write off watervapor as merely a feedback, and
I wanted to comment on that. Andthat's because water vapor in
lower levels of the atmosphere,like closer to the ground level,
falls out as precipitationeventually.
But the reason why Hongatongahas such a big effect is because

(01:25:31):
it blasted that stuff up intoupper levels of the atmosphere.
So it's a little bit of adifferent condition. It takes a
little bit longer for it to fallout. Let's see. Walter says,
have you ever thought to inviteLee Zeldin on the Climate
Realism Show?
Would love to invite Lee Zeldinon the Climate Realism Show if
he'd have us. That would be fun.Or Chris Wright.

Reach

out. Or Chris Wright.

Yeah. I mean, we a great pitch for us is that we
did warmer. Yeah. Well, we didcover his, his confirmation
hearing live. You you were onthat, Steve.
You know? We said,

yeah. He's a little warmer.

Oh, jeez. Alright. You won't be on that day with
him.

Jeez. Let we let lukewarmers on this show too.
Let's go. Oh, how about thisone? David says, why is
everything existential to thesepeople?

Doom, man. Doom.

But because because because they don't
understand what the termexistential means.

No. They no. They do. They They think it scares
the most people.

Kant Kant was one of the first people to start
talking about existential, andit doesn't mean what they think
it means. You read Khan.

Well, it's kind of annoying to hear them use the
word unprecedented for everysingle thing that ever happens
too. So

Which which I mean? All of them all of them
being preceded.

Yeah. Yeah. And it all goes unprecedented.

You you have to be apocalyptic in order to get your
way with these people. I mean,you can't just because they're
gonna lose the argument if theysay, you know, it would be
better. You can't make the greenenergy transition argument
because nobody will accept thatbecause nuclear and fossil fuels
are necessary and better andmore efficient and cheaper. All
the things, every plus is on thetraditional energy generation

(01:27:21):
side. Unless you getcatastrophic about everything
and the reasons for going togreen, you would never win an
argument.
And that's why they're actuallyultimately losing, I think,
right

now. Yep.

Here's a good question, I think, for Steve
probably. Where can one learnmore this is from Terry, by the
way. Where can one learn moreabout phthalates, if that's
right?

You know,

fact based, unsensational and
sensationalized manner.

So, Terry, I just tweeted about this the other day
because there was a WashingtonPost article. So if you search
for phthalates from my x accountat Junk Science, you'll get some
links, and you can start there.The chemical industry stopped
defending all this stuff, morethan a generation ago, so, you

(01:28:07):
know, I'm gonna be the source onthat.

Chris says, I came late. Did you cover the
study that reckon sea level risewas not accelerating? If true,
wouldn't that mean sea isn'twarming and ice is not melting
at the claim rates either? And Ithink we covered that a couple
weeks ago.

Yeah. We did. And you can find out about that in
my book.

I'm gonna have to make Anthony, you're gonna have
to do the ad reads from now onbecause your ability to segue
right into it is much betterthan me.

Thank you.

Here's You

should get one

of those miracle cleaners. Get a you know, an ad
contract for that. Anthony,Anthony.

Know, I'm I'm coming up with climate ShamWow
next.

Hey. Anthony, I'm a ShamWow guy. Yeah.

Joester asks, Denmark is still killing cows
and attacking farmers usingBovar. How to convince the
government to back out of Bovarusage? I would say just if the
climate scam ends, then there'sno reason for them to be pushing
a methane reducer in cow feed.

I think I think riots in the streets,
manure being dumped out in frontof their personal houses and
people being, replaced withdifferent, politicians that
understand that you're killingan entire industry in that
country.

Isn't Beauver isn't that Bill Gates' thing?

I don't know if it's Bill Gates' one. He has a
different I think he's still indevelopment with one. This might
be a different one.

I think Beauver is. It's one of his Oh,

is it?

I believe so. Yeah.

I don't know. They're all

the scam is gonna last in Europe. The last place
it's gonna go away is in Europebecause in Europe, I they're not
allowed to think. They justfollow the leader.

Very sad. My dog is making her presence known as
usual at this time of day. Thisis from Steven Lindsay who says,
anyone aware of the creeping upof total solar irradiance now
going above or close to thirteensixty three watts per square
meter? Anthony?

Well, yeah, it happens. The solar cycle changes
the solar irradiance on averageof anywhere from one watt per
square meter to as much as twoand a half over its period. And
so there's nothing surprisinghere or dangerous about it. It
summing it up, the sun happens.

Our good friend, engineer guy

find out about it in my book.

Our good friend, engineer guy, wants to know and
Steve, I don't know if you knowof anything about this, but he
asks,

what about

Styrofoam? Thirty years ago, I heard a lecture on
the benefits of Styrofoam. I'mnot sure in what in what use.
You'd never know it as mediadoes not cover this message.

Well, so conveniently, I have this red
solo cup here, which apparentlycontains Styrofoam, and it's why
where I live in MontgomeryCounty, Maryland, stores are not
allowed to sell these becausethey're not recyclable because
they have Styrofoam. So thereyou go.

I Except for one I wanna say first, Lanea,
you were right. I looked. I wasinterested. I thought Gates, it
was involved with Beauvaire, buthe's not. He's developing his
other thing.
He's promoter, but he's not, aninvestor. But Styrofoam is
recyclable. Decades ago, aboutthree decades ago, McDonald's

(01:31:47):
came up with Styrofoam cartons,and they talked about the hot
side hot, the cold side cold.Styrofoam was a great insulator.
Hey.
It's lot of people wait. Wait.Because they were complaining,
they came up with a way torecycle it. And as they came up
with that way, the pressure onthem got so great, they shelved
their invention. Nobody recyclesStyrofoam now, but it is

(01:32:09):
recyclable.
But the the people who inventedit can't sell it anywhere.

I love that burger, by the way. You have the
hot burger and the hot cheese onone side. On the other side, you
have the other top part of thebun and the lettuce and tomato
and the pickle, you know, whichremain cool so that you didn't
end it up with with this thismishmash of melted and stuffed
that had been sitting around.

No. They they decided not to fight it. It was
easier for them not to fight it,and they shelved the technology.

Yeah. The McDLT. That was awesome.

They're like,

I like to recycle I like

to recycle Styrofoam in in my outdoor fire
pit. Works real well back in theatmosphere.

That that's breaking I love the smell of
burning Styrofoam in theevening.

That that's breaking clean air rolls.

I found out the hard way that outside, like, rug
that I had that I thought wasactual, like, thistle or
whatever it is, thistle,whatever it is that they make
those scratchy terrible rugs. Ithought that it was real, and I
threw it in my fire pit becauseit was getting raggedy and old.
Wrong. I had black smoke.

If you do it one at

a time,

though My

my my my grandfather used to have a
trailer at at a lake near herethat that I loved. It's my
favorite place to go. And he hada burn barrel. Right? He had a
burn barrel that we throw allthe trash in the burn barrel
because there was no sanitationout

there. Wait a minute. Is that Jason Alexander?

That is us. Yeah. Jason Alexander with the McDLT,
baby.

Hot, the cold side. So we used to burn all
sorts of plastics in those thingand and stand around it and
watch it. We we'd watch strawsmelt very slowly. We thought the
curling was really cool, me andmy brother. So only to find out
later that we were killingourselves because the chemicals
that

Damn. I'm hungry now.

I know. Look at what they took from us, you

guys.

But I don't wanna dance. That

is a lot of that is a lot of fuss for a hamburger, I
gotta say.

No. But it's a container that's important.
Right. Yeah. They weren'tselling the hamburger.
They were selling the hamburgersold in that container.

Amazing. Alrighty. Let's go to we'll
we'll hit another sciencequestion here, and we'll
probably wrap it up, guys. We'regoing a little over our
overtime. Paul says, is thecloud cover included in any of
the climate models?

Yes. But it's not included well. The problem is
you can't predict clouds. Cloudsare one of the most dynamic and
random things that occurs on theplanet. And the models are
particularly bad at simulatinghow cloud cover will change.
And so, yes, it's there, butit's it's not there in a

(01:34:50):
significant way that isaccurate.

And even the IPCC says, it's one of the
factors, the vast majority ofthose factors that it says they
don't understand it very well.Poorly understood is how

they rate it.

Right.

Yep. And then finally, we will end with CHB's
question. I sense a lack oftaxpayer money heading these
grifters way. Am I right?

Hopefully There's still $500,000,000,000 to spend
the green new scam money. Andthen China's got plenty of money
to spend on this because it's agreat way, to, you know,
checkmate our economy. So I'mtelling you, these people are
not going away.

Well I look forward to the day then we could
all sing ding dong. The grift isdead.

Very good. Very good.

Even even the, the big beautiful bill. Right?
You know, it cut a lot of thatmoney. Yeah. There there's less
money going to it now than therewas before, but it increased
funding for carbon capture andstorage.

Yep.

And and which is interesting because the
increased money that theyincreased it for wasn't for
storage. It's for oil companiesthat were already making money
from carbon capture because ithelps them pump out more oil
Well use that technology more.So they increased that. Billions
of taxpayer dollars go into atechnology that would have been
being used for decades alreadyat a profit for them. But now

(01:36:12):
they make more money on taxcredits.

Not not not to drag this out, but I gotta add
on to that. Just real quick, Iwas on the radio in, Louisiana
yesterday. Apparently, DougBurgum is coming to Louisiana to
sell carbon capture.

Oh, Doug surprised me. He loved it when
he was in North Dakota.

Yeah. Well, we'll put a stop to that. So, anyway,
that will wrap it up for ourshow today. I want to thank our
special guest today, SteveMolloy from junkscience.com. I
know everybody loves it whenyou're on the program, Steve,
mostly.

(01:36:48):
And I wanna thank our steeringpartners, which includes
junkscience.com, CFAC, The c otwo Coalition, and Climate
Depot, what's up with that, andHeartland, UK, Europe. Always
visit climaterealism.com, or youcan get the counter spin to the
climate alarmist narrative thatwe even read a little bit on the
program today. Go toclimate@aglance.com for the

(01:37:09):
latest updates on climate data.But even better than that, go to
amazon.com and search forClimate at a Glance and get the
latest fourth edition, I believeit is. But Check it.
You'll get that latest one. Goto Energy at a Glance, and, of
course, always go toheartland.org where you can
support this program andheartland.org/tcrs. Thank you

(01:37:29):
everybody in the chat for beinghere today. Thanks for everybody
who watches and listen listensand appreciates the show every
week, and we will talk to youagain next week. Bye bye.

All Episodes

Good News: Climate Cult In Decline — The Climate Realism Show #184

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang

The Joe Rogan Experience

Stuff You Should Know

.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;}Good News: Climate Cult In Decline — The Climate Realism Show #184