Killing Net Zero with a Thousand Cuts – The Climate Realism Show #201 - The Climate Realism Show

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

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.

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

Speaker 5 (00:30):
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 (00:55):
That's right, Bretta. It is Friday, and this
is the best day of the week. Notjust because it's UFO disclosure
day and not just because theweekend is almost here, but
because this is the day theHeartland Institute broadcasts
the climate realism show. Myname is Jim Lakely. I am your
host and the executive vicepresident of the Heartland
Institute.
We are a free market think tankthat's been around for forty two

(01:17):
years, and we are known as theleading global think tank
pushing back on climatealarmism. Heartland end this
show bringing the data, thescience, the truth that you've
been, that counters the climatealarmist narrative. You've been
fed every single day of yourlife. There is nothing else
quite like the climate realismshow streaming anywhere. So I
hope you will help us out bybringing friends to stream to

(01:40):
view this livestream everyFriday at 1PM eastern time, and
also like, share, and subscribe,and be sure to leave comments
underneath this video.
We do read them. These allconvince YouTube's very
mysterious algorithm to smileupon this program, and that gets
the show in front of even morepeople. And as a reminder,
because Big Tech and the legacymedia are not big fans of the

(02:00):
way we cover energy and climateon this program. Heartland's
YouTube channel has beendemonetized. So if you wanna
support the program, and Ireally hope you do, please visit
heartland.org/tcrs.
That's heartland.org/tcrs, oryou can scan the code right here
on the screen. And you can joinother friends of this program
who who help bring it to theworld every single week. And we

(02:23):
also wanna thank our streamingpartners, junkscience.com,
CFACT, The c o two Coalition,Watts up with that, and our
friends at Heartland UK Europe.Let's get started. We have a
very big show today.
We have with us, as usual,Anthony Watts. He is the c
senior fellow at the HeartlandInstitute and publisher of the
world's most viewed website onclimate change. What's up with

(02:45):
that? We have Sterling Burnett,the archbishop of Renterbury,
who is also the director of theArthur b Robinson Center for
Climate and Environment Policyat the Heartland Institute, and
Linnea Lueken, senior fellow forenergy and environmental policy
at Heartland. And we have twoproducers behind the scenes,
Andy Singer, who has to leavevery soon, and Keely Drewcala.
Thank you to you both forhelping to bring the show, and

(03:08):
we'll do our best to be assmooth as possible. But, know,
usually, we don't have anychitchat, but I'm gonna ask you
something, Linnea. I'll I'lljust spring it on you. You know,
this is UFO disclosure day, andI tweeted actually this last
night. I tweeted, unless halfthe stuff I've seen on the y
files concerning aliens and UFOscomes true, I'm gonna be very

(03:31):
disappointed.
What do you think of UFOdisclosure day so far?

Well, we got another video of a little blob
zipping around. I have not Iactually have not had time yet
today to look into it. You knowme though, Jim. I'm gonna be all
over that, like, white on ricelater. Right.
I I I am a big fan of the UFOcommunity. I'm not bought in

(03:58):
fully, I'll admit, but I love itanyway. Kind of like I love the
Sasquatch stuff. I love all ofthat stuff. I love
cryptozoology, all of it, justfor fun.
Yeah. Entertain. And the UFOstuff is very fun. There are
some there are some things thatare more compelling videos and

(04:21):
and evidences than others.That's for sure.
One of the fun things about theUFO community are the, you know,
the I want to believe, but I'mvery much willing to debunk, you
know, any given video. And Ithink I would probably
categorize myself in thatcategory, the I want to believe,

(04:44):
but I can easily tell how someof these are just not what
they're saying they are. And soI have fun. I my current the
audience might hate me for this.My current position on on most
of the UFOs that we've seen,even the ones with with what
appears to be extremely strange,you know, movement and stuff is

(05:04):
that they're ours and that theydon't belong to aliens.
So that's my that's my theoryright now.

I I'd like to say that look. I believe there's
gotta be life in the universesomewhere. Whether they've
mastered the, ability to travelthe long distances in the time
required to, to get here andvisit us and not conquerors at
the same time. I I havequestions about that. If they're

(05:32):
an exploring race like humanbeings have been in a exploring
race, we we we'd be in trouble.
But con concerning Sasquatch, Iknow he exists. And the reason I
know this is because I watchedKansas City Royal baseball
games, he's a baseball fan.Every time Vinny Pascantino hits
a home run, he runs across theback of the outfield out there.

(05:56):
It's it's all over the cameras.They've got video evidence, so
that's true.

Jim Lakely (06:02):
Well, I got I got some I got some good news for
for for Anthony here. In one ofthe UFO disclosures today, have
discovered that it is UFOs thatare actually the ones
responsible for chemtrails. So

Oh, well, I thought sure it was gonna be
UFOs are responsible for climatechange.

There you go.

We'll we'll go with Kim Trails. That's easy.

Never with Kim Trails. Right. So it There was a
there was a film about that backin the eighties or nineties,
Charlie Sheen, if you canbelieve it, he was a
meteorologist. And, evidently,aliens were here juicing the c o
two increase to make the Earthhabitable for them.

Jim Lakely (06:49):
Nice. Alright. Well, I I should have resisted. Look
at this. Our show was alreadyderailed.
I know how we can get it back.We could get it back by covering
the crazy climate news of theweek. Hit it, Keely. Thank you

(07:12):
very much, Bill Nye. Okay.
So I'm gonna play a couplevideos here for you. The
headline here is new Al Goreidiocy. It's hard to resist
playing clips from him and andcommenting. A couple weeks ago,
The Hollywood Reporter and theSustainable Entertainment
Alliance teamed up for aninaugural celebration of

(07:33):
Hollywood's environmentalismwith a special appearance from
former vice president Al Gore. II actually cannot believe this
was the first time they've everdone this, to be honest.
The sustainability andentertainment honors event held
at Hotel Bel Air was timed tothe Hollywood Reporter's annual
sustainability issue and was ledby a keynote conversation

(07:54):
between gore and actor BradleyWhitford in honor of the
twentieth anniversary of AnInconvenient Truth. Now you
might remember Bradley Whitford.He was great in Billy Madison.
That's his greatest role. Ihighly recommend it.
Anyway, Al Gore made two claims.In one, it was said that he said

(08:15):
that a new ice age was coming. Idon't think he quite said that,
although what Bradley Whitfordwas trying to get him to say.
That's what he was trying to gethim to say. Let's just play the
video here.
Let's let me put this in show onstage, and let's bring up video.
Play. There we

Speaker 6 (08:31):
go. That movie that I mentioned, the day after about
the Gulf Stream shutting down?Well, in this morning, in one of
the English newspapers, there'sa whole big article summarizing
the recent dire warnings of thescientists who found yet more
confirmatory information thatthis is a very real threat
within the next twenty fiveyears.

Speaker 5 (08:51):
Right. And for people who don't remember from the
movie, talk very explicitlyabout if the Greenland ice shelf
melts to a certain point, whichseems probable given what
happened in Antarctica.

Speaker 6 (09:06):
In Greenland Greenland today, Greenland is
losing 30,000,000 tons of iceper hour, night night and day.

Speaker 5 (09:16):
And if there is a tipping point here where the
gradual threat of climate changebecomes immediate, where if that
happens and the Gulf Streamceases to exist as we know it,
we're in an ice age in like tenyears.

No. No. No.

Speaker 6 (09:37):
It would take long. It it I mean, I'm not Just go
with me.

Speaker 5 (09:40):
Go with me. I wear makeup out.

Speaker 6 (09:42):
Version, but I but I I've spent a lot of time with
him. Go. But it it would be bad.It would be very bad, and it
would be bad on a scale that isbeyond our anything we can
compare it to today.

Jim Lakely (09:55):
Right. Okay. There there's a couple of things I
wanna parse from that clip. And,Linnea, I'd like to actually
start with you. I think it'simportant for us to be a lot
more fair with Al Gore in asaintly way compared to the way
Al Gore is and his alarmistcabal are to our side of this
argument.
It seemed that, obviously,Bradley Whitford believes that

(10:15):
the day after tomorrow and theinconvenient truth are actually
part one and part two of thesame film. But you know? So I
because we've had friends reachout to us and say, I I think I
heard somewhere someone saidthat Al Gore said that a new ice
age is upon us. In fact, I got alink to a story that said that
Al Gore said that, but when youlook at the video, he really
doesn't say it. But it seemedlike he really wanted to.

Well, I'm first gonna address what you said
earlier about the show beingderailed. That was all you, Jim.
That was all you talking aboutaliens. So you don't get to you
don't get to blame us for thatone. Alright.
Second, yeah, speaking ofaliens, so Al Gore up there
doing his his same old song anddance. I I suppose that if the

(11:06):
Antarctic or the Arctic suddenlylost all of its land ice and
dumped it all into the ocean,that I would believe that it
would have some pretty extremeimpact on the weather, at least
in Europe and North America. Idon't think that very many

(11:26):
scientists are actuallysuggesting at anywhere near the
rate that it would require to tomake some kind of a huge impact
on AMOC. I think that all ofthis stuff is coming from
Anthony can correct me if I'mwrong, but I think it's all
coming from, like, oneparticular guy who just keeps

(11:48):
putting these Amox studies out.And they all are, you know,
pretty alarmist.
But at the same time, you can goright now into probably nature
or somewhere like that and findstudies saying that it's doing
the opposite. It's know, thesethat these patterns are
strengthening or they'reweakening or they're not doing

(12:10):
anything at all. You can findjust as many papers saying
different things based on thesedifferent computer model
scenarios. I I just you know, Iguess he's not he he may or may
not be around ten, twenty five,thirty years when they do this
reevaluation of whether or notwe are, you know, covering the

(12:33):
Statue Of Liberty in a in aglacier, like, in, like, in the
day after tomorrow, but I don'tknow. He I don't think he knows
what he's talking about.
He just says stuff that he seesin the news.

We just recently ran a piece on climate realism
on the AMOC. The USA Todaycovered it as if it were fact.
Gore talked about, you know, oneof the newspapers in Britain,
you know, talking about it.Well, guess who that was? It was
the Guardian.
You know? Anything alarmist isreliably alarmist there and

(13:05):
doubled down on. And so here'sthis article that I wrote for
climate realism. Keely, if youcan bring that up, you can see
that I thoroughly debunked this.There's an a complete complete
lack of any proof whatsoeverthat the AMOC is gonna shut
down.
And a and USA Today used thesame stupid comparison saying,

(13:29):
oh, this is just like the dayafter tomorrow. Oh, no. You
know? And it's just bogus beyondbelief. It's all fear mongering,
and it's all about the scriptthat these media outlets keep
following.
They find some paper, and thepaper says x. And then they say,
oh, that's bad. Well, let's takethat and make it x plus seven or

(13:51):
x squared, you know, and let'slet's go with that headline. And
that's what they do. They makethese things into these scary
headlines for two reasons.
Number one, they truly believethat the world is going to hell
in a handbasket from climatechange. There's no debate about
that. And secondly, clickbaitsells, and that's all this stuff
is. It's it is irresponsiblejunk journalism clickbait.

But they can't decide what disaster is gonna
come to pass. If the ice capsgrow, then sea level rise will
reverse. And yet I keep gettingthings saying sea level rise is
increasing faster. Well, thatcan't be the case if the ice
caps are gonna grow. Inaddition, you know, Gore Jim is

(14:41):
right.
Gore didn't Gore didn't say thatwe'd have a day after tomorrow,
twenty four hours, everythinggoes haywire. Or that even

Jim Lakely (14:50):
a new ice age is coming.

Or even that a new ice age is coming. You know,
he not be smart enough to knowthat the ice age is driven by,
the the tilt of the earth andthe sun, very long cycles. It
has nothing to do with c o twolevels. But he did say it seemed

(15:12):
to me early on in in hisresponse, he did say, you're
right. Evidence is mounting orthe science is becoming
something like that.
And I'm sorry. A paper based onclimate model projections is not
evidence or data. I I repeatagain. Climate models are tools.
They don't provide data.

(15:34):
They don't provide evidence. Andwhat evidence does exist is all
over the map. Some say it'sslowing down. Some say it's
speeding up. Some say it'sstaying about the same as for
the last sixty years.
And as far as his I think Jim'sgonna go go ahead and go back to
Jim.

Jim Lakely (15:52):
Yeah. I I just wanted to just to get get to
another point. Another thing Iwanted to parse out of that is
the the way Al Gore describedhow much ice is melting at
Greenland. I forget the precisenumber that he had, but it
reminded me of a post that ChrisMartz, our friend, Chris Martz,
the meteorologist, had posted.He's actually covered this a

(16:13):
lot, and I I don't wanna bringit up on screen, but I I
remember that he noted that theGreenland ice sheet and you can
correct any of these things ifthey're wrong, team.
But he said the Greenland icesheet contains 2,900,000
gigatons of ice. That'sequivalent to 2,900,000 tons.
And that at the rate thatGreenland ice is melting, if

(16:35):
that, that number is accurate,it would take more than eleven
thousand years for the entireGreenland ice sheet to melt. Do
do those numbers sound right

to you? Well, here's the you know? No. They
don't sound right. I mean, thethe the the amount of ice sounds
right.
That sounds right.

Jim Lakely (16:53):
Right.

But the idea that I think he said 60, I don't
know, 60,000 tons, 60,000,000tons of ice are melting a day,
twenty four hours a day, That'sjust a lie. That this is just
false. He's gotta know it'sfalse. Because what happens is

(17:13):
every year every year, now inthe past throughout history, ice
melts at Greenland during thesummer months and regains ice
during the winter months. But ifthe ice was melting at the rate
he's talking about, it wouldn'tbe, it it wouldn't show in the

(17:35):
total ice mash measurable.
And Anthony has a there there'sAnthony's comment at a glance
post on that and Linnea's video.We've covered this. But more
importantly, what this study didnot say, or or does not look at
is the fact that or I'm sorry.What Al Gore is ignoring is the

(17:57):
melting. Often, the meltingoccurs inland, creates a pool.
The melting occurs one day andrefreezes the next day. It never
reaches the ocean. So you canmelt all the all the ice inland
that you want to so long as it'srefreezing, inland, and it has

(18:19):
no impact on the of the oceancurrents, the AMOC, or sea level
rise. Either one. It can affecteither one if it all refreezes.
And if you ignore thatrefreezing, then, you know,
you're just you're cherrypicking what you wanna talk
about.

They ignore everything. Right? You know,
they only look at, oh, the milk.But, you know, when you look at
the total amount of ice on thisgraph here, it tells it all. It
completely tells the story ofhow incompetent the media is.
You look at the the magnifiedgraph of ice loss. You know? Oh,
no. And then you compare it tothe total amount of ice that's

(19:01):
in Greenland. It isn't even ablip.
It's nothing. It'sinconsequential. And, you know,
every year, you know, Greenlandmelts, icebergs calve into the
ocean and so forth, and then newsnow piles on in the winter, and
and it it adds to it. So, yes,there's been a net loss over the
past few years. But is thatrelevant?

(19:24):
Who knows? It you know, youdon't know how long this has
been going on. You don't knowwhat the trends are in
Greenland. And the biggestfailure of humans who think that
climate change is a real threatis the fact that they don't have
any real understanding of thelong lifespans and the long
cycles that go on in the earth.The cycles that go on in the

(19:48):
earth, you know, melting,freezing, ocean currents,
whatever it is, lava, magma,volcanoes, earthquakes, all of
this stuff is extremely longterm compared to the human
lifespan.
And so people only focus onwhat's happening now, and what's
happening now isn't relativerelevant to the long term trend.

The, you know, one more thing to think of. You
know, Anthony is right. We wethink of these short terms. We
do know a little bit somethingbased on proxy data about the
past in Greenland. And we knowthat even during the since the
agricultural revolution, sincethe last ice age came, so twelve
thousand years ago, we knowGreenland ice has been smaller,

(20:31):
and Greenland had had more landexposed than it has now, that
the ice sheets have grown overtime even during this
interglacial period.
And how do we know that? Theyfind shells,

Jim Lakely (20:43):
shell

middens inland, dozens of miles from the
sea where they should be, butthey were covered by ice. That
means that that was open areaunderwater before then. They
they find all sorts of data likethat that shows, sorry, folks.
The ice waxes and wanes, and ithas nothing whatsoever to do

(21:04):
with human activities.

Jim Lakely (21:06):
Alright. Well, there's an there's an other
geez. My notes are a littlescrewed up here. There's a
second video here from Gord thatI wanted to play, and well, this
is a topic we have to touch onhere and there. I'll just let
the video speak for itself, ifyou can add that up there,
Keely.

Speaker 6 (21:25):
But the the fossil fuel industry has become
hegemonic where all areas ofpolicy that affect their
business model is concerned. Ifyou go to the international
conferences, this year, it'll bein Turkey. Last year, it was in
Belem in Brazil, etceteraetcetera. The largest delegation

(21:48):
larger than the other 10 largestdelegations put together are
fossil fuel lobbyists. Andthey've spent billions and
billions of of dollars deceivingpeople using the same model, and
you know the the the book andthe movie, The Merchants of
Doubt.
The the model was written by thetobacco industry, and it was

(22:11):
taken and adopted by the fossilfuel industry, and they're still
at it. They even run-in schoolboard elections in in some key
states. No kidding. And and andlocal election. They have such a
huge amount of money focused onthis task.
And, you know, they're waybetter at capturing politicians
than emissions. And they and andall around the world, they have

(22:37):
captured enough of thepoliticians and policy makers to
be in effective control of thepolicies that affect their
business model.

Jim Lakely (22:47):
Show me the money. I've been waiting to get that
drop in for quite a while.Anthony, if the fossil fuel
industry has such a huge amountof money focused on this task,
where's our money? I am so sickof this talking point by them.

(23:10):
Al Gore has a net worth of$300,000,000.
His monthly carbon footprint isbigger than all of us on this
stream together over a year,possibly over several years. I
know this this this is a topicthat that gets under your skin
too.

Yeah. Well, you know, part of it had to do with,
you know, he sold that TVchannel of his, which was all
about climate change, and hesold it to, drum roll, please,
the Arabs. Yep. Oil is to theArabs. Big oil.
Oh, gosh. You know, I wouldreally like to see somebody
stand up in the audience when hestarts spouting this stuff and

(23:49):
say, mister Gore, mister Gore,can you answer this question,
please? How did you arrive hereat this venue? Oh, I I took
private plane. What did thatprivate plane run on?
Oh, wow. You know, I'm on thespot. He's talking about how
terrible fossil fuels are andbig oil is, and yet he uses it

(24:11):
every day. What a hypocrite.

Jim Lakely (24:18):
Yep.

I don't I don't have too much to add here. It's
the same old song and danceevery single time. It doesn't I
mean, I guess I guess it'seffective for rhetoric whether
or not it's true. But how doeshe explain why oil and gas

(24:41):
companies are some of thebiggest investors in the world
in green technology? Why why dothey lobby for more regulation
on oil and gas?
Because they do.

Jim Lakely (24:53):
They got it.

Especially the big the, you know, big oil. A
lot of

Jim Lakely (24:57):
these excel they got Keystone excel shut down.

Yeah. So what again, as as you already said,
where where is the money? Whereis the money going? They they
have they have spun they havemade so much headway with the
Exxon thing where they had,like, some guys at Exxon, some
scientists at Exxon who were notconvinced by the climate

(25:22):
alarmist kind of rhetoric thatwas starting to spin up at the
time in the eighties andnineties. And so Exxon was like,
okay.
We're gonna look into this. Andwhat did Exxon end up doing?
They ended up being one of thebiggest investors in green
stuff. Yeah. It's it'scompletely ridiculous.

BP went beyond petroleum. Shell became a big
wind company. They all lobbiedfor carbon taxes. Why? Because
it shuts down their smallcompetitors.
They can pay it. The competitorscan't. They go out of business.
That helps their hedge hegemony,which is what Gore was trying to
say. The problem is if they wereso power they were so all

(26:09):
powerful.
He made it sound like they arethe death star that that, you
know, that, Darth Vader, is is,working at the behest of big
oil, and they have that kind ofcontrol. If that was true, why
would they be in dozens ofcourtrooms and probably hundreds
of courtrooms across the countryfighting climate lawsuits if

(26:31):
they could just shut it alldown? If, why, are they one of
the most regulated industries inthe country and probably the
world? You know, you gottaremember, outside of The US,
most countries don't haveprivate oil companies. The
largest oil company in the worldis called Saudi Aramco, and it's

(26:52):
owned by the government, the thethe sheikhs.
In Nigeria, private companiesdon't own the oil. The the the
government does. That's true aswell almost everywhere else,
even even in England, the NorthSea, that's controlled by the
government. So, it's not oilcompanies. It's governments.

(27:15):
And it's the most regulatedindustry that I'm aware of. If
if they really had the kind ofpower, they would wave their
magic wand, say there's no placelike America. Oh, click our
click our little red shoestogether. There's no place like
America. And they get rid of allthe regulations.
The lawsuits would end, and theywouldn't be spending money and
all this stuff. But they are.

Jim Lakely (27:37):
Yeah.

So it's just a false narrative.

Jim Lakely (27:41):
And I just wanna

That's what Gore is is famous for doing. You
know? He he put out not adocumentary. He put out a
docuganda. It's propagandaposing as a documentary, and he
was rewarded with an AcademyAward for it because the left in
Hollywood ate it up.

Jim Lakely (27:58):
Yeah. Just just before we leave this topic,
there's just one more thingabout that quote from or that
clip from Gore that got under myskin. He said, quote, they have
captured enough of thepoliticians and policymakers to
be in effective control of thepolicies that affect their
business model, unquote. Okay.If I wanna grant you that, how
long has that control been ineffect exactly?

(28:19):
About a year and a couple ofmonths. Biden gave the Greens
everything they wanted, as asLinnea has said, and more,
including direct payments ofbillions of dollars, our money.
And the green agenda has been onthe rise and dominant for most
of the last two decades. Al Goreis full of it, and he's losing.
He knows he's losing.
And he actually even alluded towhat's gonna be our main topic

(28:41):
today. So I think it's time forus to move on. I usually only
Jim rant on the In the Tankpodcast, but I just couldn't
help myself. God, that guydrives me insane.

Well, Jim, wait. Wait. Wait. Just just
before you leave. You're right.
Look. Biden, four years. Obama,eight years. But even going back
to Bush, what did Bush say whenhe was president, the second
Bush? Bush Bush junior.
He said we were addicted. He hecalled it an addiction to oil
and gas.

Jim Lakely (29:08):
You know? He was in the business for crying out
loud.

And he was in the business. So let's not
pretend that, the government hasbeen giving oil and gas
everything it's wanted for alltime. It hasn't. You're you're a
100% right there, Jim. But it'snot just the four years of of
Biden.
We've had nearly twenty yearsnow of massive incursions into

(29:32):
the private sector to restrictand restrain oil, gas, and coal
use.

Jim Lakely (29:39):
Yeah. The the Biden EPA was not, throwing gold bars
off the Titanic at us. They werethrowing it at their green
friends, and so and that'scorruption to the highest level.
And I hope someday somebody getsarrested for that.

Alright. Yeah. I just for me sorry, Jim. I just
one one more thing. For me,that's, like, that's a that's
just a conversation enderimmediately.
Like, if someone comes, youknow, I you know, we all get
this all the time in emails andin comments and whatever. If
someone, like, opens theirconversation or has a major part
of their point against you isthat you're funded by fossil

(30:12):
fuel interests or whatever, Ijust tune out pretty much. I I'm
not interested in people whodon't even care enough to to
figure out what the reality ofthe world is at that basic of a
level. I just don't have timefor it.

Jim Lakely (30:29):
Yeah. Well, you know what? I'm going to pull Linnea,
and I'm gonna talk about goldbars, but not the ones that are
being thrown off the Titanic.I'm gonna be talking about the
gold bars and other preciousmetals you can get from the
sponsor of this program, andthat is Advisor Metals. And I
just surprised our producer, sohopefully she can bring it up on
the screen.

(30:50):
If you're like me, you listen toa ton of conservative shows on
YouTube and Rumble and otherplaces, and you hear tons of
pitches for buying gold andsilver

Speaker 6 (30:57):
and gold. Fuel industry.

Jim Lakely (31:01):
Oops. That's alright. There we go. But yeah.
So if you if you you see youhear tons of companies that are
pitching you to purchaseprecious metals for your
retirement and for just yourportfolio in general, and
there's a ton of companies outthere that can provide that
service, but I wanna tell youwhy you should go with the
sponsor of this program, andthat's Advisor Metals.

(31:22):
And it's because of the man whoruns that company, and his name
is Ira Brashatsky. He is themanaging member of Advisor
Metals, and he's not gonna wannabe one of those guys that
employs these high pressuretactics or engages in deceptive
marketing ploys. You get a lotof that in big gold. He also
doesn't deal in so called rarecoins. When you buy gold and the
precious metals from AdvisorMetals, you are dealing in

(31:43):
quality bullion, and that is somuch better to have on hand when
it comes to liquidate this veryvaluable physical asset.
And when you buy from AdvisorMetals, you're gonna have your
investment sent discreetly anddirectly to your home. Eirat, by
the way, is advertising on thisprogram because he's an America
first patriot. He doesn't donateto democrats. He refuses to work

(32:03):
with the proxies of the ChineseCommunist Party, and he, like
us, abhor the machinations andschemes of things like the World
Economic Forum and the UnitedNations and whatever place that
Al Gore happens to be hangingout. That is why we're so proud
to have Advisor Metals as asponsor.
So if wanna you device diversifyyour investment portfolio or if
you wanna back up your IRA withreal physical bullion of

(32:26):
precious metals, please go toclimaterealismshow.com/metals.
You can leave your informationthere, and Ira will be in
contact with you to make thewhole process so very easy.
Again, that'sclimatorealismshow.com/metals,
and be sure to tell them whosent you because that helps us
in this program while you'rehelping yourself. Thank you for

(32:47):
your attention to this matter,and thank you to Scott in the
comments who told me that's agreat segue. You should just do
the ad read now, and so I did.
But we can move on now to oursecond item. It's the first time
you've ever done that, Scott, sothanks for the suggestion. Our
second item today in the crazycrazy climate news of the week
is I call it, we can't sellzebugs. This comes from our

(33:09):
friends at climate changedispatch. Bugout, major Swiss
grocer ditches insect basedfoods after years of poor sales.
And, of course, we have to go towe were told for years we have
to go to insect based proteinsbecause it's harmful to the
environment and we cause climatechange by wanting to eat meat.
Let me read a little bit foryou. The Swiss retail group,

(33:33):
Koop, is largely removing insectbased food products from its
product range. This decisionfollows years of weak sales
figures since their launch in2017. Back in 2022, competitor
Migros had already withdrawncomparable products from its
shelves even though the retailerhad previously offered cooking
classes related to them.

(33:55):
At that time, Switzerlandlegalized mealworms, crickets,
and grasshoppers as food. Hoopsubsequently launched products
from the supplier, Ascento.However, customers rarely
purchased them. Therefore, isnow is now selling off the
remaining stock. Linnea, yougotta get on the phone right
now.
You can act now and have a greatdeal for for food for your

(34:18):
chickens.

Yeah. That's true. Now just wait until they
go on sale at Tractor Supplyagain. I still have most of the
or, like, maybe a fourth left ofthe five pound bag I bought last
time we talked about this. Sothe chickens love it.
The bluebirds love it. Cardinalslove it.

You know,

I think the reason that that these insect
based

Jim Lakely (34:44):
Anthony, you're having a little bit of audio
problems. Go ahead, Anthony. I'msorry. You're having a little
bit of audio problem therebecause you're remote, I know.
It's okay.
Sterling, would you like toweigh in before Anthony gets,
comes back?

For once, it's Anthony and not me. My first my
first thought. I guess my secondthought is the reason there's a
poor sales is because, you know,I think Barnum said you could
fool some of the people all thetime and all the people some of
the time, but you can't fool allthe people all the time. Well,

(35:20):
there were very, very, very fewpeople. That said that small sum
of the people you could fool allthe time that ever bought into
buying insects for food.
I I I've I've seen thosegourmand pop pop parties where
they do the tasting and someonesays, oh, I'll eat we'll eat a
cricket. I I've never seen themwhere they say, I'll eat a
mealworm. But I have seen peopleeat crickets. But, look, this

(35:46):
was never ever going to be youyou can't fool all the people.
You can't fool most of thepeople on eating insects.
They their their ancestors spentgenerations developing food
products so they wouldn't haveto scrabble in the dirt and eat
insects for protein. I I I can'timagine. I'm I'm honestly a bit

(36:11):
befuddled as to how this everever even became, an honest
topic of food, you know, eating.I don't know anyone who wants to
eat insects. I I just don't.

(36:32):
And and it's not because I onlyrun-in conservative circles.
I've never run into someone andsaid, you know, we had this
great party last weekend wherewe served a a mealworm souffle.
I I've never met that person. II just, how they ever thought
they were gonna pull this off?They just really thought that

(36:53):
the world would be blinkered bythe the term climate change and
believe.
And yet, you know, less thanhalf the people think it's gonna
affect them in their lives. Thatthose the the half and even the
ones that do of the of the 47,46% that do, they're not willing
to spend a dollar a month ontheir electric bills to fight
climate change. So they're gonnastart eating bugs? That's like

(37:16):
that of all the things theycould restrictions they could
impose on me, they could say,you can't drive. And I'd say,
well, I'm not happy about it,but I won't drive.
Oh, you can't you can't youyou've gotta, you know, set your
thermostat much higher and muchlower. I'm not happy about it,
but I won't do it. You have toeat insects. That's the last
one. That's where I I I I I goto the gun safe, start loading

(37:39):
up.
It's like, no. I'm not eatinginsects.

Jim Lakely (37:43):
Anthony, I I think it's really funny that they've
been for years flying to Davosfor the World Economic Forum on
private jets to try to convincethe world for years to eat bugs
because that's best for theenvironment while they're on
private jet.

Yeah. Well, you know, I think the re the real
reason behind the failure ofpeople to embrace eating bugs is
the lack of complementaryproducts showing up in the
grocery store. For example,you've never seen Cricket Helper
on the shelves. I

Jim Lakely (38:20):
knew a joke was coming.

I just A TV a TV dinner with, mealworms.

Jim Lakely (38:27):
Alright. Well yep. So, yeah, Linnea doesn't do it.
She doesn't do her groceryshopping at Tractor Supply, and
we're not going to pretend we'rein Tractor Supply while we're
shopping either in the regulargrocery store. So alright.
Our third item today in thecrazy climate news is, oh,
getting old causes climatechange. This comes from our

(38:50):
friends at actually, I have thewrong link in there for you,
Keely. That's my mistake. Butthis is from What's Up With
That. I'm afraid I got some badnews for many people in our
audience as well as all but oneperson on that show.
And it's because the headlinefrom this from What's Up With
That is apparently getting oldcauses climate change. From our

(39:11):
friend and frequent chatparticipant, Charles Roder,
there was a time when theclimate conversation had
villains you could point towithout needing a spreadsheet.
Smoke stacks, jet engines, maybea coal plant belching away like
it had a personal grudge againstthe atmosphere. Simple,
tangible, satisfying. Thenthings got creative.

(39:32):
First, it was your car, then itwas your diet, then your
vacation, then your thermostat,then your dog, then your coffee
habit. And at some point, themessage quietly shifted to from
some activities produceemissions to your existence is a
rounding error away from apolicy problem. And now we've
reached the next logicalfrontier, aging. Charles cites a

(39:56):
paper from the journal I'msorry, from the journal energy
energy policy. Anthony, thisthis was on your on your site.
I'm sure you're familiar withthere it is. Thank you for
finding that, Keely. I'll letyou take a whack at this first.
I don't wanna say you're theoldest on here. I'll just say
that you should go first.

Are you somehow saying I'm the oldest? That what
you're saying here?

Jim Lakely (40:23):
We may not have enough time for you to get
through this. You better go. Oh,

thanks. Well, you know, when I first saw this, I
thought this has to be a joke. Imean and then I thought, well,
maybe they're blaming it onmaybe old people have more
fluctuance than methane orsomething. I don't know. But it
just it just goes to show youthe length at which these

(40:50):
climate alarmists will go to tryto prove something and basically
say, you know, everything causesclimate change.
Everything that you do in yourlife is bad. You know? The lack
of eating bugs is bad. Theeating meat is bad. You know?
Driving a car is bad. All thesethings. They want you to live in
mud huts like people in Africa.You know? And they're even

(41:13):
finding ways to basically saythat's bad too.
The thing is is that this isjust another modeling study. And
as Sterling loves to point out,modeling is not data. It's not
reality. And so this is justanother alternate form of
reality that these people comeup with. Basically, they're

(41:34):
saying that because of thesedentary lifestyle and certain
things that older people tend todo, that causes more climate
change.
Well, boo hoo. Who cares? I suredon't. You know? And it's the
the most disturbing thing aboutthis particular article and this
paper behind it, in thescientific paper, they get into

(41:57):
politics, and they basically saythere needs to be policy put in
place to mitigate this.
So the first thing I thought ofwhen I saw that was this is just
like the movie Soylent Green.You know? You get old, you get
recycled for the sake of theplanet. That's what these people
think.

You know, it it could be like Swirl Green.
You're right. Honestly, I'd eatSwirl It Green before I'd eat
insects, so, you know,cannibalism before mealworms.
But I guess my thinking is maybethey're saying and I and I've
gotta admit, I I haven't readthe study. Maybe they're saying

(42:39):
because older people in generalhave more disposable income.
You know, the the the wealthiestsegment of society is the oldest
segment of society. Maybe andbecause we know that wealthy
people spend you know, do moreemissions, study after study has
shown they emit more per capitathan than other people, maybe,

(43:00):
that's what they're blaming.But, of course, you know,
they've been they've beenblaming old people for stuff for
a long time. Back in theseventies, I think the saying
was don't trust anyone over 30.And then, when I was young,
there was a movie called calledwhat was it?
It wasn't Soylent. Soylent Greenwas one, but, it was filmed here

(43:23):
in Dallas. It had Michael York.They, basically, when you reach
a certain age, you went to thisceremony and they celebrated you
reaching this age, and then youwere sent off to a one Logan's
Run. There it is.
Thank you, Peter Halligan.Logan's Run, where you were
supposedly sent off to thiswonderful place, and it turns

(43:43):
out what they were doing wasthey're killing you. I think you
reached 30, and they were gonnakill you. And and, supposedly,
they weren't killing you. Theywere sending you to this
wonderful place, and someonefound out.
It's like, hold it. I'm not I'mabout to turn 30. I don't wanna
die. So it's like, these that'swhat these people are all about.
They're missing tropes.

(44:06):
The younger generation istypically more worried about
climate change than the oldergeneration, and so they wanna
blame the older generation.They're already blaming them for
climate change. Right? It's it'stheir their parents' fault. They
live cushy lifestyles.
They were raised in cushylifestyles. They were raised in
homes with, with, you know,indoor plumbing and, climate

(44:26):
control indoors where we reallycan control the climate. And
they have their PowerBooks andtheir iPads and their cell
phones charged all the timeunless they lose their chargers.
And then they say, mom, dad, buyme a new charger. And yet they

(44:47):
wanna say that you've destroyedthe planet.
I'm gonna TikTok about it. It'sit's, it's a sad statement,
about the state of, climatealarm that just just an age just
aging gets you blamed.

Yeah. This is this is more of what we talk
about all the time, the, like,stupid modeling studies that
don't matter. Like, what? Arethey gonna put a cap on how old?
I mean, I I say that, but I dobelieve that they would do that
in places like Canada and TheNetherlands and whatnot.
They would put a cap on on howold you're allowed to be. I
think if if you got

You know, people fleeing

strong enough.

People fleeing the country would be the first
climate refugees.

Yeah. Really. But, no, these people I mean,
I'm not gonna say this for allclimate alarmists because I
think there are a lot of truebelievers out there. But there
is a huge chunk of them whodon't love the environment. They
don't love the planet.
They just hate people.

Jim Lakely (45:48):
Mhmm.

They just hate human beings. Yep. And and that
hatred drives all sorts ofinsanity. And it's why they take
great pleasure in in trying tosuggest that they take away
things from average people thatthey enjoy, you know, like
eating meat or, like, drivingyour own car, that kind of

(46:09):
thing. They hate you.
They want you to suffer. They donot love the planet. So I and I,
of course, not you know, hashtagnot all, but it's I I really
think that that is the drivingphilosophy behind a lot of these
people.

Yeah. They hate they hate people who don't
agree with them and who aren'ttheir friends. Right? I keep
hearing how billionaires are thethe problem, how we hate
billionaires, how we need to taxbillionaires. The left is
unified.
Bernie Sanders, AOC, what's yourname in Massachusetts?
Pocahontas. They all hatebillionaires, but they're all

(46:51):
getting behind a billionaire,Tom Steyer, for governor of
California. Because there's abillionaire we can agree with.

Jim Lakely (46:59):
Yeah.

You know?

Jim Lakely (47:00):
But, you know, it just you know, it it was
important. It is a crazy climatenews item because it is, Linnea
said, it's it's a climatealarmism is just ultimately, at
at its core, a dystopian antihuman human movement. Our our
friend Patrick Moore, who wasone of the cofounders of
Greenpeace, has talked aboutthis quite a lot. In fact, he
wrote a whole book about it onwhy he left Greenpeace, and it's

(47:22):
because he joined Greenpeace tosave the whales and to oppose
not nuclear energy, but theproliferation of nuclear
weapons. And one day, he lookedaround, listening to his fellow
Greenpeace people, looked aroundthe room and said, you guys hate
human beings.
I'm not in that business. I'mnot here. I don't I love

(47:42):
humanity. I love life. What areyou guys doing?
And he left. And, unfortunately,it's just been this way for
decades.

There should be a movie about it. Fear and
loathing fear and self loathingon planet Earth.

You go. There you go.

Jim Lakely (47:58):
Alright. Now this is the time where I usually do our
ad read, and I'll just mentionagain, please go to
climaterealismshow.com/metals ifyou're interested in adding
precious metals to your to yourportfolio. But we can go right
now to the main topic of this,and the I love the thumbnail
that Donald Kendall fromHeartland made for us today.

(48:20):
This is based our main topictoday is based on a piece
written for the May firstedition of Climate Change
Weekly. You can go toheartland.org, and up at the top
there is a button calledsubscribe, and then you can get
the email newsletter sent to youevery Friday, almost every
Friday.
Sometimes sometimes Sterling isslacking, and he takes a Friday

(48:41):
off once in a while. But westill call it climate change
weekly, and it's a it's a greatroundup. If you like this show,
you're gonna love thatnewsletter. So I hope you will
go over and check it out. But,you know, the idea was that net
zero on the you know, which isnow a global movement, and it
certainly was when Biden was wasin the White House, but it's

(49:03):
it's been dominating thepolitics and the policy of
Europe now for for many years,but that is now dying of a
thousand cuts.
And his headline here in hisfirst item in the Climate Change
Weekly from May 1 is countriesand industries are abandoning or
reducing net zero commitments.And I'm gonna read a bit from it
and have Sterling take it fromthere. Since the swearing in of

(49:25):
Donald Trump as the fortyseventh president of The United
States, climate alarmism, andthe political machinations in
the public and private sector itspawned have experienced the
death of a thousand cuts.Sterling writes, I have
previously described here atClimate Change Weekly some of
Trump's actions that aredraining the climate swamp of
resources, supporters, spirit,and momentum. These include

(49:48):
defunding climate boondogglesacross federal agencies, pulling
The United States out of theParis climate agreement,
withdrawing The United Statesfrom dozens of climate
monitoring and wealth transferorganizations, most importantly,
the UN Framework Convention onClimate Change, and rescinding
the greenhouse gas endangermentfinding.
All these actions and more haveleft the progressive climate

(50:08):
elite bereft and seeking solaceand continued support, with said
solace and support waning inboth the public and private
sectors in The United States andinternationally. The cuts are
coming fast and furious.Evidence suggests that with
America no longer playing thefool, cast as a villain in the
climate scam, other countriesand companies around the globe

(50:30):
are increasingly refusing to doso. Some entities are
withdrawing from their climatecommitments entirely and re
embracing fossil fuels. Others,while still embracing climate
alarm to a degree, are reducingtheir emission reduction
pledges, cutting funding forwind and solar, pushing out the
timeline for net zero,acknowledging the continued
necessity of fossil fuels, for awhile at least or some

(50:53):
combination of above.
Now, you know, Sterling, youcite in this piece several
specific examples of one ofthose thousand cuts that are
killing net zero around theworld. Maybe you can run through
some of them for us.

Yeah. Well, let's look at the international
stage. Two things happenedrecently. The sub meeting of the
international, of the UNFramework Convention on Climate
Change and the IPCC met todetermine when they would
publish the next, assessmentreport. They, adjourned after a

(51:31):
week or more of meetings, andtheir conclusion was, we can't
even determine when we're gonnapublish the next report.
You know, without the nextreport, how are we gonna buy
guide policy? They couldn't evendecide on when they would
publish the next report. Anothermeeting held in Colombia of, it
it wasn't the a UN sponsoredthing. It was a a meeting of,

(51:54):
what I like to call the thecoalition of the willfully
stupid. 60 countries gottogether in Colombia and agreed,
they agreed, by the way, thatthey're gonna phase out fossil
fuels.
Let's talk about some of thecountries that weren't there.
China, the largest emitter ofgreenhouse gases. The US, India,

(52:19):
Russia. In other words, all themajor emitting countries failed
to go to Colombia to sign thisagreement. In fact, it it's
worse than that.
It's not just that there arefour or five countries that are
big, but they decided not to go.No. 60 countries. That sounds
imprisonment until you realizemore than 200 countries signed
the Paris Climate Agreement. Soless than a third of the

(52:41):
countries that were on boardwith Paris are on board with
this new agreement.
That's a drop off. That's aloss, not a victory. You go to,
Germany. They have decided thatwe still keep our goals, our our
climate goals, but we're notgonna penalize people if they
don't make the changes. So wewill still support you if you

(53:03):
wanna install, you know, you youwanna move to certain vehicles,
you want a heat pump, wanna youinstall a heat pump, we'll still
give you subsidies.
But unlike when we said, by law,you must do these things, now
we've said, we'll give yousupport, but we're not gonna
penalize you if you don'tactually meet the deadlines.

(53:26):
Other countries are doing thesame thing, and and this is
important. Private industry isbacking out. As soon as Trump
was elected, even before heswore the oath of office, banks
had pulled out of all the thenet zero banking alliances. Now
automobile manufacturers, 18major manufacturers said they

(53:49):
are either scaling back orending their EV programs.
Did that coincidentally coincidewith the fact that subsidies
dropped off the table in The US?Not coincidentally, by the way.
You know? Even and the thing isthat's that's that's ridiculous.
The people that were buyingthese things didn't need the

(54:10):
subsidies, but as soon as thesubsidies went away, they
stopped buying them.
So, that's happened. As wementioned earlier, oil companies
oh, well, oil companies look.They're spending $25,000,000,000
on climate crap. But for thefirst time in eight years, that
spending declined. It declinedfor more than $38,000,000,000.

(54:31):
So they're going backwards. Thepoint is with the Duke
University has said we're we'reending our, 4,000,000,000
spending on sustainability andclimate. It's just one thing
after the other after the otherin the private sector, in the
public sector. As soon as Trumpstops funding something and gets

(54:51):
us out of these things, thesecountries say, well, if we can't
rely on The US to give us money,if we can't rely on The US to be
the patsy, we can't afford to doit. And what does that say?
If you really believed if youreally believed the world was
gonna end because of climatechange. Just because The US

(55:13):
doesn't do it, does that meanyou're not gonna do it too? It
seems to me you redouble yourcommitment to save the Earth, to
save yourselves. You you sayyou're gonna be destroyed. So
you redouble your commitment tomake up for what The US isn't
doing.
Instead, they're backing off.Means they didn't really believe
it in the first place. Just likeObama didn't believe Caesar
rising, and that's evidenced bythe fact that he bought a

(55:33):
beachfront property as soon ashe left that office.

Yeah. If Europe thought if European countries
thought that China and Indiawere, you know, causing the
planet to hurdle towards, totaldestruction, they'd be, like,
bombing coal plants and stuff inChina. Well, I mean, I guess
with with as much as they couldanyway. They they'd be they'd be
doing sanctions against Chinauntil they stopped, you know,

(56:00):
their industry and stuff. They'dbe doing all these things
against the real big pollutersand also big carbon dioxide
emitters, but they're notbecause they don't actually
think that it's a world endingproblem.
I yeah. It's good riddance kickrocks. Net zero. Sorry to our

(56:22):
European audience that, youknow, your countries are still
kind of hoping that they cancontinue this until Trump is out
of office, but I think you'regonna run out of money before
before he's out of office onthese programs, especially if
the cuts keep coming. So, yeah,I I think that they're in a
whole lot of trouble in the netzero area.

(56:42):
But, you know, they I think thatthe IPCC and a lot of the kind
of international organizationson climate made a big
miscalculation about a decade orso ago. Because I I it seems
when you when you read thehistory of this stuff that
they're, like, alarmist, butfairly moderately alarmist on

(57:04):
it, you know, into the eightiesand nineties and maybe earlier
February. And I think they beganto feel like people weren't
alarmed enough or they weren'ttaking it seriously enough. And
so they tried to kick the fearinto a higher gear on it. And
and they started saying a bunchof stuff that just wasn't even

(57:27):
in their AR reports, you know,like hurricanes are getting
worse, that kind of thing.
That doesn't show up in theiractual scientific reports. But
they started advertising thatand pushing it in the media.
They came up with all of thesedifferent organizations that
were targeted towards ramping upthe fear in the general public.
And what happened instead ofpeople becoming more alarmed

(57:50):
outside of some activists aboutclimate change, people just
tuned it out. They just decidedeither one that it's so extreme
and such a huge problem thatthey couldn't possibly do
anything about it.
And the they're looking aroundat their governments not doing
enough to stop the catastrophethat's just around the corner.

(58:11):
And so they get frustrated andgive up because they're like,
well, the world is over anyway,so who cares? Or people look at
their extreme forecasts andtheir extreme, you know, the
things that they're they'reasking you to give up and stuff.
And they say, I just I justdon't buy it. It's just not
showing up in reality.

(58:32):
It's just not showing up in, youknow, what I experience from day
to day. So, you know, I'm justthis just doesn't come across as
believable to me. And they moveon. I think I think that they
made a big miscalculation intrying to ramp up the fear on
that stuff. If they just hadsaid, you know, oh, you know,

(58:53):
we're gonna have some sea levelrise because of melting ice caps
or whatever.
And coastal communities need toinvest in infrastructure to
accommodate that.

Yeah. What they say sorry.

Yeah. I don't and and I don't think anybody would
have been, like, you know, foropposed to that. I certainly
wouldn't be. But instead, whatthey say is you have to give up
meat. You have to give up allfossil fuels and all of the
downstream products of fossilfuel processing.
You have to all of it needs togo away and it has to happen
right now or else the entireworld is just gonna explode.

(59:32):
It's just not compelling. No.I'm not gonna give you control
over the entire global economyto prevent a couple of
millimeters a year of sea levelrise. Sorry.
No.

Jim Lakely (59:43):
Or a fraction of a degree in Celsius in the
temperature one hundred yearsfrom now.

Yeah. What they what they started saying,
you're right about that, Linnea,is after AR six came out, maybe
a little before, but certainlyafter, they really ramped up the
claim that, oh, the IPCCC isit's too cautious. It it's it's
it doesn't go far enoughbecause, it's really worse than
they say. So, yeah, it's thegold standard. They always say

(01:00:10):
it's the gold standard, but theythey're too cautious.
They don't they're not evenfollowing the science. It's
worse than you thought. I willsay this about the EU. You know,
I mentioned this in my article.I forgot to say it before.
So Germany is backing off someof its stuff, but the EU as a as
a whole is backing off somestuff. Simple things like
reporting requirements. The EUhad demanded that companies,

(01:00:34):
above a certain numb level of,revenue have to report their
their, greenhouse gas emissionsand start reducing. Now they've
scaled it back. So 80 the 80% ofthe country companies that were
covered before are no longercovered.
And why is that? Well, it's notbecause they think climate

(01:00:54):
change is any less scary. It'sbecause their economic prospects
and and more importantly, theirelectoral prospects are even
more scary. You know, right wingparties are rising, and they do
not believe in a climate hoax.And people are tired of paying
higher energy bills and beingput out of work when their
factory moves overseas.

(01:01:16):
And, they say, oh, we can'tafford that. So they're even
scaling you know, even EU as awhole is scaling back some.

Jim Lakely (01:01:24):
Well, in in The United Kingdom and I know we
have a lot of viewers in in TheUK. We have guests, on this show
from, UK, quite often. I can tryto get one on today, but they
couldn't be on because it's sucha crazy and busy and happy day
in in Great Britain because ofthe election local election
results yesterday where thelabor where labor got absolutely

(01:01:44):
shellacked. I saw clips onTwitter last night of you know,
they said, well, we thought lasttime was bad when they lost 66%
of the seats they tried todefend. Last I looked last
night, I didn't check thismorning, but it was, like, 83,
85% of the seats that the labourwas trying to defend last night
were were lost.
This was the first nationalelection in which, I think you

(01:02:07):
would fairly say that Reform UKwas actually on full footing.
And Reform UK had a fantastic,fantastic night last night in
the elections in Great Britain.And what is one of the main
pillars of their agenda? Gettingthat rid of net zero because it
is a economically disastrouspolicy. It's a freedom stripping

(01:02:29):
policy.
It's it's a policy that willdrive your country even farther
and faster into absolute ruin,and it won in a sprint last
night in in The UK. So I thinkthese are I think you're right,
Sterling. I think NetZero hasbeen dying of a thousand cuts.
It got hit in the face with asledgehammer or with a scimitar

(01:02:51):
or or an axe just last night inin in Britain.

Sterling Burnett (01:02:56):
Yep. Maybe it's not a thousand cuts. Maybe
they're just be it's beingbludgeoned to the into
submission.

At this point. Yep. Yep. Alright. Well, I think we
can now go to everyone'sfavorite segment of this show,
and that is q and a.
Take it away, Linnea. Yay.

Linnea Lueken (01:03:21):
Alrighty. Let's see. Okay. So our our friend
Mike here asks, if the ice capsmelt a bit because temperatures
go up, do we know how much waterwill be absorbed into, for
example, the Sahara and justland in general via rain and
life versus just raising oceanlevels. I mean, some I mean,

(01:03:43):
it's gonna go into the watercycle.
Right?

Presumably, but I've got no idea how much
and and how we'll change watercycles. Maybe Anthony has a
better feel.

Yeah. I and Anthony has dropped out, so
we'll get him back in a bit. Ithink his the Wi Fi was not so
good.

He told us that his Wi Fi was gonna turn back into a
pumpkin at the top of the hour,and that's exactly what
happened.

So Oh.

I think he's going for good.

Okay. Well, yeah, I I wouldn't even begin to be
able to guess that thatcalculation. I mean, it takes a
while for water to move throughthe water cycle. So one of the
one of the effects of dilutingseawater is that it can
evaporate more, and you get someevaporative cooling as well at a

(01:04:31):
local level. I don't know if wecan even calculate how much that
would be impacted over time.

But you know what? You know what it would
impact

that are just

yeah. You know what it would impact that no
one's talked about? So you'reright. It cools it cools the
oceans. Everyone's saying, oh,the oceans are heating up faster
than the rest of the world.
Oh, it's it's it's more proof ofglobal warming. Well, it cools
the oceans. You know, one ofthe, the, main components of sea
level rise according to climatechange theory is thermal

(01:05:04):
expansion.

Yeah.

And this is as the water heats up, it expands,
and so that's part of the rise.Well, if if this cools it, that
means thermal expansion is goingdown, so sea level rise should
slow.

Yeah. I so there there is quite a bit of
complicated calculations that gointo this, and I'm sure that I'm
sure that they try to put thosethose downstream effects into
their modeling, but I'm not surehow accurate it it is. And I and
I'm sure that they don't know.

I bet they don't even try and do it.
Remember, they they said theycan't model clams. They said
they can't model all sorts ofthings. I bet they haven't even
looked at this because it mightundercut alarm.

Yeah. Okay. So, Pill and Clam says that the
answer is 42. I agree. I thinkthat's a problem.
Alright. Kite Man Music has afunny question. Is it true that
polar bears have gone extinct inAntarctica? And the answer is
yes. They've gone so extinctthat they were never there.

(01:06:08):
It's they actually, like, wentback in time and removed them
from history. That's how extinctthey are in Antarctica.

Like like, like the song American Pie, they
took the last train for thecoast a long time ago.

Yeah. Alright. William says, why aren't
Greenies celebrating the Iranwar for raising oil prices by
about $20 a barrel? Just becauseit's temporary?

They are celebrating it. I've seen dozens
of articles saying this provedthe need to get off oil and and
build more wind and solar. Thisshows that we were right all
along that you can't rely on oiland gas, that it's it it it it's
cost you too much. It's notreliable, so we need more wind
and solar. Now, if if you needmore wind and solar, if it's so

(01:07:00):
cost competitive, the subsidiescan still stay gone, and they'll
be building wind and solar,except that's not what's
happening.
So, that that tells me but butthey are celebrating it. They
love they love it.

And it and it is a temporary blip. Actually, I
think I saw this week that TheUnited States has now has now
become the number one oilexporter in the world. I think,
you know, jumping over thewhatever Gulf state was number
one, and it's because of theproblems in the Persian Gulf,
which will not be permanent.They will be ending hopefully
sooner rather than later. Thegood news is we're still gonna

(01:07:36):
be ramping that up.
And so, yeah, oil price is gonnabe coming down in the next few
months, I think.

Yeah. I mean, I my my bet would be not this
summer because oil prices almostalways go up in the summer
anyway, but it might moderateand certainly in the fall. But I
have no idea because I am notthe foreign policy person. But
okay. So this comment from John,I just wanted to bring it up
because John said they did learnout west that when you drain
lakes, it undermines theaquifers and they collapse,

(01:08:04):
which also affects groundsurface level, which is true.
And it also is true on thecoasts when you drain aquifers
for water. That's part of whatrelative sea level rise is in
certain areas, especially in theSoutheast. But that just gave me
an idea for a nonsense study. Weneed to contract someone to do

(01:08:26):
this for climate purposes. We'regonna we're gonna get a study
going where we are going to seewe're gonna do a we're gonna
make an engineering model of apipeline for water from our the
Arctic to the Southwest.
And we're just instead of thesea instead of the melt going
into the ocean, it's gonna go toNevada. And and we have just

(01:08:49):
solved two problems at once. Sogovernment, send me some money
and I will work up the coolestcrayon drawing you've ever seen
to show how this would work.Alright.

Yeah. Well and and we need is to do some, some
deep drilling. But on a smallscale, lots of lots and lots of
little bitty holes to allow thewater to go all the way down to
the aquifers really quick.

Mhmm.

It's just an engineering it's just an
engineering problem. Just likeproviding water for the coast
when your aquifers are drained.We we call it desalinization. We
can figure this stuff out if wereally need to.

Absolutely. Alright. Mike asks, do we have
any indication that the ex vicepresident actually knows what
those currents are? No.

I have no evidence I have no evidence of
that. Yeah. He often quotes hismentor, Roger Ravel, a climate
scientist he learned under. Hehe supposedly learned under, in
college, and then he basicallymisstates his position on
climate change. So if he can'tget that right, I'm not sure he

(01:10:02):
knows what, those currents arereally.

Alright.

But but to be fair, neither do the climate
models. They can't incorporatethe large scale ocean currents.

So, Sammy the Smooth has a question that we
definitely know the answer to.So there were COVID restrictions
that lasted a long time. Howmuch did that have an effect on
anything? Nothing. So carbondioxide emissions did not go
down in any way that wassignificant, like, noticeable

Right.

When it's charted out. There's not even a blip on
the Mauna Loa tracker. So takethat for what you will. Let's
see. Peter says, now the IPCChas dropped the RCP eight point
five and seven point oscenarios.
Will all of them have to berecalibrated? I see they still

(01:10:54):
have global population growingto 14,000,000,005 times more
coal being burnt. Do we know? Idon't know. I don't I don't
think they have to recalibratebecause this the scenarios are
the scenarios that they havethem programmed to a certain
emissions level at a certaintime periods and certain
population growth and all that.
They're dropping 8.5 at leastbecause it's just totally

(01:11:18):
improbable at best.

If yeah.

If you

had a no. It's impossible. If they had

Anthony Watts (01:11:24):
a bell curve of models,

8.5 was at the far end of the right, and
they're just they're justtruncating it. That will move it
all backwards. Now I didn't knowthat they're still keeping
global population at14,000,000,005 times more coal.
I think the coal is what wasused, for 8.5. So I'm not sure
they're still doing that.
But I I don't think they'll haveto re recalibrate. They'll just

(01:11:51):
lop off the extreme on one endand keep, you know, keep the
extreme on the other end. Sothere's there's no evidence, Oh,
no. The good side, that can'thappen either. The bad side's
gone.
The good side will still stay atthe low end, and they'll just,
move the bell curve. In the end,it's a modeling exercise. The

(01:12:17):
models run way too hot, and thatwas before eight point five.

You know? Yeah. Well, let let let me ask this
question related to that. So,you know, the use of fossil
fuels has continued to go up.Yep.
The percentage of total energyuse that is attributed to fossil
fuels is pretty much the same,has been the same for decades.
But yet our energy use, our useof fossil fuels keeps going up.
But the temperature rise has notbeen commiserate with the

(01:12:43):
increase in in our use of fossilfuels. So why aren't they
adjusting their scenariosdownward just based on that
observation over the last twentyyears?

Well, they just did. They dropped 8.5.

I know. What about

the ones in the middle? No. You know, look.
There's there's a problem.There's a a serious problem
there in that every new report,the the, upper and lower range
of where it could be almostnever changes.
It changes by a little bit. Ifyour models are better, we're

(01:13:18):
constantly told every newiteration of the report that the
models have improved. Well, whenmodels improve, the range of
possible outcomes shrink, andyou you should, over time,
settle on whatever the midrangelikely value is. It never
shrinks. So the models haven'timproved.

Yep. Alright. Bogus says that my study idea is
worth a $2,000,000,000 grant. Iagree. Let's get on that.
Come on, Chris Wright. We'llcall it an energy project.
Alright.

Chat. Come on, chat GPT. Crank that up for me this
afternoon.

Yeah. I would never. Alrighty. So David Voatz
says, do the climate alarmiststhink we are headed the way of
Venus? I have seen this in thenews.
I have. I've I've seen articles,I'm guessing probably in the
Guardian or maybe in theconversation that say that, you

(01:14:14):
know, the the cause of Venus'scurrent conditions was runaway
climate change. And so as ifthey're, like, implying that
that is anywhere in the cardsfor the state of this planet.
Yeah. I I've seen it I've seenit gently pitched as just kind
of like a scare story becausepeople know that Venus is, you

(01:14:36):
know, Venus.
It's utterly uninhabitable. But,yeah, that that's I I have seen
it.

Uninhabitable? Does that mean I have to cancel
my vacation plans there?

Well, you can you can ask the aliens that we're
finding out about this week.

Yeah. Maybe they can they they're gonna be your
travel agent for you, Sterling.They'll take care of you.

There you go.

So Steven Lindsay says, have you noticed this year
is cooler than last year? Snowextent at a twenty year high for
week 18 from as as Rutgers saysand also UAH statistics. Yeah.
This year is cooler than lastyear. The El Nino ended
temporarily.
It seems like it's probablygonna come back this fall, but

(01:15:25):
El Nino ended. The worst of theeffects of Honga Tonga have kind
of settled a little bit,although it'll probably persist
for quite a bit longer in theupper atmosphere. You know, you
can I can I can't pull it upright now, but the, you know,
month by month temperaturereports definitely show that

(01:15:46):
this year is cooler? So I'm notnot too worried about it. I'm
not gonna say that a single yearis evidence of a trend.
That's for sure.

No. No. But, you know, it's been actually a lot
cooler here in Northern Illinoisthis year than I can remember
over the past several years.Today, it's 65 degrees,
absolutely gorgeous, but it'sbeen very chilly. And we're here
almost in the May.
It's it's I'm glad to get thewarm weather.

What aliens lived on Venus that caused climate
change, says energy colonizer.See, we're we're bringing the
show together. We're looping itback to what we talked about at
the top of the at the beginningof the show here.

I didn't I didn't derail the show. I actually set
it up for success.

You you you'd have to read the full reports to
know that, and I haven't readthe tens of thousands of
documents they've released toknow which aliens from Venus are
causing climate change.

The Algardians. I'd believe that. Yeah.

The man the man bear pigs.

Is it is it Venusians or or is it well, if
you're CS Lewis, it'spearlandrins. I don't know. I
just don't know. Let's see.Another question.
I think I'm all out ofquestions, actually. Now we're
just chilling with the chat.

There you go.

Yeah. They use too many fossil fuels. Let's
see. Yeah. Michael and Michaelhere is coming in to ruin
everything for all of us withfacts by saying we are not tidal
locked to show one side to thesun, so we will not have a Venus
climate.
You're you're ruining thefantasy, Michael. We're gonna

That you know, that's the problem with our
audience. They bring in too manyfacts.

Yeah.

They do this. All they care about is facts and
data, not not fantasies. Sothere you go.

People in our chat really know a lot about the
planet Venus. So e j worm saysI'm sorry if it's actually a
real name. I I don't know how toread that out loud. High in
Venus's atmosphere where the airpressure is close to one bar.
The temperature is quite livablehigher than Earth but consistent
with the distance to the sun.

(01:18:07):
I have I've seen concepts oflike the the Venus cloud cities.
That's a very cool sci ficoncept. That's a good one.
Venus is cooked. That's true.

Mars is ours. I like it.

Yep. Absolutely. Thank you, guys. Alright. Well,
we have we've we've definitelyrun out the chat.
Although Peter asks, must bemore hurricanes on the way.
Right? Depends on who you ask. Ithink did Noah put out their
hurricane forecast? I think it'ssupposed to be about normal this

(01:18:45):
year, actually, even though Ihaven't seen it should be above
normal.

I haven't seen the pulmonary hurricane, but we
do know that more hurricanes areon the way because we're
entering hurricane season.There'll be more than they were
last month and the month beforethat.

Yep. We'll be covering hurricane season as we
normally do now. It's kind of anannual thing with with some
hurricane experts come earlyJune.

Yeah. Once we get the report, I don't actually
think that Noah has put outtheir report yet or their
prediction for the season yet.Not not the, the latest one
anyway.

I'm gonna make I'm gonna make several
predictions. I don't normally dothis, but I've been I've been
struck recently. It's you know,my psychic powers have really
improved. I'm gonna predict thatwe are soon to see more
wildfires for the year, that weare soon to see more heat for
the year, and we will probablyhave some hot temperature

(01:19:39):
records broken, this year. AndI'm I'm willing to put money on
all those predictions.

I think you might be right. I I I my prediction
for the summer and into the fallis that somewhere on the planet,
a crop of some kind is gonnahave a bad harvest.

Oh, you're you're sticking you're sticking
your neck out there, Linnea.

The the the mealworm harvest is gonna be absolutely
crappy this year. That's forthat's for guaranteed. Hey. You
know, Linnea, there's there'ssome there's some questions, I
think. I see them in the in thestarred chat that we that we how
we save these questions.
I see some that were from lastweek. Do not see them?

I I already got rid of them. I don't see any.

I see them. Here, let me try. Do you see that up
on the screen?

Oh, yeah. I do

now. Okay. Well, this so Albert, this might have
been from last week, I think.Says he saw a science paper
saying that Hunga Tonga Volcanowill have an impact at least
until 2030. Have you guys seenthat?
Do you have any thoughts?

Yeah. I've seen people saying that, but I I
can't weigh in on that. I haveno idea. Absolutely no clue.

Yeah. So That

would be an Anthony question.

Yeah. That would be an Anthony question,
but it's my understanding thatwater vapor cycles out of the
system much faster than that.It's a 10% increase, but what
what what Hunga Tonga won't dois keep increasing temperature
because it's going down overtime. Mhmm.

Well, you know, I actually have a question just
related to that now that and Ithink it is there anything
comparable to Hunga Tonga in thein the in the scientific record
or in in observational? It itseems when it happened, it was
described as all all butunprecedented, and so there was
really no way to really predict.I mean, was there anything else
that you guys recall?

It's underwater. I think it'd be pretty hard. I'm
sure there have been previousunderwater major hurricane or
major hurricane major volcanoeruptions. But I would venture
to guess that most of them havenot occurred in the satellite
era, so it might have beenharder to, you know, be even
measuring or impossible reallyto measure water vapor content

(01:21:54):
in the upper atmosphere.

Yeah. I mean, that we just can't know. And
and, when it happened in thepast since we couldn't measure
either c o two or water vapor,anything in the proxy data that
would show an increase oftemperatures based on tree rings
or whatever, it'd be hard totease out whether it was due to
an increase in water vapor, c otwo, or something else.

Yeah. I think so. And Polly asks, isn't the Honga
Tonga eruption effect multipletimes more than the COVID
pandemic, like, decrease, Iwould say? Yes. But wasn't Honga
Tonga in 2023?
Maybe I'm forgetting what yearit was.

It was after

It was after the big shutdowns, I think.

Yep.

Alrighty. Well, I guess I'll hand it back to you,
Jim. I as much fun as I have,chatting with chat, I will pass
it back to you.

Alright. Thank you very much, Linnea. And thank you
to everybody in the chat,everybody participating in the
show today. It's always so muchfun being with all of you every
single Friday. Thank you verymuch, Anthony Watts, who got
kicked off his hotel Wi Fi abouttwenty three minutes ago.
So I hope you enjoyed his timeon the show. Thank you very much
Sterling Burnett and LinneaLueken from the Heartland

(01:23:15):
Institute. I also wanna thankagain our streaming partners,
junkscience.com, CFACT, The c otwo Coalition, Climate Depot,
Watts Up With That, and ourfriends at Heartland UK Europe.
Find them online and in theirsocials, please give them a good
follow. And, again, I wannathank our wonderful audience.
It's so much fun bringing thisshow to the world every single
week, and all of you here livewith us make it even more fun.

(01:23:38):
Thanks again, and we will talkto you again next week. Bye bye.

All Episodes

Killing Net Zero with a Thousand Cuts – The Climate Realism Show #201

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Hey Jonas!

Crime Junkie

Betrayal Weekly

.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;}Killing Net Zero with a Thousand Cuts – The Climate Realism Show #201