US Exiting the Climate Alarm Cabal — The Climate Realism Show #153 - Heartland Daily Podcast

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Jim Lakely (00:58):
That's right, Greta. It is Friday. It is the best day
of the week, and not justbecause the weekend is almost
here, but this is the day theHeartland Institute broadcast
the climate realism show. Myname is Jim Lakeley. I'm vice
president of the HeartlandInstitute.
We are an organization that hasbeen around for forty years and
is known as the leading globalthink tank pushing back on

(01:20):
climate alarmism. Heartland andthis show bring you the data,
the science, the truth thatcounters the climate alarmist
narrative you've been fed everysingle day of your life. And we
try to have some fun doing it aswell because there is nothing
else quite like the ClimateRealism show streaming anywhere.
So I hope you will like, shareand subscribe and leave your
comments underneath this videoand also bring your friends to

(01:43):
view this live stream everyFriday at 1PM Eastern Time. All
of these activities convinceYouTube's algorithm to smile
upon this program and that getsit in front of even more people.
And because big tech, youwouldn't guess it, And the
legacy media do not approve ofthe way we cover climate and
energy on this program.Heartland's YouTube channel is

(02:03):
continually demonetized. We'retrying to work on getting it
back. We will give you an updatewhen we get one, but it is
demonetized at the moment. So ifyou want to support this
program, and I really hope youdo, please visit
heartland.org/tcrs.
That's heartland.org/tcrs, whichstands for the Climate Realism
Show. And you can help keep youcan help us make sure that this

(02:26):
program comes out every singleweek. Any support you can give
us is warmly welcome and greatlyappreciated. And we also want to
thank our streaming partners,Jungscience.com, CFACT, what's
up with that? The c o twocoalition and Heartland UK
Europe.
So welcome to all of you who arewatching on those extremes. I
hope you will follow all ofthose accounts and become a

(02:47):
subscriber to this show on ourYouTube and Rumble channels of
the Heartland Institute. We gota big show today, so let's get
started. Have with us as usual,Anthony Watts. He's a senior
fellow at the HeartlandInstitute and the publisher of
the most influential website onclimate in the world.
What's up with that? We haveSterling Burnett. He is the
director of the Arthur BRobinson Center on Climate and

(03:09):
Environmental Policy at theHeartland Institute and also
known as the archbishop ofRenterberry here on this
program.

H. Sterling Burnett (03:16):
Hello, everybody. The archbishop is in
the house.

Anthony Watts (03:18):
Yes. Very good.

God bless you all, my children.

Jim Lakely (03:23):
Thank you. Blessings be upon us. Linea Luken is also
with us as usual. She's aresearch fellow for energy
environmental policy at theHeartland and also the host of
the Heartland Institute's In TheTank podcast, which is streamed
live every Thursday at 1PMEastern Time, except yesterday.
We apologize for that.
Will we always never like tomiss a week, but we had to miss
one yesterday because ofinternal heartland stuff that we

(03:44):
had to take care of. So welcomeall of you, especially you, your
x one c.

I just wanna say this, the miter, well
deserved by the way, was a giftfrom Anthony Watts who has an
excellent sense of style andhumor. So, here we are.

Jim Lakely (04:05):
Right. Well, we all aspire in life to earn good
nicknames. The only goodnickname is one you earn, so
congratulations Sterling. We'regoing have a lot of fun with
that.

Just let me say, I'm quite pleased with myself.

You you should be. Even if I
misidentified it yesterday.

Jim Lakely (04:25):
Yep. No problem. Alright. Well, we got a lot to
get to today. It's gonna be agreat program, and we do look
forward to seeing your questionsand comments in the chat, which
we will handle at the q and asection of the program near the
end.
But for now, let's start as wealways do with the crazy climate
news of the week. Hit it, Andy.Yes. Thank you, Bill Nyein.

(04:56):
Thank you, producerextraordinary and Andy Singer in
the background, making sure thisprogram runs very, very smoothly
every week.
Our first item here is pay upMichael Mann. Regular listeners
listeners of this program knowthat we've been following the
case of Michael Mann suingNational Review and our friend
Mark Stein in a completelyfrivolous defamation case. And,

(05:19):
you know, I used to joke thatevery time the left put a
torpedo in the water to getDonald Trump, those torpedoes
like in Red for Red for RedOctober always came back and got
them instead. This is anotherwonderful case of that. Michael
Mann puts a torpedo in thewater, and he's the one who has
to pay.
So this is from our friends atClimate Change Dispatch. Pay up.

(05:39):
Judge deals Michael Mann majorblow in bid to delay paying
legal fees. Let me read a bitfrom this and we'll get some
commentary. A Washington DCcourt rejected University of
Pennsylvania climate scientistMichael Mann in his bid to
postpone his required payment ofhundreds of thousands of dollars
to the National Review onThursday.
The Superior Court of theDistrict of Columbia ruled in

(06:00):
January that Mann owes NationalReview approximately $530,000 to
cover the outlet's legal feesafter spending more than a
decade locked in a defamationlitigation against the
organization, and Mannsubsequently requested a stay to
postpone those payments. Youwould note here that when he if
he won or when he did actuallyhave the ruling in his favor in

(06:22):
the beginning before it wasreversed in appeal, he obviously
insisted on being paid rightaway. So tough noogie. Anyway,
on Thursday, the court deniedMann's request, meaning that he
will likely have to pony up cashto an outlet he once described
in emails as a, quote, threat toour children. Mann initially
sued National Review in 2012when Canadian conservative Mark

(06:44):
Stein knocked Mann and his famedhockey stick climate model in a
post on the National Review'swebsite.
In filing a in in a filingopposing National Review's
request for compensation, Mannargued that the move was a,
quote, mean spirited andunjustified request by a
powerful organization, unquote,intending to intimidate and

(07:06):
silence him. Notably, judgeAlbert Irving wrote in March
that Mann and his lawyers hadpresented misleading information
to the jury while the defamationcase was at trial. Now, Anthony,
I know that you are one ofMichael Mann's most famous
admirers, but this is prettyrich, isn't it? I mean, Michael
Mann saying that National Reviewis mean spirited and, you know,

(07:28):
and he is the one beingintimidated and silenced coming
from him of all people. God.
Come on.

Yeah. He's his sense of sense of self is just
highly distorted. He seems tohave no idea how he appears to
others except for his acolytes,you know? And he is so
inconsequent about everything.It's just amazing.
I mean, it's very few peoplethat have a personality like his
that I know of. The fun thing isis that he can't tolerate

(07:56):
alternate opinions. He justcan't tolerate it. He was known
as the blocker in chief onTwitter, and he left Twitter
because there's too many damnclimate deniers on Twitter. You
know?
They went over to this blue skything where he and Gavin Schmidt
and a couple of the otherbigwigs on the climate cabal can
talk amongst themselves withoutbeing interfered by us mere

(08:17):
mortals. So, you know, I'm notsurprised by any of this. He's
gonna dodge and connive andeverything that he can do to
prevent paying this because inhis mind, he's right.

Jim Lakely (08:31):
Yeah. Well, Sterling, the archbishop
archbishop, excuse me, yourexcellency, there are a few
people in the public sphere whenit comes to the debate on
climate change that are moremean spirited than Michael Mann.
And he specializes in insultsand then blocking you from his
social media accounts. He callseverybody who disagrees with him

(08:52):
all sorts of names and a threatto the very existence of
humanity on this earth. So I seeyou're smiling that Michael Mann
is getting a come up, and it'seven better than we actually
would have expected.

Yeah. Well, you know, maybe, when Mark Stein
pays him the paltry sum that henow has to pay, He can use that
as a, what, a half a percentpayment on what he actually owes
the national review. The whatAnthony's right about is that he

(09:25):
will he will fight this. He I Imy suspicion is he will go to
his grave never having paidthis. He already lost a case in
Canada where he owes money.

Yep. Tim

Paul. I think, three years ago, it now
it's been since he lost thatcase. He has steadfastly refused
to follow the law in Canada andpay per the ruling. The the
gentleman that he destroyeddied. He had to use GoFundMe to

(09:58):
to help pay for his, funeraryexpenses.
Man is a a smarmy individual. Hewill not be getting a
dispensation unless, you know, Iguess, by canon law, I'm I'm I'm
obligated if he comes to me forforgiveness to, to do that. But,

(10:22):
a, I don't expect it having metthe man and dined with him. And
b, I might have to give up thethe hat and the and the job if
that came to it.

Jim Lakely (10:34):
Yeah. Yeah. Well, as Christine Laurel points out, he
was rotten to Judy Curry aswell. But the good news on that,
we didn't have the clip. Ididn't think to grab it.
But, you know, there was a greatyou could find it. If you put in
Judith Curry and Michael Mann inYouTube, you could probably find
the clip of them givingcongressional testimony in which
he tried to, you know, basicallystep to step to Judy Curry, and

(10:55):
she destroyed him, in front ofeverybody. So, you know, I I
don't like to wish ill uponanyone, but if there's anyone
who deserves to be getting hisass handed to him in court over
the last six months, it'sMichael Mann.

Well, let's hope let's hope let's hope that
they, I mean, it'd be good if ifthe court said, you will pay. We
have ordered it. If not, theystart garnishing his wages or,
going in and seizing assets thathe has. The the the the
university, University ofPennsylvania that he's
associated with should disownhim at this stage. Yeah.

(11:28):
It's shameful. It's shameful.Disavow him.

Yeah. Maybe you could assign some penance to
him, Sterling. I

don't know that he has enough time to do
all the penance I would assign.

Jim Lakely (11:40):
Yeah. Well, he could he he's welcome to come up on
this program. That would bepenance. I don't know if, he'd
probably rather, he'd probablyrather not and just take his
chances in the great beyond thanto come on this program. So
anyway, Michael Mann, we'llcontinue to watch and see how
this works out.
We just really enjoy it, and welike sharing this news with our
with our audience. Alright. Wegot our second item here, and

(12:02):
this is Trump Trump targetinggreen states. More good news.
This comes from the AssociatedPress.
Trump's new energy order putsstate's climate laws in the
crosshairs at the Department ofJustice. A new executive order
from president Donald Trumpthat's part of his effort to
invigorate energy productionraises the possibility that his
DOJ will go to court againststate climate change laws aimed

(12:26):
at slashing planet warminggreenhouse gas pollution from
fossil fuels. Now again, this isthe AP. I'm reading it verbatim.
So it's gonna have a certainspin for which they get paid to
do the alarmist spin.
Trump's order signed Tuesdaycomes as US electricity demand
ramps up to meet the growth ofartificial intelligence and
cloud computing applications, aswell as federal efforts to

(12:46):
expand high-tech manufacturing,it also coincides with the
climate super fund legislationgaining traction in various
states. Trump has declared anational energy emergency and
ordered his attorney general totake action against states that
may be illegally overreachingtheir authority in how they
regulate energy development.American energy dominance is

(13:09):
threatened when state and localgovernments seek to regulate
energy beyond theirconstitutional or statutory
authorities, unquote, Trump saidin the order. He added that the
attorney general should focus onstate laws targeting climate
change, a broad order thatunmistakably puts liberal states
in the crosshairs of Trump'sDepartment of Justice. Okay, so

(13:30):
Linea, you're a former oildrenched rig rat.
How would you feel if thepresident?

A rig oil drenched rig rat.

Jim Lakely (13:40):
Man. I made I made that up. I don't know if that's
a term of of endearment.

Linnea Lueken (13:44):
It's definitely not. That's okay. I'll take it.
I'll take it.

Jim Lakely (13:49):
Alright. Yeah. I used to call myself a ink
stained wretch when I was ajournalist. So it's it's it's
one of endearment for sure. Buthow would you feel if the
president was doing this kind ofthing when you were in the
industry?
And I see this really as a realturning of the tables because
it's usually the governmentactivists in collusion with the
government that is going afterthe energy producers to stop
energy production. And now thetable seemed to have turned.

Yeah. Well, I mean, obviously, the industry is
going to like that we have moreopportunities. You know, if if
they're withdrawing a bunch ofregulations and stuff, it'll
make it less expensive to drill.Right now, the industry is not
happy, not doing well. It's abad time to be in the oil field
right now because price of oilhit, I think, around $50 a

(14:35):
barrel the other day, whichthere is a danger with some of
this stuff that you get it cheapenough that you actually can't
afford to produce.
So that's kind of the precipicethat we're at. I know a lot of
people who are laid off in thelast couple weeks or so. So it's
we're in, like, kind of a weirdposition right now. But if

(14:55):
anything is going to be able tostabilize the industry and make
it last long term withdrawingfrom all of these crazy climate
things is gonna be one of thenecessary steps for that. But
it's a it's a complicated it's avery, very complicated industry.
I want to point out this commentbefore I yield the floor for a

(15:17):
second here that Jeff has herewho says use a climate model to
calculate the interest due onpunishment for Michael Mann. And
I think that they should use RCP8.5 because they definitely
that'll get you the biggestnumbers you could possibly get.
So let's do it.

Yeah.

Jim Lakely (15:36):
Great.

But yeah, no, it's it's I mean, it's
necessary. I've been floored andso happy with the way that all
of the kind of energy relatedcabinet positions have been
speaking publicly on theseissues. Zeldin has been just a
absolute slayer of climatenonsense. I did not see that

(15:58):
coming at all since he was onsome of the kind of wishy washy
climate. What are they called?
I've lost my words again. The,like, groups that they have in
Congress committees. Right. Oneof the committees on climate
change, he was part of it. Andso I was kind of dreading him
coming in because I thought thathe was going to be, you know,

(16:22):
kind of wishy washy on it.
But he has been stronger thanalmost anybody else. It's it's a
wonderful thing to see. Hisenthusiasm talking about it on
hostile news networks has beengreat, too. It's really fun to
watch. We're just I mean, wehave thrown the window to the
right on the climate issue andon energy issues.

(16:43):
So it's a great, great thing tosee.

Yeah. He was in those caucuses, some of
those caucuses.

Yeah. That's right.

But, and it's not just this this order.
Who knows what effect it'llhave? This is one of those
instances, that are have beenthat were all too common over
the past couple of decades,actually, where the courts just
opened the doors and and refusedto throw out cases that that

(17:13):
lacked merit or that were in thewrong forum. In the end, if
anything is implicated ininterstate commerce, it is
energy, energy production,energy use. Interstate commerce
is the sole province under theconstitution of the congress of
the United States, not statecourts, not federal courts even.

(17:35):
It's it's specifically aprovision of the constitution,
congress, and congress alone. Sothe court should have looked at
every one of these cases as asorry. This is both a national
and international issue. Youcan't use nuisance lawsuits to,
run up the bills of rape, of ofgas users everywhere, which is

(17:56):
what's happening. Right?
The they're not spendingmillions. It's hundreds of
millions and billions to defendagainst lawsuits in every forum.
And the truth is they shouldhave all been consolidated into
one case, and the court shouldhave spoken unanimously to say,
this is congress's job. We don'thave a role. You can't sue.
Same thing should've happened toman on First Amendment grounds.

(18:18):
You know, it's time and again,the court says, oh, we'll let
the jury we'll we'll let thecourts decide. No. No. You have
a role, and congress has a role,and congress is specific in the
constitution about interstatecommerce.
So these never should have goneanywhere. Trump is, it's not
just this. You know? He he didseveral good things this week.

(18:41):
But once again, we'll we'll seewhere where where they, what
impact they have.
He said that in the WesternStates, they won't have to do
the same kind of environmentalreviews they did in the past for
oil and gas production. I don'tknow why he just didn't make it
nationwide. The Western Statesaren't the only ones that do
these things.

Jim Lakely (19:01):
I guess that's because most

of public land is out there. He also and
we're gonna get talking aboutthis later, corralled the, the
climate alarm as we're gonnatalk about. But, I mean, he's
just, on our issues, Trump hasbeen gold, and, it's it's a it's
a glorious thing to see.

Jim Lakely (19:23):
Yeah. I mean, Lynea, you you had mentioned basically
that it seems like like theOverton window has moved a
little bit, and I want to askAnthony if he feels that too.
Know, lot of this, you see it,but there is a lot of feeling I
think, and you have been in theclimate realism business longer
than anybody here, Anthony. Doyou see or feel the Overton
window on climate and energypolicy genuinely move?

Yeah, I think it has moved, because a lot of
people's eyes have been opened,particularly because of the
waste and so forth that they'refinding in government, the waste
and the corruption and moneythat's being funneled to all
kinds of crazy projects. And sothe trust in government and
thereby by association, thetrust in government science is
starting to slip. And governmentscience is the basis of all of

(20:09):
the climate claims. And so,yeah, the window's moving
because people are starting toturn skeptical, which is where
we've been all along.

Not let's not assume everyone knows what
the Overton window is. Can oneof you concisely say it? Well,
mean,

Jim Lakely (20:27):
it's basically the window of what's politically,
socially and culturallyacceptable. What the majority of
people consider the conventionalwisdom. There's lots of
different definitions of it,that's generally the case. And
the Overton window on theclimate has been moved so far to
the left. I mean, radicalleftists have just grabbed the
edge of that and exited stageleft with it to the fact that we

(20:49):
have indoctrination of childrenin schools who believe that
they're responsible for thedeath of the polar bears when
both of those things areincorrect because humans are not
responsible and the polar bearsare fine.
You know, things like that. Andnow we're living in a place,
again, this election in Novemberwas very important and it has
changed. There's been a culturalvibe shift. I think there's been

(21:12):
a political vibe shift andthere's been a you know, the
news industry has destroyeditself to the fact that the
Associated Press continues toreport alarmist, you know, in an
alarmist fashion on climate andenergy because they're being
paid to do it by left wingorganizations. And now we see
that, you know, with the Doge,that the NGOs, all of these left

(21:33):
wing climate and energy radicalNGOs that are out of step with
the opinion of the Americanpeople, are out of step with
reality when it comes to scienceand our energy needs, that's
being exposed and that may dryup.
So yeah, the Overton window inalmost every aspect has been
moved more toward realism andaway from radicalism, I think.

I I feel with that last explanation
discussion, Jim, probably Ishould be passing my miter off
to you.

Jim Lakely (22:01):
Oh, well, I'm I'm feeling a little under the
weather, so that wasn't quite arant, was more of an
explanation, so that's why wehave to do it. All right, let's
move on to our next one. This isactually happy news. This is
evidence perhaps that the greenmovement is dying. We do kind of
cover this constantly on thisshow.
So let's see what the latestnews on this is. This is from

(22:24):
TIP Insights. Americansskeptical of climate change
movement support, quote, rollingback green rules in INI and TIP
poll. Now this is from TerryJones, he's the author of this.
He's the former editorial pageeditor at Investors Business
Daily and the editor of Issuesand Insights.
I've actually met him. He's agreat guy and a fantastic

(22:44):
journalist. The subhead on thispiece is this, Is the green
movement dying if not alreadydead? And it sure looks that
way, that it's trending thatway. So here we go.
In a national online poll takenMarch 26 through the twenty
eighth, INI TIP asked fourteenfifty two poll respondents the
following question. Which of thefollowing best describes your

(23:04):
view of the current climatechange movement? The first
answer was that the climatechange movement quote is a
necessary response to a seriousglobal crisis unquote. Now that
garnered 39% support more thanany other single response.
However, taken together, thefive remaining responses portray
a broad range of skepticism ofthe Green Movement among the

(23:26):
rest of those who took the poll.
Within this group, 16% said,quote, it has gone too far and
is driven more by politics thanscience, while 20% agreed,
quote, I am concerned about theenvironment but skeptical of
climate alarmism. Another 5%said, I used to support it but
now question its motives andimpact. And 11% noted, quote, I

(23:48):
don't believe climate change isa significant issue, unquote.
And the remaining 9% said theywere unsure. So as Terry Jones
points out, a majority, 52%,expressed different degrees of
skepticism about the climatechange movement, its
motivations, its impacts and itssignificance for the future.
Now Sterling, you were quoted inthis story and you said in

(24:10):
essence, actually kind of whatwe were just talking about in
the last segment, that DonaldTrump being elected president
has really changed everything.

Yeah. Well, it it's it's it's a lot of
things, but I think Trump beingelected president was certainly
the spark. Since Trump, tookoffice or actually since his
election, company after company,bank after bank, investment
house after investment house,you know, fund managers, they're

(24:38):
all pulling out of internationalclimate, coalitions and cabals.
Now it may just be on thesurface. They may still be doing
this stuff in the background,but visibly, publicly, they are
disavowing that former theirformer associations.
If you look around the worldwhere these protests, these
climate protests have takenplace, the people have

(25:02):
absolutely no sympathy withthese people at all anymore.
They're now being convicted incriminal court. They're serving
time for the stuff that theydid. They were they were called
heroes. They were called martyrsa a few years ago.
People were saying it's apeaceful protest. Blah blah
blah. Yeah. They did you know,that sure. They destroy a few
works of art.
They block some traffic. They,you know, make give us their

(25:24):
flights, but, it it's for theclimate. Now it's like, no. Now
they're getting hit on thestreet. They're getting
arrested.
They're going to jail. And it'snot just here in America where
the politics have changed. InEurope, they are delaying some
of their sustainabilitydirectives. They, you know,
right right of center coalitionsare coming to power or near

(25:48):
power, and it's changing thepolitics over there, delaying
their climate commitments. It'sit's all over the world.
And and, of course, the IPCCgoes merrily on its way. They're
gonna hold the next conference.And what are they doing? They're
cutting down rainforest to buildroads, for the next conference,

(26:13):
showing that they're really notthat concerned about climate
change either. It's really aboutpower, and the people in power
are being threatened by thepublic finally saying enough is
enough, and, they're getting themessage.

Jim Lakely (26:31):
Well, know, I mean, opinion, I think that, you know,
this story as much as I want itto be, you know, I think it
might be a tad too optimistic. Imean, I think the green movement
will only be dead when the moneydries up. You know, you see how
it works in The US with thesegreen NGOs that I mentioned
earlier, collecting billions ofour dollars to advocate for fake
stuff like environmentaljustice. You know, so until the

(26:53):
government mandates for greenenergy are canceled, you know,
only then will big business, youknow, end its collaboration with
government for, you know, forall of this nonsense from the
science end to the energy end.What do you think, Anthony?

Well, you know, that's a tough one to to comment
about. But it we've seen thisrelationship again and again and
again where the the governmentsends out money. NGOs scramble
to get it, write up all kinds ofcreative grants, some of which
are not many of which are notbased in reality. And then they

(27:29):
produce some kind of, I don'tknow, some theme based output
that really doesn't address theproblem or the issue, but it's
more of a talking pointnarrative. And this vicious
cycle has been repeating overand over and over again.
And as a result, it's becomepredictable. I mentioned last
week that this the whole climatecabal has become so predictable

(27:53):
that we could probably write upa forecast at the beginning of
the year for stuff that's gonnahappen based on, you know,
weather events and seasons andso forth. There's nothing new in
that industry whatsoever. Theyrepeat the same tired old
talking points again and againand again, hoping that if you,

(28:13):
you know, say it enough, peoplewill believe it. The bottom line
is, though, is that people arestarting to wake up to this.
And, you know, with Trumpbasically shutting off the tap
of money flow, they've gotnowhere to go. My advice to them
is learn to code.

Yeah. You know, it it's funny you should
say that, Anthony. You're right.We could almost set up an
editorial calendar for the yearin advance and saying, okay.
This is when we'll be talkingabout wildfires.
This is when we'll be refutingstuff about hurricanes. This is
when they'll talk aboutallergies, and we have to take
them down. And and we could doit month month for month, week

(28:51):
for week when we when we expectto see certain stories come out.
And and and the coverage you getfrom certain stories you know,
it's a weird thing. People aredying all over the globe, for a
variety of reasons.
I I covered a story a few weeksago on the cherry blossoms
blooming, quote, early inWashington DC, and, and it it

(29:14):
was a lesser extent addressedTokyo. That story got more
pickup in coverage than storiesabout people dying everywhere.
It's weird what people careabout. If, you know, you you put
there's a story about what dogspanting. I'll wager that got
more readership.
I'll I'll wager that got morereadership than stories about
crop failures in in Africa, forinstance. Not that either one of

(29:39):
them are tied to climate change,but, it's, it's amazing to me.

Yeah. They'll they'll grab on anything and try
to turn it into, you know,something caused by climate. I
mean, there was a website a fewyears ago. It's since gone dark,
but it was called, The WarmList. And it was, run by a
professor at a university overin The UK.
And it became so big that he hadtrouble keeping up with it, and

(30:05):
he finally gave up. Butbasically, he wrote up a list of
headlines and links to all theseheadlines of things caused by
climate change. And it washilarious to read because, you
know, we would, for an example,with Sterling's reference, we
would see a story, climatechange is causing dogs to pant
more. That's one headline. Butwhen we'd also see in the same

(30:26):
list headlines that saysomething like, dog dogs are
panting less due to climatechange.
I mean, it was just hilarious towatch these completely opposite
claims being published bydifferent media outlets. These
folks don't have any ability todiscern reality from fantasy.
And so they publish mostlyfantasy.

Jim Lakely (30:49):
Yeah. Yeah. Well, well, we can hope the Green
Movement is dying. That's partof the point of this program.
It's not, we don't don't meanany any harm to anybody, but we
believe strongly that the truthwill set you free, and that's
what this program is about.
It'll set you free from our nextissue, which is defunding
climate anxiety. We do coverthis topic on this show quite a

(31:11):
bit. Hopefully, we won't have tocover it as much in the future,
but this is from the WashingtonPost. Trump's new reason for
canceling grants, climateanxiety. The decision coincided
with cuts to other federalclimate initiatives, a move that
could imperil a key reportdetailing the escalating effects
of climate change in The UnitedStates.
And this relates very well toour main topic for today. So let

(31:34):
me read a bit from this from theWashington Post. The Trump
administration administrationthis week offered a new reason
to stop climate change research.It scares children. Officials
cut $4,000,000 in funding to aclimate research center at
Princeton University that isaffiliated with the National
Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration, or NOAA.

(31:55):
Commerce Department officialswho oversee NOAA said that they
were canceling federal supportto several of the center's
projects that predict the waysglobal warmth will disrupt
Earth's systems. Theinitiatives, quote, are no
longer aligned, unquote, withagency objectives, the officials
said. The research, quote,promotes exaggerated and
implausible climate threatscontributing to a phenomenon

(32:17):
known as climate anxiety, whichhas increased significantly
among America's youth, unquote,said the Commerce Department
announcement. Quote, its focuson alarming climate scenarios
fosters fear rather thanrational balanced discussion,
unquote. Well done, CommerceDepartment.
But experts, according to theWashington Post, said canceling

(32:37):
support for one of the nation'stop climate modeling programs
would not make young people lessanxious about the changing
planet. It would just give themless information about the
threats they might face. Thecuts at Princeton also coincided
with changes to another federalclimate initiative, The US
Global Change Research Programthat could imperil a key report

(32:57):
detailing the escalating effectsof climate change in The United
States. Now, Lynnae, let mestart with you here. I mean,
because we've we've talked aboutclimate anxiety a lot on here.
And what we learned from thisstory is that climate anxiety is
made worse thanks to governmentgrants that the Trump
administration is now canceling.That's gotta be good news.

The well, I'll say this. The fact that the
experts, right, are coming inand saying, no, we actually do
want to to, you know, make kidsbelieve that we are experiencing
accelerating and advancing, youknow, catastrophic effects from
climate change is just kind of aroundabout way of them saying,

(33:44):
well, actually, we think thatthey should be anxious about it.
And they are them and the mediaare the reason why kids are this
terrified and this despondent.The the main issue is that they
are completely wrong about theimpacts of climate change and
the speed at which they occur.There is no reason to be in

(34:06):
despair over climate change.
I just think that they are someof the most disgusting people
out there. And to be to bereinforcing this, it's a it's a
death cult that is desperatelytrying to hang on to the
influence that they have. Icouldn't be happier than to see

(34:26):
it slipping away from them.

There is a dark cloud to this silver
lining, however. I saw anotherstory, and maybe we'll cover it
in future events, but it's tiedto this, that said the people
that suffer from climate anxietyare democrats in blue cities.
And there was an overlaid mapthat showed where there's no
anxiety, and it's all redcountry. And you see, so do I

(34:51):
really care that Democrats inblue cities or or do I want to
stoke their anxiety and, anddrive them to more despair? The
children, an awful thing, butbut, liberals in cities
suffering climate fear, I justfind that sort of funny.

Yeah. But they're, like, destroying
property and stuff over atSterling.

Yeah.

I mean

Well, but now but now they're getting
arrested for doing this. Findout.

Yeah. I guess the find out part is satisfying, but
it's still not good thatsomeone's, like, vehicle and
potentially home could bedestroyed by this.

Jim Lakely (35:25):
Yeah. Yeah. Well, there's two bits about this that
I want to ask Anthony about, andthat's, this idea that's put in
the story that this is going tobe giving, especially young
people, less information aboutthe threats they might face.
That's the definition ofscaremongering. There's no

(35:46):
reason to be telling themconstantly about the threats
they might face if the worstscenarios come true, which have
never come true in any of thepredictions they've made over
the last several decades aboutwhat they predicted for the
future.
And then secondly, Anthony, thisidea that refusing to
continually fund climate anxietyreports threatens the

(36:08):
advancement of science. Neitherof those things seem very
plausible.

Science has never been about anxiety. That's a
social issue. And I wanna goback to this map that we had up
a second ago and point outsomething. If you look at that
map where all the green is,where the high anxiety is, that
looks exactly, almost exactlylike the the voting map of the
twenty twenty four presidentialelection. Yep.

(36:35):
It seriously does. There aresome exceptions, of course, but,
you know, most of the anxiety isconcentrated in the blue cities
and the blue states. And that'sreally what's going on here. The
Democrats or the left, whateveryou want to call them,
progressives, have always beenabout emotion over facts. And

(36:55):
when you try to give them facts,it just, oh, my brain hurts.
I can't accept that. We're goingto die. That's all they want to
say. And so, you know, anxietybeing pushed is just a tool. And
that's all they're doing.
They're pushing it as a tool tomake people want to believe in
their cause, fund it, tax it,whatever it takes to make it

(37:17):
happen. But again, when you lookat the bottom line, we cannot
tax or worry the climate intosubmission.

Terry, Terry Barnes, he says maybe, I
think he was the one. Sosomebody in the in the chain
said we need a climate, anxietyvaccine, and we have one. We we
actually have two. They'recalled climate@aglance.com and

(37:45):
climaterealism.com. If you getyour daily it's a daily vaccine
in climate climate realism.
Climate at a glance is not, it'sone that can last a lifetime.

Jim Lakely (37:57):
The booster.

You go yeah. It's you get your booster
at climate realism and your yourvaccine at climate at a glance.
Go there, and you will beinoculated against climate
anxiety.

Jim Lakely (38:09):
Yeah. And this show, of course. Share them all over.
Share the show with your friendsand and spread good good climate
health to as many people aspossible. So, all right,
actually, is a great segue intoour main topic today because I
think this is happening on manyfronts.
And it's the idea that TheUnited States, under Trump's

(38:29):
leadership, is exiting theglobal climate alarm cabal. So
this story that prompted this tobe our main topic today, it's
going take a bit for me to setit up, but please be patient.
This is from ScientificAmerican. This is actually a
reprint from an E and E newsarticle from Scott Waldman, is
very familiar with the HeartlandInstitute, has covered, if you

(38:51):
want to call it that, several ofour climate conferences and
knows my email and phone number.Did not reach out to us for any
comment, but that's where it isanyway.
So this is, I think, veryencouraging news. Here we go
from the story. The Trumpadministration is dismantling a
thirty five year old effort totrack global climate change that

(39:13):
was used to shape regulationsand policies across the
government. Federal employees atThe U. S.
Global Change Research Programwere removed from their
positions on Tuesday, and agovernment contract with ICF
International, which hassupported the National Climate
Assessment for years, wassevered according to two former
officials who were grantedanonymity to avoid reprisals.

(39:35):
The move marks a key step by theadministration to undermine
federal climate research as itrolls back environmental
regulations and promotesadditional fossil fuel
production. Yeah, the typicalalarmist line. This program was
established by Congress in 1990and signed into law by President
George H. W.
Bush. Thank you very much. Inaddition to climate science,

(39:56):
focused on land productivity,water resources, fisheries,
ecosystems, and the atmosphere.Its most visible product was the
National Climate Assessment, acongress mandated report that
comes out every four years andis used to help shape
environmental rules,legislation, and infrastructure
projects. There's a little moreto it than that, and we'll get
to it in a minute.
The changes mirror the writingsof Russ Vogt, director of the

(40:18):
White House Office of Managementand Budget, who wants to
eliminate the program so itswork can't be used to bolster
federal climate regulations incourt battles. Vogt wrote a
chapter, oh my gosh, in projecttwenty twenty five, the
conservative blueprint that hasbeen closely followed by
president Donald Trump in whichhe outlined how to, quote,
reshape The US global changeresearch program and related

(40:41):
climate change researchprograms. All right, now here's
where the story gets veryinteresting and showing how this
program and the HeartlandInstitute, but this program in
particular has a lot ofinfluence. The story quotes
David Legates from this veryprogram from a few weeks back,
and they put this in theirstory. Here, I'll read from it.
Vote has been aided by DavidLegates, who briefly served as

(41:04):
head of USC GCRP in the waningdays of the first Trump
administration. Legates wasremoved from his post after he
attempted to publish researchpapers that questioned basic
climate science. Stop you rightthere. He did not try to publish
bad research. He wanted to havebalanced research.
It didn't question basic climatescience. It actually added to

(41:26):
basic climate science. Anyway,quote, take a look at The US
global change research programbecause that needs to be closed
down, lock, stock, and barrel,unquote, Legate said recently on
a podcast hosted by theHeartland Institute. Legate also
said on the podcast that ElonMusk's Doge had, quote, been
alerted to the need to eliminatethe program. Guys, isn't this

(41:51):
great?
This is the Heartland Instituteand this program, we're very
happy to be of service to ourcountry and to climate realism.
And thank you, Scott Waldman forincluding this. It would have
been great for another phonecall, but thanks for watching.
And I hope you'll leave acomment for us.

You know, if we were Michael Mann, there might
be some lawyers to talk to aboutthese kinds of comments.

Jim Lakely (42:16):
Is that right?

Or like Legates being smeared this way in this
publication. Yeah. But

I'm not sure he was removed. He moved to
the White House office and thenhe resigned. But but regardless,
the story is is I'm wondering ifif what Trump is doing, will
stick because as it said in thestory a couple of times, the

(42:45):
report itself is actuallyrequired by law. Now you can
defund the, the, consultants,the the multibillion dollar
consultants, Deloitte and, Iforget who else, that assemble
the report, that we we paybillions and billions of dollars

(43:05):
to to assemble the report. Andyou can stop the coordination
between the agencies thatthey've been doing to produce
the report, but a report isrequired by law.
So maybe the report comes outand says we have nothing new to
report since the last report, orwe've decided we can't trust any

(43:26):
of the model. One one sentence.We've decided we can't trust any
of the models or predictionsfrom the IPCC, so we can't do an
adequate assessment of, regionalUS greenhouse, you know,
impacts. But they have to issuea report. Now a lot of times
government agencies are slow toissue their reports and are late

(43:48):
in issuing, new rules.
So maybe that's what happens. Ijust what what he's disassembled
is who who produces the report.The report itself still has to
be done, so wonder how that'sgoing be handled.

Jim Lakely (44:02):
Well, Anthony, I to ask you about the history of the
National Climate Assessmentbecause that's what the big news
here is. As Sterling points out,it is required by law that we do
a national climate assessment.It's just like when you went to
the Fyre Festival, they wererequired by their contract to
give you a meal. And that mealended up being two slices of

(44:22):
Wonder Bread, a slice of cheeseand a tomato, a piece of tomato.
And that was dinner.
So technically, you were serveda meal. It was pretty crummy.
But talk a bit, if you could,about the history of the
National Climate Assessment, youknow, its quote unquote
scientific rigor and accuracyand its place in the climate
debate in the country andinternationally.

Well, this thing goes back all the way to, I
think, to around 02/2005 to02/2007. I don't know the exact
start date, Adam. I'm just goingfrom memory here. But it has
gotten increasingly alarmist asyears have gone by. It started
out being relatively fair, inits assessment, you know, kind

(45:03):
of balancing risk versusreality.
But it it kept getting more andmore alarmist, you know? And
then Noah started doing thingslike publishing a page called
billion dollar climatedisasters, and that became part
of it. You know, they wouldreference that, you know? And
then the words would be thingslike, well, you know, because of

(45:25):
billion dollar climate disastersthat are happening more and more
frequently. And that's how therhetoric kept getting ramped up.
And so it became so bad that Istopped reading them the last
couple of years. I mean, it wasalmost like, you know, before
we're talking about theprediction of what we could do
for a calendar for the comingyear. I could tell you almost
exactly what the climateassessment is going to be based

(45:48):
on what's happened in theprevious year. It was
predictable and it was tiringand it was the same old talking
points again and again and againwrapped up in a nice big pretty
bow with the word scienceattached to it. But mostly it
was about policy.
And so, it it became verytiring. And lots of people, I

(46:08):
think, shared the same kind ofviewpoint I did that it just
simply became so predictablethat it wasn't even worth
reading anymore. So to this, Isay good riddance. We don't need
it.

Jim Lakely (46:21):
Yeah. I mean, and mister Sterling, I mean, the
national climate assessment,can't they just issue a report
saying, no. The climate's fine.You know, there's your national
climate assessment. I mean,they're required by law.
There's nothing in the law thatstates exactly what that
national climate assessment muststate or how long it is or
what's cited in it. You know?Just say, hey. Everything's
cool. There you go.

Right. They could they they could even keep
the same chapters. They could,you know, they could go over the
past. They could take theirframework, and then under each
chapter, they could say, we findno disturbing trends here. And
then the next chapter, we findno disturbing trends here.
Agriculture. Oh, crops areincreasing. Crops continue to
increase. Lifespan. Deaths dueto cold are decreasing.

(47:05):
Deaths overall tied totemperatures and weather are
decreasing. They could do that.You're right. It doesn't specify
what the, you know, what thereporting must be, just that
they produce a report. So I'mwilling.
I would I would, I would have toresign from Heartland, but I'm
willing to take a fraction ofthe money they were paying

(47:27):
Deloitte and them, say$500,000,000, and produce the
next, climate assessment. Andthen after I've collected my
check, I'd come back begging forHeartland to take me back, or
maybe I'd just retire actually.

Jim Lakely (47:41):
Yeah. Well, bad news, Sterling. Unfortunately,
we can't spare you. So you'regonna have to remain with us.
That's just the way it goes.
Correct me if I'm wrong, anybodyin the group, but even the UN's
IPCC reports, the actualreports, the ones that are that
thick, are not nearly asalarmist as the quote unquote

(48:03):
summary for policymakers, tendto pick out worst possible
scenarios and give them to themedia and the press because a
lot of scientists that we workwith cite and I know you guys do
this too cite actual data fromthe IPCC reports themselves this
thick that show that, forinstance, trends in extreme

(48:23):
weather are not increasing andthings like that. So I don't
know, I know that a lot ofrealist data driven scientists
in the climate space that wedeal with a lot at the Heartland
Institute have been itching tokind of get their hands in
something like the NationalClimate Assessment, But it
appears like that's not going tobe the plan. The plan is just to

(48:43):
ignore it altogether and not doit. Yeah,

I would actually I would be in support of a
general aimed at the public likeclimate and weather education
program from the government topublish like, here's all the
data, actually. We're notskewing it in one direction or
the other in order to try andhide something or in order to

(49:07):
try and reinforce like a climatealarmist position. But just to
say, look, this is the state ofchanges that occur in average
weather patterns, mostly forbetter in the case of climate
change as it exists in the NorthAmerican continent. It's not

(49:29):
alarming. It would it would dowonders to tamp down a lot of
the fear mongering and the fall.
And it would it would actuallyit would be hard to refute. You
know, the the Michael Mans andthe Al Gores and all those kinds
of people can scream all theywant. But eventually, people are
gonna start to wonder like,Okay, so why are you trying to

(49:49):
remove information instead ofgiving all of the information?
You know, if you show if youhave your less of a like
projection into the future kindof an emphasis and more of a
this is what has happened in thelast, you know, two hundred and
some odd years. I think thatwould be actually useful so that

(50:14):
people can have like the contextof of the environment that they
live in, which I think is animportant thing to understand.
Obviously not if they're justgoing to use it and say the
billion dollar disasters thing,which is actually that is the
most by far the most offensivepart other than all projections
saying, you know, we're notgoing to tell you what the data

(50:36):
that exists says about what'shappened so far of all the
warming that we've had already.But we're just going to, like,
guesstimate into the future. Andthat's what we'll report on as
though it's said and done. Whatwould be I totally lost my train
of thought there. But anyway,would be interesting and useful

(50:57):
to actually have a report thathas all of the information so
that people don't freak outevery time there's a hurricane
or something.

I I'm gonna disagree with Lynea there. I I
hate to disagree with Lynea.

It's okay.

What I want what I would prefer is to have
the existing reports scrubbed

Yeah.

Thrown onto a a wood pile and burned, and no
new government reports. I don'ttrust government to do an
accurate assessment of theclimb, a fair, accurate, honest
assessment, and then teach it tochildren. I don't want the
federal I want the federalgovernment out of education. Now
that's my rant. I want them outof education.

(51:43):
I don't want them producingreport that then goes into
science classes because even ifthey got it right once, it
doesn't mean every other reportbecause reports never die. Just
like the national climateassessment every four years. I
don't trust the nextadministration, the next
congress to do an honest report.So I want them out of the game

(52:03):
altogether. I want the federalgovernment out of education
altogether, leave it to thestates, and the states can then
come to Heartland forinformation.

I wasn't I wasn't trying to say that this report
should be taught in, like,school curricula. I was just
saying you have NASA, you haveNOAA, you have these agencies
that collect satellite data andstuff. Why not just publish it?
Just Why you put the data up andput in your report?

Jim Lakely (52:33):
Anthony, you want to tie a bow on this, Boris?

You know, as I look at this, not just the
National Assessment Report, butall of climate science, I keep
going back to one famous phraseissued in the seventies with
Watergate, follow the money.Seriously, if you look at the
amount of money that's beenthrown at climate over the past

(52:56):
three decades or so, It'shumongous. It's mind blowing.
And more and more money. Theyneed more and more money for
more and more studies.
More and more, you know, data.Whatever it is. More and more
money. It was always the answer.And what has it done?
Nothing. If you look at the atthe curve of CO2, the Keeling

(53:17):
curve, it's still going up. Ithas not changed. They have not
had any effect whatsoever.Government has been completely
ineffectual at changing theclimate.
So shutting off the money tap isthe right idea, and good
riddance to the climateassessment report and all the
other ones associated with it.

Jim Lakely (53:39):
Well stated. Alright. Well, thank you thank
you everyone for getting usthrough those wonderful topics,
and thank you all for yourwonderful comments. A lot of fun
as well. It's time for the q anda part.
So, Lanea, why don't you take itaway?

Sure thing. You've got it. Alright. So we
have a very important questionthat we're gonna start this off
with, and it's one that I havebeen wondering for years as well
from Jeff who asks, where can weget a Heartland baseball cap
like Anthony's?

You know, we need a Heartland store now. We do.

Yeah. Jim, explain.

Jim Lakely (54:09):
Oh, well, yeah, we're actually out of those
Heartland hats. We've I guess weneed to start ordering some more
if we're gonna have people toget our merch. I hate that word
merch, but that's what that'swhat they say on YouTube
channels. So, yeah, we're gonnahave to step up our merchandise
game.

Absolutely. Alright.

I would like to have a hat made up that we could
sell that says make climategreat again. Cut off the money.

Yeah. Tom White says he has a request. He says,
please put dates on Climate at aGlance articles. Do you mean
climate realism articles orClimate at a Glance, Tom?
Because

well, climate a glance articles are dated.
That's for sure.

Jim Lakely (54:49):
Yeah. And that's that's by design. You know, it's
these are it's basicallyeverything you see at Climate at
a Glance is the the very latestscience and analysis of of the
data that is available. It'sconstantly updated.

It's all written documents. So I update these
frequently. So putting a date onit is counterproductive, really.

Right. Yep. So as long as the like charts on
Climate at a Glance are updated,that's kind of how you can tell
whether or not it's beenrecently updated as if the data
itself is. All right. So MichaelJohansson says if he doesn't oh,
if Michael Mann doesn't pay, howmany years in prison will he
get?
My guess is zero, unfortunately.What do you guys think?

Well, it's a civil suit, so I don't think
he could spend any time in jail.It was a lawsuit. Yeah. It was
not a criminal trial, even amisdemeanor criminal trial. So I
think the most they can do is isfine him.
Like I said, I at the outset, Ithink they should garnish his
wages. They should take hisassets, but it's a civil suit,
so no jail time.

Alright. Kite Man Music asks, will the time come
when worn out panels and windturbines are not replaced? The
time has already come. Yep. Thetime has come for for many, many
years as long as I can rememberin the Palm Springs area of
Southern California.

(56:15):
We we've driven past we'vedriven near the what casino is
it? Agua Caliente?

Wind farm.

Okay. Yeah. And those have been dead and still
for years and years and years.They just

In Hawaii, there's great pictures of wind
turbines in Hawaii that are justliterally falling apart. The
blades are falling off. The themetal towers are rusting. They
haven't functioned for years,and they're just sitting there.
In other places, you know, we'rewe're tearing them down.
We're trying to find places tostore them. We have a large,

(56:50):
well, Texas is pretty big, sonot large relative to Texas. But
a lot of acres being devoted tojust dumping wind turbine towers
and blades and, and used solarpanels are just sitting there
just taking up land. Now thosearen't all not being replaced.

(57:10):
That's the that you know, he'sright.
That's the goal, not to replacethem, to dismantle and, never
replace them again.

Right. Thank you. So this is a question on Rumble
from L. T. Oracle of Truth, whosays, when will Trump replace
our strategic oil reserve thatBiden drained?
I hope he's doing it right now.I haven't looked into it yet. I
tried to a little bit when I sawthe question come up, but I had
to bring some comments up andstuff. I couldn't go away from

(57:47):
the stream for too long. I don'tknow actually if he's doing it
now, but he better because oilprices have just taken a
nosedive in recent weeks.
So he better.

Jim Lakely (58:00):
Yeah. I think the price of a barrel of oil was
like 60 something bucks lastweek.

57 yesterday.

57 yesterday.

Yeah. I can pull it right now. I

Jim Lakely (58:11):
mean, what was it during the Biden administration?
Most of it was over $100

WTI is back up to $61 right now. So that's
unfortunate. From what I'veheard from a lot of drillers is
that they prefer it to stayaround the $70 mark. So they're
all kind of dooming right now.They're like, it's over.
We're done for. But it's justone of those things in the oil

(58:36):
field that it crashes and comesback up.

In answer to the question about the strategic oil
reserve, I'm sending ourproducer Andy a link where we
can see a chart. And it's beenvery slowly filling up. Oh, Over
time. Good.

Yep. There we go. There it is. Good. Good.

Jim Lakely (59:00):
Nice. See, that's the responsible thing to do.

Yeah. Yep. Filling it back up. We're good.
They should should make a bigpurchase like yesterday because
they

don't fill it slowly right now while the
prices are low. Fill it back.

Yeah. Imagine. Yeah. Poor Jacob Thibodeaux down
there. How are you doing?
I hope you're not laid off if Ithink you work in the oil field.
All right. So we have thisquestion from Chris Nisbet, who
says, Will the removal of theendangerment finding be the
straw that breaks the climatealarmism back? Anthony?

Oh, from a policy standpoint, probably. You know,
without that, all the policiesthat sprung forth from it are
gonna be at risk or reduced orwhatever. But as far as the true
believers are concerned, no,it's not gonna make a dent.
These folks don't deal withrational facts, and they're just

(59:58):
gonna continue to make climatethe biggest caterwauling event
they can possibly make it. Itjust, you know, burn Teslas,
whatever it takes.
We have to get attention becausewe want you to think like us.
That's the whole thing. Really,there's nothing else beyond
that. So I think, yeah, they'regonna continue. They're going to
get more shrill.

(01:00:19):
The rhetoric is going to getramped up. The ridiculousness is
going to get ramped up becausethey're going to try to recover
that attention that they used tohave. And so they're going to
have to make more and more crazyclaims in order to get
attention.

H. Sterling Burnett (01:00:32):
Well, the the endangerment finding is not
gone yet. It's it's actually,you know, a fair ways from being
gone. I would say if if it goesat all, it'll be a couple of
months or more. It is thefoundation for all most all
climate policy, so that willundermine that. But, of course,

(01:00:53):
what will happen is lawsuitswill be filed.
It'll be in court for theentirety, my suspicion, of the
Trump term. We'll see whathappens after. But, to some
extent, Anthony's right. Climatealarmism is not built on the
endangerment finding. It itpreexisted and drove the

(01:01:16):
endangerment finding.
When will climate alarmism go?My suspicion is is when they
find the next big issuecomparable that can be used to
take power from people and totake money from people. You
know, they're at the same timeas they're doing climate alarm,
they're also doing plasticsalarm. A lot of people don't
realize there's a big treatybefore the UN right now.

(01:01:41):
Archbishop for rent.
There you go. There's there's abig treaty right now that would,
sharply restrict the use ofplastics, and that would be
detrimental for society in theworld. But they'll find
something else. There there werethere were issues before climate

(01:02:03):
change. And if climate change isfinally if climate alarm is
finally defeated, they'll justmove on to the next big issue,
because it's it's never aboutclimate.
It's never about theenvironment. It's always,
always, always about power.

Anthony Watts (01:02:18):
Yep. It indeed is.

Jim Lakely (01:02:20):
Yeah. I mean, we we might bring this up on next
week's show, our friend SteveMalloy at JunkScience.com and
Junk Science on X, he has beenfocusing on the idea that, you
know, remember the Chevrondecision where the Supreme Court
said that anything that is notexplicitly laid out as a
congressional, you know, for anagency to do that's not
explicitly laid out in detail byCongress is not, valid. There is

(01:02:45):
talk that they're going to beenforcing and citing Chevron in
all sorts of different federalagencies, including EPA and
other climate stuff. So staytuned. We're going look more
into that, maybe talk about itnext week.

Linnea Lueken (01:02:59):
Yeah, it'll be great. I mean, I wonder what the
next, like, silent spring willbe. We'll see. We'll find out.
There's always gonna be somekind of a doomsday fad.
That's what I have come to theconclusion of. So maybe the
climate thing will end, butwe'll have something else to
fight over shortly. Okay. So wegot that. It is I too says, did

(01:03:21):
Trump stop funding the NGO forjust stop oil?
It is interesting timing, isn'tit? Yeah. A lot of these a lot
of those USAID groups werepretty much just front groups,
it appears, which is notsurprising, and people have
known that forever. So, yeah, Ithink Trump did stop funding
just stop oil.

Yeah. Yeah. I think the money that came from,
you know, EPA and other placesthat got clawed back somehow
found its way to these groups orwas going to be going to these
groups. And well, I think, yeah,the coincident it's more than a
coincidence.

Oh, there's another thing going on too that
we a little bit beyond thescope, but a lot of these
environmental groups were fundeddirectly or indirectly by
Russia, trying to block ourfracking development. They
wanted to rule the world withtheir oil. They wanted us to
decline. And so they werepromoting climate alarm. They

(01:04:14):
were promoting wind and solar.
Well, Russia didn't have a lotof money to fund a lot of,
things going on right now.They're they've got a a little
thing called a war going on, andtheir oil supplies, because of
the war are also beingdisrupted. So that money is not
flowing to those guys either.

Yeah. They're having a very, very bad time.
Let's see. Bob Johnson asks,should teachers be examined on
their STEM knowledge? Probably.
I don't know. What do you guyssay?

That's kind of outside of our wheelhouse here,
really.

Yeah. I mean, it depends. I there's plenty of
people who are homeschoolteachers who do just fine
teaching their kids science evenif they don't totally understand
it. So I wouldn't be too worriedabout it.

I would have to I would have to know
what all the all the STEM,requirements are because if it's
been bastardized like the, thenational science standards has
been on climate change, I wouldnot want them to to say, oh,
well, I've got STEM knowledge.It says climate change is a
disaster. And that's what I'msaying.

Yeah. It it depends on the on the materials
that they use because no teachercan be an expert in every
subject that they teach. It'sjust not possible. So, yeah,
maybe like basics exam. If youcan pass, like, a sixth grade
science test, then you can be ascience teacher.
But if you can't, then youcan't. That might be fair. All

(01:05:47):
right. So Walter oh, boy.Jacobowski.
Jacobowski. I'm sorry, Walter.We need someone with the
influence of Michael Crichton tochange the world to climate
realism. Realism? Could ElonMusk be our man and what are his
views on the climate issue?
Anthony, I saw I think the firsttime I ever heard of Elon Musk

(01:06:07):
was in some of your websites,articles, probably mostly by
David Middleton. I think he'sgot a bit of a spat with him,
especially over the, like, EVissue and some of the oil stuff.
Elon Musk is definitely or wasdefinitely on the climate alarm
side, but I think it might haveevolved in recent years.

Well, he's a smart man. He has a high IQ, and
he's also a pragmatic man. Imean, he's he's taken the
electric vehicle, of which therehave been dozens, if not
hundreds of failures bycompanies claiming to make that
world's best electric vehicle.And he's actually made one
that's been successful and wellaccepted. So I think if he were

(01:06:50):
to get behind climate change andpoint it out for what it is, he
would be a big help in in beingable to, stomp down some of the
alarmism.
Although based on what we'veseen with the reaction of
people, you know, to when hesays things that they don't
like, you know, the world mayreally be on fire after he
starts talking.

Well, Elon used to used to say all the time all the
time that his cars were, youknow, the development of Tesla
was important to saving theplanet. He didn't talk like that
anymore. I haven't heard himmention that anywhere in at
least a year. And so I considerthat a good sign, but he was at
least the most charitable he wasa passive climate alarmist

(01:07:33):
believer, but as you sayAnthony, he is a very very
intelligent man and maybe he isnow able to see the truth.

Well, as as as, racer Dave points out and
and Jason Isaac, who we've hadon our show, points out, whether
he's talking about it, he'sstill making a lot of money off
the climate grift. Right? Hesells carbon credits. Every
vehicle he he sells gets a lotof carbon credits that he can
then sell to Ford and GM for thecarbon dioxide they are

(01:08:05):
emitting. It's my understandingthat Tesla was only profitable
two years ago because of all thecarbon credits they could sell,
not based on the sales of theirvehicles.
So, he may not be talking aboutit, but until the carbon credit
thing goes away, he's stillprofiting from alarm. Yeah.

Although I do think that he recently said
something along the lines ofthat he wants all of the
subsidies gone for No. No.

He said he said he said take away the
$7,500 tax credit, but that'snot what I'm talking about.

Oh, yeah. So he might be being a little bit
sneaky with that.

Yeah. Every everybody gets the tax credit.
He he take that away. Thesmaller companies lose more than
he does, but they get somethingcalled a carbon credit that he
sells on the open market underprogram setup. And, that that
has nothing to do with that$7,500 tax credit.

He's doing so much good right now. Frankly, I'm
willing to look the other wayfor another year or two, to be
honest, for the greater good.

Chris says, you guys won't be needed if climate
alarmism dies. Let's hope youlose your jobs. Thank you,
Chris.

I told my mom that years ago. She used to
work she used to work for SocialSecurity before she retired. And
I said, mom, how does it feel?This is when I was working for
another organization. I said,mom, how does it feel to know
that I work for an organizationthat's trying to put you out of
work?
And she laughed. She thoughtthat was so funny. And she
looked at me and she said, son,do your worst. Because she knew
Social Security was gonnasurvive her. Climate alarm may

(01:09:46):
go away, but environmentalproblems, environmental alarm is
not going away anytime soon.

Right. And there will always be crazy people
writing stories for us to, youknow, make rebuttals on.

It's too well funded to have us go away. Believe me.

But but but we do hope. We do hope legitimately.

All

right. Diane, this was already addressed at
the beginning of the show. Sheasks, how do we watch in the
tank on Thursday? Did YouTubedrop it? No.
We were too busy to host ityesterday. We had way too much
going on at the office and someother stuff. Everyone had like a
million things in their plate,so we just decided to drop it
yesterday. It takes it doesn'tappear maybe on screen, but it

(01:10:31):
does take quite a significantbeforehand effort to put it
together and to prepare for itand everything. We just didn't
have the time.
So thank you, though. It warmsmy heart that people are asking
where we were. Right. RoxanneOil says, why does everyone
assume modest warming is not abenefit and not always a

(01:10:51):
disaster no matter how small thechange?

That's a tough one to answer. I I guess there's
this I think it had to do withwith Carl Sagan and and Venus,
early explorations of Venus. Ithink that's really where the
alarm got started about carbondioxide. There were stories

(01:11:16):
being published shortly afterthe Venus landings of probes
that, you know, they have suchamount of carbon dioxide, such a
large amount of carbon dioxidein the atmosphere, and there was
this runaway greenhouse effectthat was being talked about. And
this, remember, it's also in theera of nuclear winters and other
types of doomsday scenarios.
So the whole runaway greenhouseeffect took off as almost like a

(01:11:42):
meme in some ways. So I thinkthat influences the thinking
towards even that little bit oftemperature rise is a prelude to
disaster because once it getspast that tipping point, you
know, whatever the tipping pointis, five years out, ten years
out, fifty years out, whateverit is, we're gonna go into the
runaway greenhouse effect, andwe're all gonna roast. I think

(01:12:03):
that's where that comes from.

You gotta remember when the the godfather
of global warming, of c o twodriven global warming, Nobel
Prize winning physicist SvenArrhenius from the eighteen
hundreds, I think I pronouncedhis name correctly, he predicted
global warming. That's wheneveryone said, oh, they said he
says c o two is gonna drivewarming. He thought it's a

(01:12:26):
benefit. He said it'll youyou'll have more people fed.
It'll be good for us, a warming.
Can you imagine going back andtrying to convince, the Vikings
that a little bit of warming,would be a bad thing or, going
back even farther, say, to earlycivilizations as the glaciers
are still in evidence in a lotof places. Oh, you gotta stop,

(01:12:50):
doing what you're doing here.Modern agriculture is putting
out CO two. You're gonna theglaciers will disappear. Be be
it'd be like, the Monty Python'scharacters in in oh god, the
holy grail when brave sir Robingot killed, and there was much

(01:13:11):
rejoicing, with the warming.
It's only this very highlyeducated, very highly wealthy,
and very highly guilty, cup lastpast couple of generations for
their wealth, that somethingthat would have been considered

(01:13:33):
a blessing in any other epoch inhistory is considered a terrible
thing.

Yeah. I I would add too that I think that it
also plays a bit into thenatural human resistance to
change. Like people don't likechange. And so the idea that
like the environment around youmight change is very
uncomfortable. What was it thatthe the German council that came

(01:14:04):
up with the 1.5 degree thresholdstated in their documents where
they published that process ofcoming up with it, they stated
that their their goal was topreserve creation in its current
form, which is mad.
That's the quote that they thatthese German scientists and

(01:14:24):
economists and psychologists,for some reason, had with this
report that they put togetherthat all of the IPCC stuff was
based on and like the 1.5 degreewarming limit was based on was
preserving creation in itscurrent form, which is a
statement of nonsense and hubristhat I think is a little bit

(01:14:48):
confounding, actually. It's it'seven if you believe that human
use of fossil fuels iscontributing significantly to
the overall temperature of theplanet. To say that you want to
preserve all the way it is rightnow is an act it's impossible.
It's not even close to possible.

I I want to comment on that. A few years
ago, Stephen McEntire of ClimateAudit, came up with a phrase to
describe this. And, he actuallyused it with James Hansen of
NASA Gifts first because NASAyou know, Hansen said some
similar things. But now that youpointed it out about the Germans
and that 1.5 degrees andpreserving creation, what

(01:15:34):
McIntyre said was these peoplehave Jorrel syndrome. Now I
don't know if you know who JorEl is, but if you if you are a
Superman fan and you go back tothe comics, you know, at the
very beginning, the father ofSuperman, Jor El, puts his baby
son into this rocket to shootoff from the planet Krypton to
preserve the legacy of Krypton.

(01:15:55):
And and that's really what thesefolks are trying to do. They're
trying to preserve the Earth'slegacy by doing these things.

But it's it's but it's it comes it it
stems a lot of that stems fromearly ecology where they
believed ecosystems or orecological niches. They reached
a state called the climax statethat they would they would stay
in forever. And the problem isthat's just BS. They no place
ever stays in a specific stateforever. And so they're always

(01:16:24):
picking and choosing.
They they think of themselves asgods, and they know this
particular time, this particulartime slice of history is the
perfect time slice for all ofthe earth, for all of humanity.
And if we can only keep it righthere, you know, if it was
Goldilocks, it's just right now.It's not too hot. It's not too

(01:16:47):
cold. This is where we want itto be.
And if we can just keep it thatway, like, under a bubble, but
that's not how the environmenthas ever worked. Early colleges
were wrong, and these idiots inGermany are wrong.

Right. Well, we have a couple more questions,
but I think we're gonna leave itthere because, we are really
trying not to run an hour and ahalf every single week. We keep
failing at that mission becauseyou guys have such good
questions, and we have a lot offun engaging with you all. So
I'm sorry for the ones that wedid not get to this week. We
really appreciate it anyway.

(01:17:22):
Jim, I am tossing it back toyou.

You're muted, Jim.

Pulling a Jim. And we finally got Can't go a
single show without it.

Can't go through a single show without Jim pulling
a Jim. Alright. Well, I wasmeant to say, if you could read
lips, you watched me say thankyou so much everybody for
listening to this week's TheClimate Realism Show. We
especially wanna thank those ofus who view us live every week
on YouTube and Rumble, thechannels of the Heartland
Institute. I wanna thank LaneaLucan, Anthony Watts, and the

(01:17:58):
archbishop of Renterbury,Sterling Burnett, for joining us
today.
Always visit climaterealism.comevery single day. Visit
climate@aglance.com. Go towhat's up with that. And also,
of course, go to heartland.orgwhere you can subscribe to the
archbishop of Brantaberry'sclimate change weekly
newsletter, which is deliveredto your inbox if you sign up for

(01:18:20):
free almost every single Friday.Thank you all for being here,
and we will talk to you nextweek.
Bye bye.

How dare you?

All Episodes

US Exiting the Climate Alarm Cabal — The Climate Realism Show #153

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Dateline NBC

24/7 News: The Latest

Therapy Gecko

.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;}US Exiting the Climate Alarm Cabal — The Climate Realism Show #153