Where Are All the Hurricanes? (Guest: Joe Bastardi) — The Climate Realism Show #177 - Heartland Daily Podcast

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:04):
One of the most urgent tasks of our country is
to decisively defeat the climatehysteria hoax.

Linnea Lueken (00:12):
We are in the beginning of a mass extinction.

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

Anthony Watts (00:22):
The price of oil has been artificially elevated
to the point of insanity.

Sterling Brunetts (00:26):
That's not how you power a modern
industrial system.

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

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

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

Jim Lakely (00:56):
That's right, Greta. It is Friday. This is the best
day of the week and not justbecause the weekend is almost
here. This is the day theHeartland Institute broadcasts
the climate realism show. Myname is Jim Lakeley.
I'm executive vice president ofthe Heartland Institute and your
host. Heartland is anorganization that has been
around for forty one years, andwe are known as the leading

(01:16):
global think tank pushing backon climate alarmism. Heartland
and this show bring you thedata, the science, the truth to
counter the climate alarmistnarrative you've been fed every
single day of your life. Thereis nothing else quite like the
climate realism show streaminganywhere, so I hope you will
bring friends to view thislivestream every Friday at 1PM

(01:36):
eastern time. And also like,share, and subscribe, and leave
your comments underneath thevideo.
All of these very easy to dothings help convince YouTube's
algorithm to smile upon thisprogram, and that gets it in
front of even more people. Oh,and as a reminder, big tech and
the legacy media are not veryappreciative of the way that we
cover climate and energy on thisprogram, so Heartland's YouTube

(01:58):
channel has been demonetized. Soif you wanna help this program,
and I really hope you do, pleasevisit heartland.org/tcrs. That's
heartland.org/tcrs, and you canjoin other friends of this
program who help support it sothat it comes to the world every
single week. And we also wannathank our streaming partners,

(02:18):
Jungscience dot com, CFACT,What's Up With That, The c o two
Coalition, and Heartland UKEurope.
We have an enormous show today.So much to pack in, so let's get
started today. We have with us,as usual, Anthony Watts. He's a
senior fellow at The HeartlandInstitute and publisher of the
world's most viewed website onclimate change. Well, what's up

(02:38):
with that?
We have Sterling Burnett. He'sthe director of the Arthur b
Robinson Center on Climate andEnvironment Policy at the
Heartland Institute. And, ofcourse, Lynea Lucan, research
fellow for energy andenvironment policy at Heartland,
and Andy Singer is our wonderfulproducer behind the curtain
making sure all of this looksand flows great. And we are so
happy to welcome back to theprogram Joe Bastardi, big Joe

(02:59):
Bastardi. He's the chiefforecaster at WeatherBell, world
famous hurricane guy, and a verypassionate weather geek.
Welcome back to the show, myfriend.

Joe Bastardi (03:08):
Well, it's great to be back. It's always an honor
to be on with you folks. Youknow, anytime I do anything with
Heartland, you could tell I'msmiling over here just just puts
a lot of joy in my heart. So Iappreciate you guys letting me
hang out with you for a while.

Jim Lakely (03:26):
Great. It is our pleasure again to have you back.
And, you know, we wanna talkabout the hurricane season,
which we're gonna get to herevery soon in this program. But
without further ado, let's startas we always do with the crazy
climate news of the week. Hitit, Andy.

(03:54):
Yes. Thank you very much, BillNye. And so another climate nut
turns out to be an arsonist.Andy, there's slide three on our
slideshow today if you wanna putthat up on the screen. Anthony
Watts shared this with sharedthis with us this week.
There it is. Yeah. What youthink. So what you think climate

(04:15):
change looks like and whatclimate change actually looks
like, this poor soul. So, you'veprobably all heard about this
this week, the, horriblePalisades fire.
An arrest was made this week.Let me fill in some of the
details for you in case you'renot familiar. This comes
directly from our United StatesDepartment of Justice. On the
evening of 12/31/2024, RinderNecht was working as an Uber

(04:39):
driver. Two passengers that hedrove on separate trips between
10:15PM and 11:15PM.
That night, later told lawenforcement that they remembered
Rinder Necht appeared agitatedand angry. After dropping off a
passenger in Pacific Palisades,Rinder Necht, who once lived in
that neighborhood, drove towardsSkull Rock Trailhead, parked his
car, attempted to contact aformer friend, and walked up the

(05:02):
trail. He then used his iPhoneto take videos at a nearby
hilltop area and listen to a rapsong to which he had listened
repeatedly in the previous daysand whose music video included
things being lit on fire. At12:12AM on 01/01/2025,
environmental sensing platformsindicated the Lachman fire had
begun. During the next fewminutes, Rinder Neck called 911

(05:26):
several times but didn't getthrough because his iPhone was
out of cell phone range.
Rinder Neck then fled in his carpassing fire engines driving in
the opposite direction. He thenturned around and followed the
fire engines back to the scenedriving at a high rate of speed.
Rinder Neck walked up the sametrail from earlier that night to
watch the fire and thefirefighters. Geolocation data

(05:47):
from Rinder Neck's phone, iPhonecarrier showed that he was
standing in a clearing 30 feetaway from the fire as it rapidly
grew. Now this fellow isapparently also, he was gonna
have another story we're gonnaput up on the screen here from
Breitbart.
The alleged arsonist was alsoapparently indoctrinated into
climate alarmism and also hatedDonald Trump. What a shock. Read

(06:09):
a little bit from here. Anexclusive report for the New
York Post probed Rinder Neck'ssocial media post showing he
allegedly ranted on Facebookabout a coming eco apocalypse
while mocking president Trumpand encouraging people to become
vegans. One article he shared,quote, climate change will force
a new American migration,unquote, from ProPublica, a left

(06:30):
wing outfit, even included athumbnail showing wildfires
raging across a Californiahillside neighborhood, and that
twenty twenty story opened bydiscussing West Coast
temperatures.
I bring all of this up, and Ithank you for your patience. I
think it's important to get allthat background. But when this
fire broke out in January anddevastated and destroyed Pacific

(06:56):
Palisades, Everybody was quick Ishould say everybody. Everybody
left was very quick to blameclimate change for this. Slide
four, if you would, Andy, on theslideshow shows examples of the
the headlines that we saw backthen and that climate change had
had, had created all of thesethings.
So, Lynne, I wanna start withyou. As I mentioned, governor

(07:18):
Gavin Newsom in Californiablamed climate change for this.
Bernie Sanders blamed climatechange for this. And as you can
see, many, many publicationsblamed climate change for this,
but it was instead one left wingclimate alarmist nut job with a
with a mental issue that causedbillions in damage, destroyed
neighborhoods probably forever,and killed dozens of people.

Well, sure. I mean, I I think that the the
smarter people on the other sideof this issue wouldn't say that
climate change was the spark forthe fire, but they would argue
that the, like, unseasonably drywinter that led up to it was
caused by climate change, whichis false. It's it wasn't it was

(08:00):
unseasonably dry the this pastOctober or last year's October
through December, January, whichis California's kinda, like, wet
season in that part of thecountry. But and it was
unusually dry. Things were driedout, but it's happened before.
It wasn't unusual. What ended uphappening was this guy set a

(08:22):
fire on the very same day that,like, the perfect conditions for
spreading a very severe wildfirewere in place. You know, they
had a bad, what they call theSanta Ana winds that were
kicking up. They had, you know,a week or so without rain, so
things were kinda dried out. Andeven if the entire season hadn't
been less with, you know, lessprecipitation than they normally

(08:47):
would get, Even one week isplenty enough.
Even just, like, a couple daysis plenty enough without rain to
dry out the kind of scrubbygrasses and stuff that they have
there. So to to blame this onlong term climate changes, bunk.
But I would say that they Idon't think that anybody thinks
that the, like, fire originpoints are caused by climate

(09:08):
change, but the spread of it,they'll they'll try to claim is.

I you know, there are a lot of other factors
that went in. First off, yougotta remember, California is
mostly desert. People live therewhere they didn't live in the
numbers, historically. It wasone of the least populated
regions in the entire country atEuropean landfall because there
wasn't water. So we've made thedesert bloom like a rose with

(09:34):
dams, across west.
It also that region had a coupleof really good high moisture
years previously, which meant alot of brush grew up, was not
managed well, was not maintainedbecause California doesn't like
to maintain things. They like tolet nature take its course. So

(09:58):
when it did dry out, when the,when the rain stopped and the
weather came back to its norm,hot and dry for a desert, and
dried out the, vegetation, itwas ripe for catching fire real
quickly. And with the Santa Anawinds, those drive wildfires.
It's in the first time Santa Anawinds have driven wildfires.

(10:20):
It just happened to be in LAthis time. So, you know, a lot
of factors, none of which haveto do with climate change. And
what, what's interesting youknow, not interesting, sad here,
a, he was a Democrat, a liberalradical Democrat. B, he was a
climate economist, and yet hewas the climate he was the

(10:42):
cause. And, c, he's a vegan, sohe he he's supposed to love
animals.
I wonder how many thousands ofanimals died as a result of his
vile act. You know? And and, youknow, you you I'm sure some deer
died, some, you know, maybe somemountain lion, but also just

(11:03):
lots of maybe endangered jumpingmice that couldn't get away from
the flames. Things that they'vebeen trying to protect in
California. He's out theredestroying them while he's
saying, oh, don't eat meat.
That's cruel.

Yeah. They it's interesting.

Burning animals alive is cruel.

I put something on CFAQ after yeah. You know, some
of this stuff is like shootingfish in a barrel. I simply got
the eight biggest Californiawildfires in the last fifty
years and showed the 500millibar patterns. Every single
one of them is a big upper airhigh sitting over Washington
state and creates the easterlyflow is, easterly flow is

(11:43):
evident till ten, fifteenthousand feet, and it comes down
off the mountains and produces aSanta Ana. And they do this
stuff all the time.
So it's unbelievable that yougotta give one thing. They're
relentless.

Yeah. Well, as a former California resident, I
can tell you that looking at thenews media over the past ten
years, every time there's anykind of a weather event or a
fire event, whether it's toodry, too wet, too much snow, too
little snow, whatever it is, themedia in California, in
particular, immediately rushesto blame climate change. And

(12:23):
without exception, they arewrong every time. And yeah. But
that doesn't stop them fromcontinuing to do it.
They don't learn one damn thing.

Well, I think they I think they do. I think they
do, Anthony. They just lie. Youknow, you guys, especially over
the past five to seven yearshave seen me link. You know, I I
think there's, you know, a aspiritual aspect to this.
There's a lot of evil. The thepeople aren't evil, but there's
some kind of evil going aroundtoday that makes it acceptable

(12:56):
to just lie because you believeyou have a greater truth than
the person next to you. So Ijust think they lie. They can't
be they can't be that ignorant.I mean, I just wrote something
about the pope blessing a 22,000year old piece of Greenland ice.
I would I would very upset aboutthat because that poor piece of

(13:17):
Greenland ice lived there fortwenty two thousand years, and
someone took that ice andbrought it to Ice has feelings
too. And I'm not talking aboutthe ice thing.

Oh, no. Ice has feelings too. Alright. I'm
signing off. I

But, you know, I I we commented on that
last week. And and

Oh, I'm sorry. I was here.

People said, oh, well, you know, the pope the
popes bless these things all thetime. It's like, look. I think
that's ridiculous. They're notinsult. They don't need
blessings.
God created them. That's liketaking a bucket of sand from the
Sahara and saying, I bless thisbucket of sand. It's it's

I I wrote I wrote a thing on CFAQ, a blog on CFAQ.
You know, I'm a big fan ofWilliam f Buckley. And, you
know, he always talks about whenwhen the popes get one foot in
the city of God and one foot inthe city of man, they're gonna
get ripped apart. So I didn'tmean to get us over to the pope
over here. So, Jim, take backover again.

(14:20):
This is what happens when I'm onno. Everything just becomes
chaotic.

But you're right about this, though, Joe.
Evil is is out there. There's alot of it. And the but it but
the lying the the the noble liegoes back at least to Plato. He
described it well.
People who think that they knowwhat's best for the world, they
have special insight. And I lookat that guy, and I don't see

(14:47):
someone who has special insight.But they they think they have
special insight. So it's okayfor them to do evil things and
lie and tell you that it's foryour own good.

Yeah. Yeah. I agree with you.

Jim Lakely (15:02):
Alright. Let's let's let's move on here. We're going
to go to item number two. Andthis we came across this this
week. Actually, I found it on x.
This is a story from BloombergNews with the headline. I
couldn't resist. Headline is achart climate denialists can't
ignore. Alright. Well, we rejectthat characterization, but not
the challenge.

(15:22):
Alright. He writes, this and theauthor of this is, is an opinion
writer who concentrates onclimate issues as an opinion
writer, I guess. He writes,every now and then you come
across a piece of evidence thatfeels strong enough to cut
through the noise and changeminds. Zeke Housefather, a
climate scientist at BerkeleyEarth, recently produced a stark

(15:45):
illustration of just how quicklythe planet is heating up as a
result of the greenhouse gaseshumans pump into the atmosphere.
It's a chart published in hisSubstack newsletter, the climate
brink, breaking down thepercentage of the world's land
that has experienced its hottestmonth on record in each decade
since the eighteen seventies.
That's quite the claim. Itreveals that very little of our

(16:06):
land surface experienced suchrecords before the twentieth
century. In contrast, roughly78% of his temperature records
in the twenty first century and38% of records in the twenty
twenties despite the fact thatthe decade is only halfway done.
He writes once more with fewernumbers, the world is getting
hotter and fast. And, I thinkthe one it might be the chart

(16:29):
above that one that he he shows,and then he shows that one right
there.
So that's fine, Andy. We had aresponse to this. I figured that
we must have a response to thisat our climate realism website,
and Anthony Watts did one. Hehas a he has a post today just
posted this morning says, no,Bloomberg. One chart does not

(16:49):
provide the world not prove theworld is getting hot fast.
Okay, Anthony. Challengeaccepted. Walk us through.

Well, they've got one graph that we can't deny
supposedly. I have three. Solet's take a look. Let's scroll
down a little bit, Andy. Let'sgo to the first graph.
Scroll down. Scroll down. Keepgoing. There it is. Okay.
So this is the annual heat waveindex in The United States. And

(17:19):
this is extracted from NOAAUSHCN data. It was compiled by
the EPA and our world and dataalso took that same data and put
it together. And the bottom lineis is that in terms of heat
waves in The United States,well, all of that occurred
during the Dust Bowl period ofthe nineteen thirties. And we
are not seeing an increase inheat waves, which basically

(17:41):
translates to a lack of newrecords and so forth too.
We're not seeing a whole lot ofnew records presently, although
that graph that they showedmight be factually accurate. But
what's missing from it and let'sgo back to their original graph,
Andy. Scroll back up. There thegraph that they presented shows

(18:01):
this, you know, hockey sticklike jump. Go back up, Andy.
That's the blue one. There wego. That one there. So, you
know, it's just like man'shockey stick. And so what's
going on here?
Well, yes, there are new climaterecords being set. But are they
real? No. We've got so much biasassociated with a station

(18:22):
signing that I've proven over90% of all the weather stations
operated by NOAA in The UnitedStates are biased and cited
improperly. They are biased tothe warm side.
So when they're biased to thewarm side, no surprise that
they're gonna set new record.The second thing going on is
UHI. There's a tremendousincrease in UHI throughout not

(18:42):
just The United States, but theworld, and, we see so many more
weather stations in cities thanwe do in rural communities. For
example, the majority of citytemperature measurement stations
are at airports. You know,they're out in the middle of the
tarmac and the asphalt, and thenyou aviation has grown.
There's more waste heat. There'smore asphalt. There's more

(19:04):
tarmac. There's more terminals.All this stuff contributes to
higher temperature records.
So, yeah, there's the that data,and it may be plotted
accurately. But is it reallyrepresentative of client of of
climate? No. Not at all. Let'sgo further down, Andy, just to
the second graph after the firstone.
Not that one, the next one.There it is. Now this is the US

(19:24):
climate reference network. Thisis a pristine set of temperature
stations that are sited awayfrom human influence. I've
visited a number of these.
Not that one. It's the otherone. Thank you. The this is a
record of the high temperaturesrecorded by the USCRN in The
United States. It's a network ofa 114 stations that are state of

(19:46):
the art and pristinely cited.
Where's the big increase? Notthere. Gosh. Why? Well, because
it's away from the humaninfluence.
It's away from the UHI. It'saway from the badly cited
situations. They're not there.That is representative of
climate, not their graph. Andnow the final graph, and this

(20:08):
one is from our friend ChrisMarch.
This graph, you also uses UHHCMdata, and there it is right
there. And it shows the numberof days above 95 degrees, 100
degrees, or a 105 degrees in TheUnited States. Now if in fact we
were getting hot fast, like theysay in the headlines, we would

(20:31):
not see a flat line like that. Imean, look at the look at the
days above a 105. That's flat.
The days above a 100, alsopretty much flat. Yeah. There's
some little spikes in there.But, again, the biggest spikes
were all of these hot days backin the nineteen thirties. So
three graphs to theirs, we win.

Well, and if you and if you take the if you
drew a trend line, I suspectacross that, what you'd find is
a declining trend. I mean, lookat where the spikes are. It's
the thirties, maybe the fifties.It's it's too small for me to
see them all, but, all thetemperatures all these
temperatures here, you know, inthe past are higher than they

(21:14):
are right now.

Right. But they wouldn't draw a trend line for
that because that'sinconvenient.

Yeah. Well, I what's there is more water vapor
in the air, so a lot of thewarming is from nighttime lows
also, which would go with theUHI. I mean, here, if you're
gonna increase the dew point ofthe atmosphere, it effectively
puts a cap on how low thetemperature could go. But it
also means that you get clouddevelopment quicker, and it's a

(21:44):
sign that the mid and upperlevels of the atmosphere are
certainly not warming up thatfast because if they were
warming if they if they werewarm if they were warming, we'd
be able to get the hottertemperatures, but they're not.
So you get a lot of cloudformation.
You can get more rain. You getmore precipitation. And the the

(22:05):
range it's actually opposite ofwhat they say. The range in
temperatures from nighttime lowsto daytime highs has actually
been decreasing. So you mighthave a higher mean temperature,
and what they love to do is, asour good friend Chris Martz says
is he said several times, I'veused to say it also, 60 degrees
is not hot.

(22:26):
59 is not hot. They go hottestever. It was 59.4. And I'm like,
who goes swimming at fifty ninepoint four? So, it's it's it's
another one.
Coach KL Sanderson here at PennState has a saying, so what?
Right? Something happens and hegoes, well, so what? Like, if
it's this hot, look where lookwhere human beings are today.

(22:49):
Look at the progress man hasmade.
So if it's fifty nine fourinstead of fifty nine two or
whatever the heck it's supposedto be, so what?

Yeah. You know? But that's the problem with the
the climate alarm is a media.They look at these highly
magnified, you know, wiggles intemperature. You know?
They look at these anomaliesbetween fifty nine point four
and fifty nine point eight, youknow, and they amplify that into
graphs that shoot up.

What's funny is our success as a planetary
species for instance, we haveair conditioning. You're a
Washington Post writer. You gointo work at 07:30. It's 74,
seventy five degrees, two pointsixty nine, alright. You're in
an air conditioning office allday.
You come out. It's 92 over 74.Oh my gosh. This is unbelievable

(23:42):
how hot it is. Right?
Same person working in the 19fifties with no air
conditioning. Right? It's sowhat? So a lot of this is
because we acclimate ourselvesto the nice cooler conditions in
our buildings that, that fossilfuels have helped produce, then
we come out and start screamingabout how hot it is. I have

(24:04):
climate anxiety.
I can't stand it. We'll get mycar. I gotta the windows weren't
even rolled down. It's just aterrible, terrible burden that
we all have to continue to bearas human beings because of point
two or three Celsius warmer thanwhat it was fifteen years ago or
whatever. It's horrible.
It's a horrible thing.

Jim Lakely (24:23):
Indeed. Alright. Well, good good good commentary
and good debunking of that,Anthony Watts. Then you can go
to climaterealism.com. That'sour website that has stories
just like that every single weekthat debunk what you see in the
mainstream media with actualfacts and not alarmism.
Alright. Let's go to our nextstory. Are inhalers causing

(24:45):
climate change? This comes fromCBS News. Headline, inhalers
produce as much carbon emissionsas over 500,000 cars each year,
study finds.
In I'll read from it here. I'llread read it here for you guys.
Inhalers that provide fastacting treatment for people with

(25:05):
certain respiratory conditionsand are contributing to
greenhouse gas emissions, whichcan worsen both climate change
and the conditions themselvesaccording to new research. In
the study published Monday inthe Journal of the American
Medical Association, researchersfound inhalers approved for
asthma and chronic obstructivepulmonary disease or COPD

(25:26):
generated an estimated24,900,000 metric tons of carbon
dioxide equivalent emissions inThe United States from 2014 to
2024. This is the equivalent tothe emissions of about 530,000
gas powered cars each yearaccording to the study.
Quote, scaled across tens ofmillions of inhalers dispensed

(25:48):
annually, these emissions driveglobal warming, exasperating the
very respiratory conditionsinhalers are meant to relieve,
authors of the supplementaleditorial note of, of the
findings. Twenty eight millionAmericans have asthma, and
thirty four million have chroniclung disease according to the
Asthma and Allergy Foundation ofAmerica. These cases are
expected to grow as climatechange makes air pollution

(26:10):
worse, increasing the risk ofand severity of symptoms. Now,
Sterling Burnett, you picked outthis story for the show today,
and you think this is not justsilly, but maybe a little bit
evil. Explain.

Well, I you know, the group doesn't call
itself this, but I think theyshould call themselves doctors
for, population decline becausethey wanna kill people. I'm
sorry. There's no evidence, noevidence whatsoever, that higher
c o two emissions are makingpeople sick. But there's a lot

(26:44):
of evidence that if you takeaway their inhalers or if you
make them less effective, peoplewill die from asthma and COPD.
They have to breathe.
I'm sorry. They made theseinhalers worse a few years ago
when they took out the CFCs thatused to power them. They made
them less effective. All tofight the ozone hole. So let's

(27:05):
kill a few people to fight theozone hole.
Let's kill a lot more to fightclimate change. That's what
these doctors are saying. Wewell, let's not use these
things. And the the claim thatthese things are causing climate
change, first off, you can'tshow that automobiles are
causing climate change. Youcan't show that one small

(27:26):
segment, you know, proportionalI think Anthony did the the
calculation.
It you know, there's severalthere's 1,600,000,000 cars or so
on Earth. This amounts to 500thou emissions from 500,000
cars. So it's a a minusculepercentage, and cars are a

(27:46):
percentage of, the c o twoemissions overall. It's it's
it's a ridiculous and dangerouseditorial. I say, again,
editorial.
It's not a study. And theopinions of these doctors,
they're dangerous. I wouldn'twant them near anyone I loved

(28:07):
treating them for illness ifthey think climate change is
more dangerous than goingwithout an inhaler.

Yeah. I I it's inhalers. The exhalers are the
ones that are causing theproblems. We exhale a 100 times.
I just stole that from, one ofthe other people that, that
just, chatted in.
I saw what he said. He's exactlyright. It's the our lungs hold,
all that c o two. So here's whatyou gotta do. You gotta try to

(28:35):
hold your breath thirty to fortyfive seconds out of every minute
starting now.

But you're right about one thing, Joe. The
exhalers that are dangerous arethe ones that wrote this
editorial and the ones thatallowed it and the ones that
allowed it to be published.

Jim Lakely (28:51):
Hey. We finally found a way to get jump and
started to stop talking. Hey.This is a great study.

Anthony? What?

Jim Lakely (29:01):
I kid. I kid. I kid. Alright. Anthony, you wanted to
jump in here?

Yeah. I did. I mean, this really boils down to
simple mathematics, and I puttogether the math. I did the
math. Here it is.
As of January 2025, estimatesfrom Hedges and Company put the
total number of vehicles in theworld at about 1,644,000,000.
Other sources say 1,500,000,000.So we'll use 1.644. Divide that

(29:26):
by 500,000, the total number ofcars that supposedly these
inhalers make emissionsequivalent to. We do that
division, and we get that tinynumber of point zero zero zero
three zero four one three six.
Multiply that times a 100 to getthe percentage, and ta da.
500,000 cars or the equivalentof the inhalers impact represent

(29:50):
point o three percent point o 3%of the number of cars on Earth.
And, of course, if we removeinhalers, that'll make a huge
difference.

Jim Lakely (30:01):
Yep. It it it

just Even

if you believed even if you believed
every molecule of c o two wasdriving warmer temperatures,
which I don't think we can say,honestly.

Yeah.

Jim Lakely (30:14):
Yep. That's that's a 100% true. And, you know, there
was just a part of this we'llmove on to the next moment.
There was a part of the storythat, you know, they again, it's
there's this conflating ofcarbon dioxide emissions with
air pollution. That's why peopleneed these inhalers because of
air pollution.
Well, carbon dioxide is not airpollution. They're talking you

(30:35):
need an inhaler if you haveasthma and other chronic lung
diseases, not because there is athere is a slight increase of c
o two in parts per million overthe last five years. That's not
why you have asthma or COPD, andit's not air pollution.

So. Well, but but even air pollution is not
necessarily the cause of asthma.

Right. Most sure.

A lot of allergies in COPD, COPD, a lot
of them come from smokers, but alot of them come from allergies,
allergens in the air. We don'ttypically think of pollen as air
pollution because it's notemitted by humans, but that
causes a lot of or dander frompets, from animals.

Jim Lakely (31:14):
100%. Alright. Listen. We have a lot to get
through here. I do do wanna getto our main story here, but we
have one extra crazy climatenews of the week, and this is
actually a kind of a check-in ona prediction.
Strong tornadoes are still rare,apparently, when we were told
they wouldn't be. Anthony Wattshad had decided or thought we

(31:35):
might wanna talk about the thisthis week. This is from CNN. The
first e f five tornado to strikeThe US in over a decade was just
confirmed by experts. I'll reada bit from it.
A rare monstrous e f fivetornado that struck The United
States more than three monthsago was the first of its kind in
more than a decade. A tornadothat roared through parts of

(31:56):
Eastern North Dakota in June andkilled three people was upgraded
Monday to an e f five with windsgreater than 210 miles per hour,
the National Weather Service inGrand Forks, North Dakota
confirmed. E f five tornadoespack winds of at least 201 miles
per hour and, are the highestlevel of the enhanced Fujita

(32:16):
scale, the scale used todetermine tornado strength.
Tornadoes this strong are rare.Only 60 tornadoes of e f five
strength, including this one,have been recorded since 1950.
Despite the rarity of such amonster, the fact that there
hadn't been an e f five tornadoin more than a decade didn't sit
right with some scientists. Astudy released in August dove

(32:38):
into this so called e f fivetornado drought and posited the
lack of these high end ratingshad more to do with potentially
imbalanced damage to the ratingscale than the power of the
twisters themselves. The Auguststudy argued that adjusting the
definition of an e f fivetornado down slightly to a 190
miles per hour would result inan e f five frequency that's

(32:59):
more consistent with decadespast. Well, gosh. You think?
You lower you lower standards,you get more of what you want.
Yeah. Now, Anthony, youmentioned here that there are
some headlines were telling uspretty recently that this
shouldn't have been a rare e ffive tornado. We should have had
plenty of e f five tornadoes.Time Magazine 2014, extreme

(33:20):
tornado outbreaks are on therise, study says.
ABC News 2023, is tornado alleyshifting due to climate change?
Scientists explain how warmingclimate affects tornado
activity. Washington Post 2025,March was an active month for
tornadoes again. Here's why.AccuWeather had a headline in
2025, how climate change isinfluencing tornadoes.

(33:42):
Weather forecast now this year,how climate change is shaping
tornado patterns in The US.Climate control journal this
year, will tornadoes get worsewith climate change? And
finally, with Climate Cosmosalso this year, Tornado Friends,
is climate change creating moredangerous storms? Anthony, this
seems like yet anotherprediction in the wind.

Yep. Absolutely. Well, you know, it's just
amazing how much they will gofor trying to link worsening
weather to climate change. Andevery time you scratch the
surface of this and you don'thave to look really hard. You
don't even have to be ameteorologist to figure this
stuff out.
All you have to go do is look atsome data and some of the

(34:25):
headlines. And the bottom lineis is that the prediction about
worsening tornadoes has not cometrue. And even the IPCC says in
their AR six report that theysee no linkage between climate
change and small scale weatherevents like tornadoes. Just not
there. And if you go to climateat a glance and look at our

(34:46):
tornadoes on The United Statespage, you will see a graph that
shows a clear downward trend.
And that downward trend has beensustained for quite a while. And
it's all for the strongertornadoes, the e f threes and
higher. They're just not gettingworse. It's just that simple.
Even though, you know, I thinkback in 02/2005, Al Gore
predicted it and a lot of themedia predicted it around 2009

(35:09):
to 02/2014.
You know? And, of course,anytime there's a tornado
outbreak, they immediately jumpon it and say, climate change.
Climate change. Climate changecaused this. Here's the proof.
Here's the proof. Well, there isno proof. Look at that graph.
There's your proof. There's onegraph that climate alarmists can
deny.

They do deny it. Let me point out. You know,
you read this story, and and ifyou look at the details of the
story, it sound it turns outthat f five tornadoes aren't
that rare after all. 60 since1950. So that's 60 over seventy
five years.
It's not quite an f five a year,but it's more than an f five

(35:51):
every two years by a longmargin. And so what we've had
here is a real f five drought.That means that it was 59 over
sixty five years. That doesn'tsound that rare. They're just

(36:12):
making and and and they wannafix it.
We don't like the fact that it'srare. So let how do we fix it?
Like Jim says, you lower thestandards. You want more people
to make it in the elitemilitary? You lower their
standards.
You want more, people that areunfit to make it as
firefighters? You lower thestandards. Well, you want more
you want more climate alarm, youlower the standards for f five

(36:34):
tornadoes.

Jim Lakely (36:36):
Joe Bastardi, welcome back. Leneo, also
welcome back. It's nice

to have you to

of the show.

I I had to go because normally if my dog is
barking, I just ignore itbecause it's like the mailman or
something. But she was barkingin a particular way that the
last time I heard her bark likethat was when my neighbor's dog
was in my yard killing mychickens. Oh. So I had to go
look. There was nothing.
It was, of course, nothing, butshe was extremely upset.

Jim Lakely (37:02):
Oh, good. The chickens are safe for now.
Alright. Jump jump to start. Doyou wanna say anything about
these this tornado story we'vebeen talking about right now?

Well, I I'm speechless because they do this
all the time. It's the samething like, where the heck did
the data come in for hurricaneAudrey, which was a category
four hurricane in June, and thenall of a sudden, 75 later, we
found out it was a categorythree hurricane. So they did
they adjust stuff. You know, wejust had a record, by the way.

(37:35):
They named the storm at fortyfive degrees north in the North
Atlantic, and the climatealarmist, they're gonna say this
is a hurricane, a tropicalstorm, a subtropical storm.
They're say, look at that, fortyfive degree north. The darn
water temperature there is 60degrees. So they do this stuff.
And, you know, I have this allthis theory about what you see

(37:58):
in the weather and climate iswhat goes on behind the scenes
in a bunch of things today that,you know, this whole
authoritarian thing and, we havethe official idea. I don't care
if it's climate gate or Ishouldn't say climate gate, you
know, Russiagate or whatevergate it is, Hunter Biden's
laptop.
There's always some kind of somekind of manipulation going on.

(38:22):
And the key to propaganda thekey to propaganda, folks, is
always telling an element of thetruth, but making sure the
entire picture is hidden. Right?So you just dwell on the one
thing that might be true ormight not be true. I I I gotta
tell you something.
A lot of this stuff is Iactually laugh at it today, but

(38:44):
the problem is they're not goingaway, these people. And if you
get a situation where thepolitics of the country turn
again, they're coming full blastagain with all this stuff. But
in the meantime, a lot of thisis quite amusing to me.

Jim Lakely (39:02):
Right. Well, that's why we call it crazy climate
news of the week, Joe.

It is. It is. Because I get put this stuff on
Gutfeld show, you know, crazyclimate news. I'm I'm I'm I'm
just serious. It is nuts.

Jim Lakely (39:16):
Yep. Yep. Alright. Well, that does it for that. We
are gonna get into our maintopic today and with which is
why we have renowned hurricaneexpert, Joba Stardy on with us
today.
But before we get into that, Iwant to make an announcement
here that the Harlem Institutehas a second edition of our best

(39:36):
selling climate at a glancebook. Little shameless plug
here. You can go maybe Andy canbring it up on screen. You
there's an Amazon page for it,and it was today. Anthony Watts
has been hitting refresh on theAmazon page all day, and we saw
that we were number one in theclimatology category as of this

(39:57):
morning.
So among all books on theclimate category, climate at a
glance second edition, 40 factson prominent, climate topics is,
number one. It's, it's one ofthe number one new releases, and
it's number one in climate. Itis if you actually, what's fun
is if you go to the page, youcan see that our book is right

(40:18):
there next to a book of oneMichael Mann. And he, I am
certain Michael Mann, is alsorefreshing his his Amazon page
over and over and over againbecause he just released that
book last week, and it must burnhim and make his brain hurt to
see our book right there next tohis. So

And above his in many categories.

Jim Lakely (40:38):
Yep. There it is. Yep. See, there it is. You can
get to Climb at a Glance, 40prominent topics at amazon.com.
It's, actually, what is it now?If you scroll in actually, I'll
I'll scroll in and see itmyself. What what's what is that
right there? Where is itranking? Yeah.
Number three in weather books,number four in, earth science,
and number six in climatologytoday.

Look at no. Look at the top. Underneath the
title, it says, that's the mostupdated, usually.

Jim Lakely (41:08):
Yep. Number one new release.

So

Number one new release.

Jim Lakely (41:10):
Congratulations. Yeah. We've been working on this
book, an update for this bookfor a while and not in small
part thanks to the feedback weget from this show and from the
people in the chat that it wastime to make sure that we had
the latest data on all of those,climate topics that we bring up
on this show. Anthony andSterling, congratulations. James
Taylor, our president, was alsoa contributor to this book.

(41:31):
So you can get that now. And Iwould actually encourage when
you get that book, when youorder this book at the very,
very affordable price of $14 orso, leave a review. Leave a five
star review. If you buy the bookand leave a review, that is a
super good thing. So, encourageyou to do that.
Thanks for supporting us and theprogram and the book.

Yeah. And I would like to add that when you get
the book, on the inside cover,there is a QR code where you can
scan your phone and it'll sendyou to a link where you can
download a free digital PDF copyof the book. And then you can
proceed to email that copy toall the people that think you're
crazy for doubting climatechange.

Yep. Yeah. I know what that's like to be pushing
the button when I release thethe weaponization of weather.
The Saturday morning that afterI released I guess I was on
Tucker Carlson's show on aFriday night or something like
that. It was number 23 in theworld, one behind Michelle

(42:32):
Obama's book, and I kept pushingthe button to see, please, god,
just let me get, like, onerigging above Michelle Obama,
but it was not to be.

You can always dream.

Jim Lakely (42:46):
Yep. Should've had you on

the show to

Jim Lakely (42:47):
help promote it. You would've made it. You would've
made it with our help, Joe.Alright.

Yeah. I I I actually am writing another I
keep trying to start to writeanother book down about climate
just called for the love of theweather or thank god for the
weather or something like that.But I I I it's all it's like
that, you know, senator Kennedy,the guy from Louisiana has the
book out and stuff. That's howit's gonna be. It's gonna be all
funny stories or you know, allthe stories are gonna be true.

(43:16):
Some of them are be bizarreabout all the different things
I've encountered in this journeythat God's blessed me with. It's
just I I sometimes I think aboutit. I go, how wild is this? A
geek? I've been a geek since I'ma little kid, and look what look
what actually happened.
It was pretty cool.

Jim Lakely (43:33):
That's great. Alright. So, yeah, so go to
amazon.com, Climate at a Glance,second edition, 40 facts. You'll
you will not regret it. It's avery good book.
Very easy to read and actually avery good reference manual as
well for any argument you mayget into with, friends or family
over the holidays on climate.Alright. Let's get to our main
topic for today, and that is,the hurricane season. We've been

(43:56):
hinting at doing this, for quitea while now. And it's about time
because, you know, we've beenrunning well.
You know, maybe when a bighurricane hits The United
States, we'll we'll we'll bringon somebody like Joe or our
friend Stan Stan Goldenberg tocome on, two of our favorite
hurricane experts. Stan couldn'tmake it this week. Not that you

(44:20):
were second choice, Joe. I'mjust saying we were gonna have
both of you on again. But, wethought it's time to go over the
hurricane season because, youcan bring up the Wikipedia page.
This is Andy, please. This is, Isuppose, the one time we can
trust Wikipedia. They do have aneasy to follow summary of the
twenty twenty five hurricaneseason, and just two storms
formed in September, Gabriel andHumberto. Neither made landfall

(44:44):
in The United States. And infact, September was the first
hurricane free September forhurricane landfall in The United
States in ten years.
There are many forecastingorganizations, and the
predictions of hurricanes thisyear ranges from 10 to 18 named
storms, six to 10 hurricanes,and two to five major storms. So

(45:05):
far this year, according to theWikipedia page here, and I have
no reason to doubt it. It's justsimple adding up. We've had 10
named storms, four hurricanes,and three big ones. So, Joe, you
are the world's foremosthurricane historian.
But before we get into the past,what's happening in the present?
Why the heck haven't we had ahurricane hit The United States
yet?

Well, first of all, this numbers game, I think,
is a joke that we play everyyear with how many storms
they're gonna be and all this.Most of them even even the worst
years, more storms are out inthe middle of the Atlantic than
they are hitting The UnitedStates. And it's just an
exercise in how many bunch oftheologians, how many how many

(45:49):
angels you could stick on thehead of a needle. I don't like
playing that game as far asnumbers go. I have to play it
because everybody wants aforecast.
And we had I guess we had 14 to18. We had five to nine
hurricanes or what I forget whatit was. I actually had a a a
smaller range because I 10 to 18storms? I mean, come on. Like, I

(46:12):
was like, Michael Mann, one yearhad 23 to 41 or whatever the
heck he had.
I'm like, you can't make a rangethat big. You know? So we so but
what we we've always pioneeredat WeatherBell is impact.
12/07/2023 put out hurricaneseason from hell. The red zone,
and you saw where all thosetracks went.

(46:34):
This year, we felt it was gonnabe the Central Gulf out into the
Atlantic near Bermuda. That'swhere we had our red zone. And
what's going on so far is it'sprobably shifted east that red
zone, that area where we'reseeing the highest amount of
ACE. It's about 400 to 500 milesto the east of where we put the

(46:54):
red zone. So we had four to siximpact, what we call impact
storms, two or three of themhurricanes, one or two major.
So, obviously, that forecast isoverdone. The problem is you you
the Madden Julian oscillation isrotating into phases two and
three here over the next ten tofifteen days, and you still have

(47:15):
the opportunity of these lateseason storms. I tell people all
the time, you know, look at 1985when you had hurricane one hit
Louisiana the October, then Capecame in and hit Florida
November. So I suspect we'regoing to get some kind of
development, pretty far west inThe Caribbean, before this is

(47:37):
all said and done that may comeup and take a swipe at the
Southeast Part of The UnitedStates. But look, the overall
what you're seeing in theAtlantic, the chickens coming
home to roost.
Alright? And I've been trying toget the attention of the weather
and climate community for twentyyears about what's been going on

(47:57):
in the Western Pacific. TheWestern Pacific Basin, which is
home to 60% of the NorthernHemisphere ACE index, has only
had two years out of the lasttwenty above normal. Everything
is collapsed in the WesternPacific. That is very, very
important because if you'regoing to play the climate game
with this kind of thing, youdon't just look at the Atlantic.

(48:21):
The Atlantic is a a very smallocean compared to the entirety
of the Pacific. So what we'veseen this year is, again, the
Western Pacific is down. A lotof the a lot of the way the
atmosphere is trying to balancethat out is in the Eastern
Pacific where the ACE index isactually a bit above normal.

(48:41):
Then we go into the Atlantic,and the Atlantic's a bit below
normal. But you get a you get alate season storm like a Mitch
or what was it?
The, what was the hurricane in?I guess it was 1931 in The
Caribbean, which broke the ACErecord in I guess it was in
November. It was unbelievablestorm, how strong that storm was
so long. Then all of a sudden,you're seeing it's above above

(49:04):
average as far as that goes. Butthe numbers, this number every
year, it's it's a red herring.
What do you care if there's 20storms and none of them hit The
United States? So this year, wejust had our eleventh storm
named this morning.Unbelievable. They're naming
storms at forty five degreesnorth where the sea surface

(49:25):
temperatures are 60 degrees. Nowit looks like a tropical storm
because it is a warm core systemwithin a cold atmosphere.
In other words, the theatmosphere that is in the North
Atlantic, it does have a warmcore where that system is, but
it's only warm relative to howcold the North Atlantic is. So

(49:46):
where are we gonna start drawingthe line with stuff like this?
In the meantime, well, just asecond. In the meantime, two and
a half weeks ago, we had an eye,we had a storm come from water
that was 83 degrees off theNorth Carolina coast go drop
some houses into the ocean inNorth Carolina, went into

(50:07):
Virginia Beach with an I and noone names it. So, you know, the
inconsistencies are tough.
What do I tell my clients? Getyou you know, you got a horse
with no name here, but it'sstill stampeding over your your
beaches. So, yeah, it's a it's ainteresting situation with that.

I think they're cheating on the eleventh
one. And the reason I say thatis this. Typically, you don't
name a storm until it's atropical storm. You don't name
tropical depressions. You givethem numbers.
You don't name subtropicalstorms. You give them numbers.

Well, no. They've done that before.

Naming a subtropical storm as if it's a
tropical storm.

No. They've they've named subtrop my problem
my problem with it is it's notanywhere near water that is
objectively warm enough tosupport what we have always used
for tropical storms. So and andby the way, there's been a
couple, Tom Downs at WeatherBell and I, we call them ham
sandwiches. These mysteriousstorms that get named out in the

(51:06):
middle of nowhere and you'relooking into a strato q swirl
out there or whatever. And it'strue.
The the core is probably warmerrelative to the to the
atmosphere around it. Yeah.Look. The great the great
president's day blizzard ofnineteen seventy nineteen
seventy nine, not the '78, notthe New England blizzard, the

(51:27):
seventy nine blizzard. Right?
Have you ever seen the pictureof that perfectly formed eye
about 50 miles southeast ofAtlantic City? It was a warm
core system within the very coldair around it. We've seen some
of these things, these eyefeatures form over Lake Superior
and Lake Michigan with snowsquall outbreaks come down. So I

(51:49):
I agree with you that that itshould not have been named, but
it's simply because of thecriteria that the water is so
darn cold out. They get you getstorms like that all the time
out there.
You know? But let me ask youthis. Why would they name that
and not name the storm that soCharles Roder just said, I'm not

(52:11):
very inclusive. Charles Rodderjust texted me. I'm not very
inclusive.
Stop distracting me, Charles.But what why do you name that
storm, but one that's actuallycausing houses to fall into the
water with an eye like featurein the middle of the hurricane
season that doesn't get named.I'll tell you why it didn't get
named because no one hatched ita few days before. That's how

(52:33):
cynical I am. If they don't liondog faced pony soldier.
They're not gonna name it. Butoverall, I've been I've been
trying to tell people thisnumbers game is ridiculous. It's
where they go, how much theyimpact, who they impact. That's
what we're concerned with atWeatherBell. And, you know, we
have clients in The Bahamas.
We have clients all over theplace. And part of the reason

(52:57):
you're seeing this, by the way,is the warming that has taken
place is influencing the Indianmonsoon. And whenever the Indian
monsoon is further north thannormal like we saw this year,
alright, we had we had no earlyseason cyclone activity in the
Arabian or Indian Ocean, Ishould say. Okay? When that
happens, the African wave trainis displaced too far north.

(53:19):
It's it's more diffuse. AndWillie Soon and the Connolly's
have been talking about what'sgoing on with the Hadley cell.
The Hadley cell has been weakerthan normal. So what we're
seeing folks is a spreading outof the entire energy pit
picture. We don't we're notseeing the, incubation of energy

(53:41):
in the deep tropics anymore.
You understand that? So what theclimate climate people don't
understand is two things. One,if you're gonna talk globally
about it, let's talk globally.Well, why why are you avoiding
the Western Pacific, which ishome to most of the ACE?
Secondly, even though if it'swarmer, there may be more total

(54:01):
energy, but if the energy isspread out, right, if it's
spread out, what happens?
What's the impact on thetropics? Well, think about this,
think about this. If it iswarmed more in the North
Atlantic and North Pacific thanit has in the tropics, right?
What does that do to thevertical velocities? Think about
if it's warmer to the North andit's hasn't warmed up as much

(54:25):
further South, well, thevertical velocities are weaker.
And that's why you're seeing theincrease in outgoing long wave
radiation in the Central Pacificand in the Tropical Atlantic
because we have less cloudinessin there. We have less
cloudiness, so you're gettingstorms to develop a lot of them
further north, and they're muchmore compact than what they used

(54:47):
to be. The big monsters thatwhen you come across, you know,
if we had the nineteen fortyfour or thirty eight hurricane
today, these people would begoing out of their minds. They
have no idea. You know, you geta storm like Helene, which was
big or Aaron, which was big, andthey, oh my gosh.
Look at this. Those storms usedto be relatively commonplace

(55:07):
back in a colder time becausethe the where they developed,
they could focus the energybetter rather than having to
develop further north like we'vebeen seeing. You know, a lot of
the hurricanes that hit TheUnited States are not even
hurricanes three days before.They rapidly intensify because
they're very compact relative tothe big storms that we saw

(55:28):
before.

Yep. Well, we have oh, Anthony,

Jim Lakely (55:36):
you're you just pulled a gym.

I know. I'm sorry. I had ear problems. I
think with the thing to talkabout here is the fact that the
climate change is killing theHadley cell. Let's make that the
big banner thing now.
Right?

Well, that's interesting, Anthony, that you
bring that up because becausewhat what's happening here look.
We none of us deny that theclimate changes. I've made a
living on analogs. It's a youyou okay. I'm looking at this
hurricane season.
I said, Joe, for the last tenyears on blogs, you've been
talking about what's going on inthe Pacific. You knew that it

(56:12):
had to try to come to theAtlantic because the atmosphere
is always trying to balance out,and yet you you missed it. And
and so yeah. I'm very good. Ibelieve I have a lot of talent
that when I'm corrected, Igenerally absorb the punishment,
and then I don't get fooledagain.
Right? But what bothers me aboutsome some of the things that

(56:34):
have happened to me inforecasting is I knew in the
back of my head to watch forsomething like that, and yet I
didn't hit it when it camealong. But what what has
happened is that distortion ofwarming has to affect the global
wind oscillation, the sea levelpressures across the globe, and

(56:55):
that in turn is affecting theamount of convergence that we
have in the tropics. You'respread out. There's still it's
still warm.
There's still upward motion, butit's not focused in the main
development region. You noticewhat's been going on also that
the hurricane seasons are nolonger well. Let's just go up to
September 11 and come down afterthat. They're convoluted. The

(57:19):
two big storms last year came ortwo of the big storms last year,
we shut down for a while, andthen we came back up late.
And the reason that's happeningis is because when the
atmosphere begins to cool, like,in in the in the autumn season
and the mid and upper levels ofthe atmosphere is still warm,
what you're doing is you'reactually getting a mechanism to

(57:41):
try to focus the heat. And Itell you what's really having a
big impact, and a lot of folkswho follow me know I've turned
into a Manjulian oscillationfanatic. And I've I've used that
religiously to try to help outand pick out periods where I
thought things would be active.And a lot of her other hurricane
forecasters do that certainlyalso. Yeah.

(58:02):
Jump. It's impacting thingsbecause there's both destructive
and constructive interference ofthe Mount oscillation. And when
that starts happening, you'regoing, oh, what the heck? You
you can't the computer modelsthat are looking at the
Mandjulian oscillation, theycan't see what it's gonna do
until it actually starts doingit. Given its importance into

(58:26):
the input and the hemisphereweather pattern, hurricanes and
wintertime.
You know that the same phasesthat are favorable for late
season tropical development inthe Atlantic Basin are the same
phases that they come backaround forty forty or fifty days
later are favorable for coldoutbreaks in the, Eastern Part
of The United States, phaseeight and one of the mad Julian.

(58:47):
Of course. So

so, Joe so, Joe, basically what basically, you
know, the next thing they'regonna do is they're gonna say
that climate change is affectingthe Coriolis force. Right? Now
but we gotta get to questions.We gotta get to questions. So
let's go to that.

Jim Lakely (59:04):
Yeah. We gotta we gotta get to the q and a. Before
we get to that

excellent.

I'm gonna try

Jim Lakely (59:10):
drum roll. Yes. Before we get to that, we need
to thank our sponsor, thesponsor of this fine program,
and that is Advisor Metals. Ifyou listen to a lot of
conservative channels on YouTubeand other streaming services,
you hear tons of pitches to buygold, silver, and other precious
metals. There are a ton ofcompanies out there, but we
wanna tell you why you shouldtrust our sponsor, Advisor

(59:32):
Metals.
It's the man who runs thecompany, and his name is Ira
Brashatsky. He is the managingmember of Advisor Metals, and he
does not employ high pressuretactics or deceptive marketing
ploys like many in big gold. Healso doesn't deal in so called
rare coins. When you buy goldand other precious metals from
adviser metals, you're dealingin quality bullion, and that's
so much better when it comestime to liquidate this very

(59:55):
valuable physical asset. Andwhen you buy from advisor
metals, you will have yourinvestment sent discreetly
directly to your own home.
And I must note that Ira isadvertising, on this program
because he is an America firstpatriot. He does not donate to
democrats. He refuses to workwith proxies of the Chinese
Communist Party, and he, likeus, abhor the machinations and

(01:00:17):
schemes of the World EconomicForum in the United Nations. We
are very proud to have AdvisorMetals as a sponsor. So if you
wanna diversify your investmentportfolio, if you wanna back up
your IRA with real physicalbullion of precious metals,
please go toclimaterealismshow.com/metals.
You can leave your informationthere, and Ira or one of his
team will get in contact withyou and make the entire process

(01:00:41):
very easy. Again, go toclimaterealismshow.com/metals,
and also be sure to tell themwho sent you because that helps
us and this show while you'rehelping your financial future.
Again,climaterealismshow.com/metals.
Alright. It is time for q and a.

(01:01:03):
Take it over, Lanea.

Linnea Lueken (01:01:05):
Those googly eyed fiends cut me off. Okay.
Alright. Let's see. We've got alot of good questions today.

Jim Lakely (01:01:20):
You do.

Need to unstar some that were from last week
that somehow popped up againeven though I unstarred them
last week. Let's go. Alright.I'm trying to find a good
hurricane because you press Iknow. I know.
I know. Sorry, you guys. Thisthere's, like, a ton of

(01:01:43):
questions from last week thatare stuck here. Alright. I'm
gonna pull up this one fromLichi two who's over on Rumble
who asks, although ocean tempshave gotten warmer, the air
aloft has also gotten warmer sothat there's been no increase in
CAPE.
Is is that why hurricaneactivity has not increased
despite warmer waters?

Joe Bastardi (01:02:05):
Well, hurricane activity certainly has increased
over the last ten years. It'sthe Western Pacific. It's the
Western Pacific that has beendown, but the Atlantic, the past
ten years, this year being theexception, has has been above
normal, I believe, what, eightout of 10 of the last ten years.

(01:02:25):
But the Atlantic's a very smallbasin. I I look more with the
vertical velocity patterns andthe vertical velocity patterns
that you could just take a lookat the outgoing long wave
radiation the last fifteen yearsversus, let's say, the nineteen
fifties and nineteen sixties.
The Alkone long wave radiationis much greater because there's

(01:02:46):
less cloudiness and chances arethe reason is less cloudiness is
less upward motion in thetropics. And the other place
where you see a lot of thinkabout if you see a lot of
cloudiness over Southeast Asiaand Africa, it means that you've
got more convergence over landmasses. And more convergence

(01:03:06):
over land masses means that theeasterly winds in the Tropical
Pacific are stronger. We're inalmost a perpetual La Nina
state, and people think, well,La Nina, that means it's gonna
be cooler. No.
All the La Nina is is aresistance to the warmth. It's
not actually doing much coolingbecause if you look at the
temperatures, I don't care ifyou look at doctor Spencer's

(01:03:27):
site or any other site, thetemperatures are going up, and
they're going up relative to thewarming of the ocean. The
question is, what's warming theocean? And, I could get myself
in trouble with this, so I'm notgonna go into that right here.
But the the mid and upper levelsof the atmosphere have have
warmed some.

(01:03:48):
But, I mean, if if we're goingto look at this, we have to
understand that the warming, ifwe're gonna use the Atlantic
Basin as a metric for that, justgo look at the the hurricane
seasons over the last sincesince a big the big super nino
of sixteen, most of thosehurricane seasons wind up with
above normal ACE. But they'rethey're they're developing

(01:04:11):
further north, and we have morescattershot storms in the middle
of nowhere in the Atlantic.

Alright. Thank you. Let's see. High turbine or
hit Irvine. I'm not sure whichone.
It says, do solar flares heatand expand the ionosphere
increasing height of thetroposphere stretching the core
of hurricanes like a skaterpulling their arms in increasing

(01:04:40):
velocity of wind?

Above my pay grade. Someone else Yeah.

Anthony Watts (01:04:46):
I don't know.

I don't know that either. When I don't know
something, I say I don't know. Imean, you know, there's so many
things I don't know that well, Iknow a lot less than I do know,
put it that way, so I don't haveany answer to that.

I'm not sure if anyone on this team knows the
exact answer to this one, but Ican give a shot a at it. So
Montana Joe asks, weren't theQuebec fires from last year or
maybe two years ago started byclimate wackos? So I think, you
know, there are a lot ofarsonists out there. The
majority of fires that end upbeing wildfires are caused by

(01:05:21):
human beings, but it's usuallynot arson, like intentional
arson. Usually, it's someonedragging a chain behind a truck
and it lights brush on the sideof the road or somebody, like,
dumps out hot coals when they'regrilling or something and it
lights the field on fire.
It's that kind of thing.However, I do think that there

(01:05:42):
if I recall, there were somearsonists involved in the in the
Quebec fires specifically fromlast year, two

Sterling Brunetts (01:05:49):
years ago. There were some arson there was
there were some arsonists. Therewere some like you said, most of
the fires that humans said areaccidental. Cigarette lit
cigarette tossed, campfire getsout of control or isn't put out
properly. You also get somelightning fires every year.
And I'm sure that some of thefire from Canada were also set

(01:06:12):
for lightning. What made them soso bad was that they have, had
decades of, fewer than normalfires and a lot of buildup. They
stopped logging entirely, almostin in Canada. I mean, well, not
entirely, but over largeportions of Canada, they're
protect protected. So they had alot of fuel buildup, and then

(01:06:34):
they had the one, you know, theone year when all the different
factors came together.
Drought, after multiple years ofof good moisture, high
temperatures, and then you havethe spark, whether it was arson,
accident, or a lightning fire.

And Chris Nisbet asks, do Americans have
regulations similar to those inAustralia regarding protective
measures homeowners have toimplement against fires? Oh,
you're doing a gym, Anthony.

Sorry. I've been dealing with the headphone
problem. Some places they do,some places they don't. There's
some parts of California thathave wildfire, rules, setback
rules, that sort of thing, andother places that don't. I would
say the best answer is it's ahodgepodge of rules and and not
particularly effective.

And some of the hodgepodge create the
problems. I mean, you've gotrules in California where they
say you can't cut back. Youknow, they want natural they
want it to look natural. Orthey've got environmental, in
the past, they've said you can'tclear certain brush because it's
protective. It's habitat forendangered

Right.

Mice. So, okay, we create a fire hazard by
protecting the mice, which thenis their habitat is completely
destroyed when the fire comesalong. Genius that.

Toasting it for little things. It is kind of
funny that it's got them. Okay.Alrighty. We have a request from
a viewer from Kim who says, canyou guys recruit an
oceanographer for a stint toexplain to the folks about the
hysteria over ocean currentcollapse?
I've been trying to get the wordout. Yeah. I mean, if we can

(01:08:27):
find an oceanographer who's onour side of the discussion here,
we can definitely have them on.That'd be fun.

Even if they're not. I would point out that we
have had in climaterealism.com.We've had stories on all sides
of that. You know? The the oceancurrents are collapsing.
The ocean currents are gettingstronger. The ocean currents
aren't changing. The bottom lineis is that climate science can't
seem to make up their minds, andthey've been doing this now for

(01:08:56):
over a decade. They even hadthat crazy movie, you know, The
Day After Tomorrow based on thecollapse of the AMOC, you know,
and all the freeze comes in andeverything else, And it was
totally bogus. And even doctorGavin Schmidt of NASA gets said
that it was a bad movie and notrepresentative of science.
And you know when he's sayingthat. You know? Well, anyway

There was the there the even better version of
that, which was South Park's theday before the day after
tomorrow. So and and there, thecause was a beaver dam break,
the world's largest beaver dam.But in any case, Anthony's
right. It's all over the map.Some studies say it's speeding
up.

(01:09:39):
Some say it's it's declining,and then they predict different
types of effects from thedecline. And and some say it's
staying about the same. Youbasically get the same message
about ocean currents as you getabout monsoons, the Asian
monsoons. Oh, they're gettingworse. Oh, they're getting not
as they're not as strong, sowe're gonna starve because

(01:09:59):
people won't have the floodingevery year they use for
agriculture, and it's stayingabout the same.
They can't you know, every newstudy comes out, breaking
ground, and whatever ishappening, it's climate change.

Yep. And related to that oh, I'm hearing some
echo on my end. DJ Bo says, Ihear from time to time that the
Gulf Stream is collapsing. Ifit's warming, wouldn't that tend
to strengthen the Gulf Stream,if anything?

No. It may be. Yeah. Well, if it's warming the
theory is if it's warming to thenorth, then once again, you're
you're affecting you'reimpacting the the normal. So
yeah.
I just I listen. I once had aguy I worked with, great

(01:10:48):
meteorologist named Frank Brody,and he'd always say to me,
anything can happen and probablywill. That is what climate is
about. Anything can happen andprobably will over a long enough
period of time. This isstrengthening.
That's weakening. This is goingon. That's going on. And, you
know, we should be actuallygrateful for it because it gives

(01:11:10):
us a chance to all get togetherwith these shows every once in a
while. Although all of you allof you, congratulations, are
gonna get combat pay becausethat's a prerequisite if I'm
gonna be on with you.
But Yeah. Look.

I would point out that the span of of natural
processes on Earth, particularlyin the meteorology, are far
longer, you know, than humanlifespans. And so we don't
remember a lot of things or evennotice lots of things, you know,
unless we go back and look atpaleo data or whatever. There's

(01:11:43):
lots of change that goes on inthe earth that's far extended in
time compared to the humanlifespan. And so we don't know a
lot of things yet. We're justscratching the surface of
knowledge.
And so the claims that are beingmade today are based on
incomplete data.

The other problem is the claims are being
made as if we have a a closeddeterminative system, cause and
effect. Ray c o two have theseeffects. It's one to one
correlation. It's not. We livein a chaotic universe and a
chaotic climate system.
We have a variety of factorsthat aren't modeled well, that

(01:12:22):
aren't even taken into account,like, cosmic, rays, the solar
activity, its impact on clouds,ocean currents, volcanic
activity, subsurface volcanicactivity. None of these are
captured in, climate models orcaptured well, which they admit,

(01:12:44):
typically. But they're convincedthat things have nothing to do
with it because we live in adeterminative system where the
only thing that matters is humancaused greenhouse gases. That's
bunk. We live in

a chaotic system. Let let me let me ask let me ask
this question actually basedbased on you we're talking about
the Gulf Stream. Now the myunderstanding is the British
Isles are more temperate thantheir latitude would suggest
because of the Gulf Stream. Dowe know and then there was the
medieval warm period. You know,we've talked about it on the
show a lot how, there werevineyards, that that Greenland

(01:13:16):
was actually green and that, youknow, they were growing wine
grapes on the British Isles.
Do we know what caused themedieval warm period?

That was the Roman warm period when we had
Vikings in Greenland.

Okay. But still, do we do we has has anyone come up
with with an answer for why? Imean, this this goes to what you
were talking about, Anthony, onhow weather and climate changes
far extend beyond humanknowledge and and and all of
that. So do we know what causedthose warming periods in the
past? We know it wasn't SUVs andand coal fired power plants.

I suspect it's the same thing that's causing it
now. I I the the the ocean'swarming the way they are set up
certain patterns. You know, ifif you if you watch every day,
for instance, on Weather Belt,we have a computer generated
global temperature. Alright? Ifyou ever watch that computer
generated global temperature,whenever Western Europe and The

(01:14:13):
UK and Northern Africa and thatarea is above normal, you'll see
spikes of the globaltemperature.
So what I believe is happened isyou may have a very similar
setup now with the oceans as youdid, you know, during these warm
periods. Because, you know, ifyou if you went to Penn State,

(01:14:34):
the one thing we always lookedat at Penn State was what was
going on in Europe. Because ifwe see Europe get real, real
cold, we know, okay. Thetrough's gonna try to come into
the Eastern Part of The UnitedStates. If if you see Europe get
warm, we had a say, ridge inSpain, warm up in rain.
You know, the models would besaying, oh, big snowstorms
coming. Not with that ridgecentered over over Western

(01:14:57):
Europe like that. So lookingback at those periods, you may
have had a La Nina base state.What do I mean by a La Nina base
state? It means that Asia, theWestern Pacific, Western Europe
are quite warm.
This increases the easterlies inthe Pacific Ocean. And if you

(01:15:17):
look at what happens a lot oftimes when there are La Nina's
going on, I'm not talking aboutthe real strong ones, you'll see
a lot of very warm weather inWestern Europe, a lot of very
warm weather in the Eastern Partof The United States. So it's
just just something I'm throwingout there just because of
observation.

Well, one of the things that they say
probably contributed to thedepths of the little ice age is
the Maunder minimum. Sun's thethe really extended period

of Although it's a warm period. Yeah. That's after
the warm period. So we, youknow, I mean, I see, there
there's also there's also theidea that the atmosphere will
react different warm coming offa cold. Like, if you look at the
models this year, seven out ofseven out of we're in October
now.
Seven out of 10 of the months,if you look at the European the

(01:16:08):
month before, it was out oftouch on what was going to
happen the following month. Itwould always turn out much
cooler than what it had. Ihadn't seen that happen.
Usually, the models the modelsoh, they look warm. They're
gonna be warmer.
That's been a different that'sbeen a different story this
year, and I wonder if the dropoff in global temperature and to

(01:16:29):
some extent the water vapor thatwe we see going on now as we
come off Tonga and the strong ElNino a couple years ago, maybe
having some impact the otherway. With a fascinating winter
coming up, folks, we've just hada major major stratospheric
warming event in September overthe South Pole, and these are
correlated with cold winters inThe United States. They're also

(01:16:51):
correlated, believe it or not,with a lack of hurricane
activity to some degree. I waslooking at this, I was going, oh
my gosh. I never even thoughtabout that.
I'm gonna have to think about itnow watching this the South Pole
in September.

Alrighty. I'm gonna pull up a question from a
viewer that I have not seen inour chat before. He could have
been in here before, but I liketo try and get to the people who
are new. So welcome WayneWideman who says, who does the
so called global averagetemperature? Are the data and
calculations open for publicscrutiny?
I'm wondering if theyconsistently use the same

(01:17:30):
methods all the time.

Well, first of all, it's well, let me just say
so before. It's a horriblemetric. John Care has been
yelling about this and god resthis soul. He said, what we
should be quantifying if wewanna quantify it is wet bulb
temperatures, better stillsaturation mixing ratios because
they'll go right to the source.The source is how much water

(01:17:53):
vapor there is, right, ratherthan the the global temperature.
It does exist. I know there arepeople that say, doesn't It
does. But what does it reallymean? I think it's a third rate
metric as far as that goes. Sosomeone else take it.

Well, the bottom line is is that the the data is
available publicly. Thecalculations, not so much.
Here's the problem. There's ablack box that goes on at NOAA.
Now NOAA, the National Oceanicand Atmospheric Administration,
collects all of the data in TheUnited States, but also collects
all of the global data.

(01:18:31):
And they produce somethingcalled the Global Historical
Climatology Network, GHCN. Nowthe problem that we've got is
that they have published what wedo to the data to adjust it and
correct it, but we never get tosee the code that goes on.
There's a black box. And thisblack box, basically, is,

(01:18:51):
something that runs on theirsupercomputers. Well, it doesn't
need to these days.
You know, back when they firststarted doing it, yeah, you
needed a supercomputer, but nowyou can run it on a desktop PC.
The problem is we have neverbeen able to test their code to
see if in fact their code isdoing it right. And what we have
observed is that seems to be acontinuous warm bias associated

(01:19:13):
with every adjustment that theydo to the temperature data, from
the raw temperature data up tothe final published data that
they distribute. Now add to thatthat there are several entities
out there such as NASA GUESS,CRU in The UK. We've got BEST in
Berkeley.
We have the Japan MeteorologicalAgency. All these different

(01:19:35):
entities are taking this dataand then adding their own secret
sauce to it and then producingtheir own version of global
temperature. None of them match.They are somewhat close at
times, but they don't match. Sowhat's the real temperature?
I have no freaking idea andneither do they.

And add and add to that, Anthony, what we've
discovered in the last, youknow, few years is that so much
of the measured measuredtemperature data comes from
stations that don't even existanymore.

Yeah. But it's gotta be

caught out publishing temperature data from
no station at all. So has about30% of some of the The US
stations have either moved tonew locations, and they just
pretend it's the same place, orthey just don't exist anymore.
They were closed.

Yeah. But it's it'll gotta be warming up. Look.
You can't you can't Yourcamera's gone.

Shut your shut your monitor down. You're you're
you're cut

off. Camera.

Yeah. You're like you're like Tim Allen's neighbor
in home improvement over there.

Yeah. Yeah. Listen. You can't run from the
sea surface temperatures. Youcan't run from it.
I mean, I people, oh, so wedon't know if it's warming. Yes.
It's warming up. It's warming updisproportionately because if
you look at the relationshipsaturation mixing ratios, you'll
find that there is a correlationbetween water vapor and
temperatures, and it's much,much, much, much, much greater

(01:21:05):
where it's cold. So the thedistribution of temperature is
explained by the water vapor.
The increase of water vapor, itcan be explained by the increase
in sea surface temperatures. Soit comes down to what's actually
warming the ocean. I refuse tobelieve that c o two has any
major impact that we couldmeasure on the ocean

(01:21:27):
temperature. Therefore, circleback to water vapor. Water vapor
is the key.
And look, I'm biased toward myprofessors. I'm biased toward
the tropics. I'm biased to allthese guys that came before, my
dad, John Care, Bill Gray, allof them. So I realized what my
bias is, but I'm gonna speak itanyway. Oceans, oceans, oceans,
tropics, tropics, tropics.

(01:21:48):
That's what I think where theshooting match is. And no one
wants to quantify the watervapor. How about that? Well,
let's measure c o two, but don'tgo quantifying the water vapor.
I did a I did a blog on C Fact,a little chitchat with Grock
about water vapor.
And I actually got him to admit,or it, or whatever it is, that

(01:22:09):
as a stand alone, if you justsay, just like these people
wanna make c o two a standalone, if you make water vapor
stand alone, then guess what?It's responsible for almost all
the warming you've seen in thelast fifty years. Someone's
asking, is is satellite data onocean temperatures reliable?
Yeah. Much more reliable thanair temperatures in my opinion.

Yep. Alrighty. So I wanna get to this question by
Brian Porter too, who asks, whathappens with intensities of
hurricanes when globaltemperatures eventually turn to
a colder trenders trendingcycle?

They're gonna be intense. Yeah. And I if you can
focus the energy more, if youcan cool the Northern And
Central Atlantic so you couldjust keep it nice and warm where
they're supposed to be, That'swhy these storms were such
monsters. That's why I'm so bigon replacing this Sappers
Simpson scale with our power andimpact scale, which met which

(01:23:04):
has has metrics for the size ofhurricane force winds, how much
50 knot winds, 34 knot winds.You you'll get the monsters back
again like we used to see in thegood old days where, you know,
09/04/1933, the ultimateultimate hurricane geek map two
majors hit The United States onthe same day.

(01:23:25):
How about that? Do you imaginethe fact that happened to them?

It'd be terrible. Talk two two major hurricanes,
though. David Vaught asks orVoigt, one of those, asks, I
quit paying attention the lastweek or so, but what happened to
the two hurricanes that hadpotential to cross paths? Did
they run into each other?

It was a Sayonara effect instead of the Fujiwara
effect. Humberto broke Humbertobroke the ridge down to the east
and Imelda followed followed itout, but they did a lot of they
did a lot of rearranging ofprime beachfront, especially in
the Carolinas, which is going toget rearranged even more this
weekend with this non namefeature coming up.

Yeah. The waves have been pretty nuts on the
beaches. It's been red flags forweeks up and down the beaches in
South Carolina. Very, very, veryhappy that it was a sayonara
effect because that were theywere eyeing me. And I was
thinking about, like, do I haveto, like, wrap my chickens up in
newspaper and put them in thecar or something to take them

(01:24:26):
away before I was I was gettingready to bug out.
Let's see. The okay. Here's aquestion from HitTurbine who
says, has anyone on the panelheard of the electrical theory
of tornado generation andstrength?

I've heard of it. Let's not discuss it because
it's not real.

Oh, okay. Let me just let me just say something.
I was over with doctor doctorTim England, I guess it is, at
Texas A and M, looking at hisresearch, and I was just gawking
at what I was seeing. They wereshowing the the, you know, they
were showing focusing oflightning. Now I don't know if

(01:25:05):
this is the same the same thing,but when lightning focuses in
one area, it's showing you wherethe tornado may show up.
When it's spread out all overthe place, tornadoes aren't
showing up. I I would I wasabsolutely mind boggled boggled
at sitting in this guy's office.Like, a cumulus cloud goes over
the weather station in CollegeStation, and you see electrical

(01:25:28):
charges coming out of thatcumulus club. I mean, it's a
sunny day. I'm like, what theheck is this stuff?
Way above my pay grade, though,but I was fascinated with what I
saw.

Yeah. Well, when the the lightning concentration
is a symptom, not and and not adriver. So anyway

It's a symptom. That's that's a but it still
gives people advanced notice.That's why cutting research to
lightning, I think, no EsmoydBN.

Yeah. Let's see. Well, we've got this is kind of
a personal question forHeartland from Montana, Joe, who
has watched us for a long timewho says, a few weeks ago,
Google admitted it throttledchannels that it didn't agree
with. Have you asked them toremonetize the Heartland
channels because of thatadmission admission?

Brief answer? Yes.

They're probably still Jim,

and you're constantly asking them to
remanimate.

Brief answer is silence.

They they they they you in they they allow you to
wrap on the door every 90. Andso we will let as soon as the
clock dings, we do it again.Yeah. We had to reset the clock.
And he nailed it spot on.

Yep. We had to reset the clock a couple months
ago because I held up a gun infront of the camera in on Yeah.
In the tank on Thursday a couplemonths ago. But that's I was
something. Right.

Right. Let me get mine.

Yeah. Wait. No.

Don't do it. Smooth smooth moving.

We just got the

clock back. It go. It was it was for demonstration
purposes only. It was notthreatening. It was just forget
it.

It wasn't loading.

Did not pay attention to the tip. It was
painted orange. It was a Nerfgun. Okay.

For real. Yeah. Yeah. Definitely. It was a Nerf
gun.
It was a Nerf gun that I wasshowing the firing pin. But
Chris Nesbitt asks, are longterm climate models any use at
all? Could we save a lot? Okay.What happened?
Andy, I'm I'm clear

I'm sorry. It was about me, and I got excited, and
then it, like, overran my actualproduction. I'll drop. I got it.

Are long term climate models any use at all?
Could we save a lot of money bygiving up on them?

Well, every climate model is predicting some
sort of doom by 2100 or 2150 or2200. Now tell me if that's
useful in your everyday life.

It's useful as far as, you know, just
interesting science computertinkering goes, I think. But

Yeah. I I I constantly am told that the
computer models are improvingall the time, and yet the the
range of temperature is nevershrinking. If they're getting
better, then the range ofpredicted temperature should be
narrowing in on a number, andyet they're not. They're always

(01:28:15):
staying about like this, whetherit goes up or down, the gap is
about the same. And that tellsme they're not very effective.
I want weather models to tell mewhat's going on this week and
next week. I don't want aclimate model to tell me what
2100 will be like becausethere's no way of knowing at
all.

Yep. Absolutely. I think that's all the time we
have you guys. I'm sorry if Ididn't get to your question, but
we are right up on the, halfhour here. So I'm gonna hand it
back to Jim.

Alright. Yes. Thank you very much, Lynne, after the
q and a. Thank you so much toeverybody in the chat. I was
just mentioning in the privatechat behind the scenes here what
a great and good audience thatwe have for the Climate Realism
Show.
Watching you guys interact inthe chat and leaving us
questions is so rewarding. So asa reminder, bring more friends

(01:29:05):
to watch this show live. It's ablast, and you learn a lot. I'd
like to thank our special guesttoday, Joe Bastardi. You can
find more about him and learnmore about him at
weatherbell.com, and he alsowrites a substack, I believe.
Is that correct? Joe Bastardi,The American Storm?

I'm on Twitter as the, The American Storm. I blog
on CFAC all the time where Idon't get too too rowdy.

Yeah. Yeah. When they let you in there, when you
when you calm down. Yeah. So,yeah, that reminds me to
actually thank our streamingpartners, one of which is CFACT,
which Joe Vastardi is affiliatedwith, plus junkscience.com, The
c o two Coalition, ClimateDepot, what's up with that, and
Heartland, UK, Europe.
Thank you, Andy, for producingso wonderfully behind the

(01:29:51):
scenes. And please visitclimaterealism.com,
climate@aglance.com, and getyour copy of climate at a glance
second edition at amazon.com.And always visit heartland.org,
where you can subscribe toSterling Burnett's climate
change weekly newsletter. Thankyou all again for being here

(01:30:11):
with us this week, and we willtalk to you next week. Bye bye.

All Episodes

Where Are All the Hurricanes? (Guest: Joe Bastardi) — The Climate Realism Show #177

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark

24/7 News: The Latest

Dateline NBC

.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;}Where Are All the Hurricanes? (Guest: Joe Bastardi) — The Climate Realism Show #177