December 20, 2024 • 41 mins
The episode dives into the controversies surrounding climate change, focusing on the myths surrounding methane emissions and the perceived dangers of cow farming. Lydia Lopinto critiques the mainstream climate narrative, suggesting the need for a more comprehensive understanding of environmental science.
• Discussion of the book "Farting Cows and Melting Ice"
• Insights into methane’s role in climate change
• Examining the lifecycle and impact of methane vs. carbon dioxide
• The environmental consequences of artificial meat production
• The political implications of climate change narratives
• Exploring the economics of pollution credits and their impact
• Urging listeners to investigate scientific research independently
• Addressing the complexities of meat consumption and climate policy
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
Hi everybody.
This is Lydia again.
Today I'm doing two podcastsbecause we're going to have the
holidays and I'm going to be toobusy to do any more podcasts,
but I wanted to do a podcastabout my best-selling book.
Now I have to say this is mybest-selling book.
It's selling like crazy in theUK and it's called Farting Cows
(00:27):
and Melting Eyes.
Now, I have to warn you that Idid publish this book under a
different name and it haddifferent content, but I rewrote
it because the name it was tooscientific and it only attracted
a small audience.
But now, with this new name, ithas become quite popular.
(00:50):
Okay, so Farting Cows andMelting Ice is a catchy name and
it's the great climate panicdebunked.
And why is it selling in the UK?
Well, first of all, I'madvertising in the UK through
Amazon and I seem to sell a lotof copies of it.
(01:11):
Apparently, in the UK, theclimate regulations are killing
these people.
They're really so upset and sothey buy the book.
Well, we talked about the wokeagenda, and the climate change
is sort of like the woke agenda.
(01:31):
It's another manufacturedcrisis by the left.
The Green New Deal is based onclimate change.
It was written by AOC and she,I don't think, took a chemical
(01:54):
engineering course like I did.
I don't think she's a chemicalengineer.
I don't think she understandsclimate change, or if it's true
or not.
She wrote what she thought werethe problems.
Okay, unfortunately, theproblems are not what they seem.
So we can dig into the nittygritty, but overall, all I can
(02:23):
remember is Mr Trump saying 2016, and now in his new and I know
a lot of people hate Trump, Idon't necessarily vote for him,
but he did say it was a hoax andI wanted to find out if he was
right.
So I did the research.
(02:44):
I never really just dismissedsome statements and I wanted to
find out if he was right, so Idid the research.
I never really just dismisssome statements.
I like to do research, I'm anengineer.
So I said, well, there must besome scientific basis for that
statement.
And sure enough, I found itOkay.
Sure enough, I found it OkayRight now, in climate change and
(03:10):
melting ice my new name for thebook to get sales.
Let's talk about methane, cowsand carbon dioxide.
These are the key issues inclimate change.
People throw these terms around, but the majority of people
don't know what they're talkingabout.
(03:30):
Let's talk about methane.
That is a weight, uh, four,four hydrogens, so it's a pretty
heavy molecule.
It's got one carbon and fourhydrogens.
(04:03):
Okay, so this is what you use torun your stove.
Okay, so if you have a gasstove or a gas dryer, like I do,
you are burning methane withoxygen to create carbon dioxide
in water, and that's how you getyour heat, because when you
burn the methane, it generatesheat.
Okay, so it's a fuel, and itgenerates heat okay, so it's a
(04:26):
fuel.
What happens to the carbondioxide Once you generate this
heat?
It goes into plants.
It becomes part of the nextplant.
It's absorbed by the plants inthe process called
photosynthesis.
It's absorbed by the plants inthe process called
photosynthesis, and that carbondioxide now becomes the
(04:48):
carbohydrates that you eat.
So it's a really neat systemthat nature, or God, has created
.
It's all cyclical and it allworks.
Okay.
This idea that methane is ourenemy and we need to reduce it
(05:08):
is just not right.
Okay, let's look at what is theconcentration of methane.
They're claiming it's 0.000018%, so let's put that into
perspective.
It's like finding two redgrains of sand on an entire
(05:39):
beach.
Why is it so low?
Because it oxidizes in theatmosphere.
It doesn't last very long.
It starts oxidizing with thesun and everything, and so it
disappears pretty much as soonas it goes into the atmosphere.
(06:02):
So those two little red grainsof sand is what's left over.
And now let's look at where doesmethane come from?
It doesn't come from cow farts,as indicated in my book.
That was just a joke.
(06:22):
It's a burp.
In my book, that was just ajoke it's a burp.
When a cow digests grass, itdoes this by a process which is
(06:43):
the same type of process as yourcompost pile.
So if you compost anything, ifyou do composting of your leaves
or anything, and it's at thebottom of the pile, you're going
to get methane.
Okay.
Where oxygen is not there, thenas the stuff goes up through
the compost pile, it's going tooxidize and it'll become carbon
dioxide, okay, okay.
(07:03):
So that's a process that alsohappens in swamps.
If you have a swamp or awetlands everywhere there's a
wetland at the bottom you'regoing to have methane.
As it comes up, it's going toturn into carbon dioxide, okay,
(07:24):
and that's why you can findmethane in the earth.
That's been trapped formillions of years as swamp lands
settled and the methane nevercame out.
Okay, so it's still there andthen we're using it ourselves.
We're using methane that's inthe earth already.
It's in the earth already it'sin the earth If we don't use it.
(07:48):
By banning it, you're not goingto stop the earth from making
methane.
Methane is a natural process.
It is made from plants.
When the leaves drop in thecompost or there's a swamp, the
methane is created all of thetime.
(08:08):
It represents 30 percent ofglobal emissions and it does
come up and it does oxidize onits own.
So to stop burning methane,you're not really going to
change much.
30% of global emissions comefrom wetlands and not from
(08:38):
agriculture.
Now, if we didn't have cows,what are we going to have Wild
animals?
Right, if they are herbivores,these animals are going to also
create methane.
You yourself create methanewhen you breathe, when you
digest food.
(08:59):
A vegetable is creating methanein their stomach and in it.
It's just part of the naturalprocess of decomposition.
So you're not going to stopmethane from being created at
all and it's always going tocontinue to be created, even if
(09:21):
you stop burning it.
It's going to be more of it, ofcourse, because nothing's going
to burn it down by burning it,what are you doing?
You're creating carbon dioxide.
What is this carbon dioxide andhow bad is it?
Okay, so let's look at.
Methane has a short lifespan ofabout 10 years in the atmosphere
(09:44):
, unlike carbon dioxide, whichcan linger for centuries.
It oxidizes into carbon dioxidein water, making its long-term
impact for less significant thanoften portrayed.
So the cows frequently targetedas major climate villains are
(10:06):
not really the problem.
Policies to reduce methaneemissions from cows often push
lab-grown meats in plant-baseddiets, despite their significant
energy demands andenvironmental trade-offs.
So you're going to eat aplant-based diet.
(10:28):
You're going to create methaneyourself.
Okay, the cow is creatingmethane from the plants and
you're going to create methanefrom the plants.
There is nothing to stop themethane from being created.
If you're going to protectwetlands and you're not going to
get rid of them or pave themover, they're going to continue
(10:48):
to make methane from theleftover materials that die off
into the swamp and they're goingto continue to grow and the
methane will accumulate at thebottom.
It's being created right now inall of our garbage piles that we
(11:09):
have all over the planet.
Every time you have a landfill,guess what?
You have?
Methane, because underneath thelandfill there's no oxygen.
So you end up making methane.
And what do you do with themethane?
You vent it out or you burn itinto carbon dioxide.
So, considering the fact thatwe create so much carbon dioxide
(11:37):
, considering the fact that wecreate so much carbon dioxide
the carbon dioxide on Earth is0.04%, 0.04% or 300 parts per
million and the fact that wehave created some extra carbon
dioxide, we think becausethere's no evidence that we've
(12:01):
created more Okay, the fact thatwe've done that has actually
greened the planet more.
Okay, so that has increased thegreening by 31% since 1982.
Increased the greening by 31%since 1982.
It says also that in thepre-Cambrian period, levels
(12:27):
reached 4,000 parts per millionin biodiversity flourished.
Right now it's 380 parts permillion.
Now, the data they claim iscoming from the.
Okay, so the data that they sayis coming from the ice core.
So, in other words, they wentinto the ice cores in Greenland,
(12:52):
I think.
They bore down and they got iceand there's movies of this and
inside the ice they figured outhow long ago this ice was made
and from there they were able togo with a little needle into a
bubble and see that that carbondioxide was less than it is
(13:16):
today by about.
Well, if it's 380 parts permillion.
Today it might have been 300 or290.
So it's a very small difference.
Okay, this is all the climatechange is about.
Okay, they've done Warsaw ringsfrom wood, they've done all
(13:41):
kinds of studies, all right.
Unfortunately, the recent datathat I exposed here in this
report shows that those bubblesmeasurements may be incorrect
because they found out that ifthere was carbon dioxide a
couple of thousand years ago, itprobably migrated out, because
(14:06):
carbon dioxide molecules aresmall and they go through ice
crystals, which are pretty large.
So it's like an ant goingthrough the Holland Tunnel.
I mean, what's the HollandTunnel to an ant?
Nothing.
It just goes right through.
Ice is a crystal, it has voidsin it and over time the carbon
(14:33):
dioxide moves away.
So this is recent data that I.
I show you the references andeverything, every single chapter
in my book, and it goes througha lot of research.
It lists all the scientists,lots and lots of scientists,
that are in disagreement withclimate change in their research
(14:58):
reports.
It also talks about mediamanipulation, because they want
to push the Green New Dealnarrative out.
They manipulate the searchengines and the media to
suppress information that wouldcounteract the climate change
(15:26):
data and they also play gameswith the people that disagree
with them and they won't publishtheir papers or they'll
threaten their careers orthey'll blackball them.
This is fascism.
This is climate fascism, andit's not necessarily a
(15:46):
scientific conversation.
It's gotten so political thatthere's no science left in this
narrative.
The left is gone because thefew people that continued the
research and changed theiropinions based on new data they
suppressed those.
So they don't care that there'snew data that shows that maybe
(16:09):
we were wrong.
They don't care.
They want to push their agendaagenda the fact that methane is
bad, and I've heard suchnonsense as an engineer and a
chemist about methane that Icouldn't believe, as if these
(16:30):
people have never taken achemistry course.
Course, I've heard things thatit produces more carbon dioxide
than a hydrocarbon.
Well, methane has fourhydrogens and a hydrocarbon
could have 12 or 15.
So I don't think it does youknow?
(16:54):
You just have to know somechemistry to know that's a wrong
statement.
So it's full of people talkingaway in wrong statements and the
real scientists doing the realresearch telling you the truth
they're suppressed.
So climate change has becomesuch a profitable enterprise to
(17:18):
sell you on these sustainablethings like windmills and solar
panels and everything else thatit's become political because
they want to make money offthese items, and they people are
(17:39):
paying more for windmills andsolar panels than they would pay
for oil or methane.
When methane would have been aperfect, it would be a perfect
fuel for America because it'sbetter than burning oil and it's
(18:01):
still a good option.
It doesn't produce as muchcarbon dioxide as oil or wood
and it's a good option for carseven because it's relatively
clean, generating only water andcarbon dioxide but no
(18:23):
pollutants, and it has been usedsince World War II as a fuel
for cars even.
But this whole narrative aboutmethane is so completely wrong
that it has to be motivated bypolitics, because it's trying to
manipulate people into buyinginto the fact that methane is
(18:48):
bad and batteries are better, ormethane is bad and windmills
are better, or methane is badand grass is better, if they
don't tell you the truth.
So just remember 1.7 parts permillion methane molecules in the
(19:13):
air.
Two red grains of sand on abeach is the methane that's in
the air, and for that they wantto kill the um meat industry.
They want to kill and they wantto put you on eating
manufactured meat which, by theway, produced this the same
(19:34):
amount of gases, because it's asimilar process inside that
kettle where they create themeat, they grow the meat, and I
have another report onartificial meat that I started
writing it.
But after I found out a lotabout artificial meat I got
nauseous and I put that projectaside for a while because it's
(20:00):
nauseating.
As a chemical engineer, havingworked in food companies, having
worked on designs forpharmaceutical companies, I've
designed sewage treatment plants, I've designed almost every
kind of chemical engineeringprocess.
I spent about, I would say,about 14 years as a chemical
(20:23):
engineer before I became achemical, a technical writer, as
a chemical engineer, before Ibecame a chemical, a technical
writer.
But I mean, some of the stuff Iworked on was pretty nauseating
.
I mean, definitely thewastewater treatment plants I
had to visit.
They were not pretty and theydidn't smell good either.
But when I read about growingyour own meat in a kettle, I was
(20:52):
totally nauseated because it'sso gross.
It is gross even for me.
And the other thing that Ididn't like was the fact that oh
my God, a cow.
God gave it an immune system.
Okay, we all have an immunesystem that keeps us alive,
(21:17):
because if we didn't have animmune system we'd die
immediately from all thebacteria, molds and everything
else that is trying to kill usbacteria, molds and everything
else that is trying to kill us.
So the immune system works byitself to fight anything that
comes to attack on a cellularlevel.
It's all programmed into yourgenes.
(21:39):
Guess what the kettle in thelab does not have?
It does not have a naturalimmune system.
They don't have that technologyyet.
They don't know how to do thatyet.
All they're doing is growingthe cells.
Okay, so they grow the cells ina pot.
(22:00):
It's growing in the medium.
It's alive.
It's growing mess, muscle.
You're growing a steak,basically.
Okay.
They later kind of press ittogether with a 3D printer and
they make what's something thatlooks like a steak, gross as it
(22:20):
might seem.
Okay, so it is meat, butthere's no immune system.
So it is meat, but there's noimmune system.
So in order to make sure thereare no bacteria and no molds in
there or viruses, there is atremendous amount of testing
(22:43):
that needs to take place, and ifone batch gets messed up with a
virus, they have to throw outthe whole batch.
Now you've got to dispose ofthis batch contaminated batch.
Where are you going to put allthis meat full of bacteria, oh,
in the sewer.
That's not good, okay.
(23:04):
Okay.
(23:31):
The environmental problemscreated by such a process are
meat that is full of bacteria orsome sort of virus into the
landfill.
This needs to be completelydisinfected and this will be a
very disgusting chemical processto disinfect that meat, very
disgusting chemical process todisinfect that meat, separate it
from the liquid and dispose itproperly.
(23:53):
This is like disposing ofnuclear waste.
I mean, these viruses could bereally serious, while if you
have a cow and it has an immunesystem and it's killing this
virus or bacteria before it evenbecomes a problem or else it
(24:15):
dies, and if it dies then youbury it or you dispose of it.
But most of the time you'veyou've even boosted his immune
system by giving the cow somesort of vaccine or some medicine
to keep it from getting viruses.
But with these batches of meatthat they're growing, oh my God,
(24:40):
there's millions of viruses andbacteria that exist in the
world that they have no immunesystem to fight.
I don't see how they canpossibly control that process.
I wouldn't want to work in afactory like that because you
(25:01):
are at risk of beingcontaminated by a virus or a
bacteria that grows in the pot.
You're cooking over there, youknow, and it's very dangerous.
I wouldn't want to work there,but they're doing it and they
think they have it under control.
(25:23):
But then they thought that themad cow disease wasn't going to
happen in the UK until ithappened and they had to
basically kill 100,000 cowsbecause they had fed the cows a
feed that contained animalmaterials.
(25:45):
That contained animal materialsand it produced a protein that
was not a toxin, it was aprotein that destroyed you.
Okay, so you can't fool aroundwith Mother Nature.
If Mother Nature made the cow aherbivore, you don't feed it
(26:08):
meat.
It didn't work out.
They had to destroy 100,000cows.
I'm just waiting for the othershoe to fall and see when are
they going to find out thatthese meat-producing reactors
are going to be so contaminatedthat they're going to have to
basically nuke the whole plantbecause there's going to be some
(26:31):
deadly bacteria in there thatcould get into the population.
So I really don't like whatthis meat production is, and the
more I find out about it, theworse it is.
So that report is halfway done.
That report nauseated me andstarted worrying me and I
(26:52):
started looking at labels to seeif it had artificial meat I
couldn't eat.
But I don't want to ruin yourholiday with that report.
But the farting cows andmelting ice report is much
better.
It's done with a humor in itbecause as we are moving into
(27:15):
the new administration and theyseem to be a lot less convinced
that the climate change is areal thing I mean, at least Mr
Trump doesn't believe in it.
I don't know about the rest ofthe people, but I have a feeling
that the climate changenarrative is going to change
(27:38):
with this new administrationbecause, first of all, the data
is already there.
If I was able to find it onusing search engines and
extracting it from researchpapers I have a search engine
that goes into research papers,okay.
So if I was able to find it,anybody can find it.
(28:00):
The research is already there.
It's been there for a long time.
That politics has been keepingit alive because they have.
Obviously, climate change ismaking them money.
There's a whole chapter in thebook about how they make money
from pollution credits and Iworked in that industry of the
(28:25):
pollution credit trading in acompany called Sempra at that
point and I trained theprogrammers on how to program
pollution credits trading andhow they were supposed to
approach that, and so I knew alittle bit about it and I found
(28:52):
out also some nauseating thingsabout how people have been
profiting from these pollutioncredits.
And it's basically the right topollute.
I know it seems crazy, but itis the right to pollute.
You buy a pollution credit andit allows you to pollute so much
(29:16):
and you buy that right fromsomebody else and these are
trading commodities.
Okay, it explains it more inthe book about how that works.
But climate change how can youbelieve in climate change and
(29:37):
trade pollution credits?
I guess Al Gore did a lot ofthat, you know.
So everything that you see, allthis narrative and the fact that
they suppress information tokeep their narrative going, only
points to one thing the minutethey're trying to manipulate
(29:58):
data, suppress information,shadow ban people, the minute
they try to do that, you knowthat we're dealing with a hoax.
You know that there's nothingtrue about it, because otherwise
they wouldn't try to suppressthe truth.
They're only trying to suppressthe lies.
(30:18):
They're only trying to keep uptheir lies by suppressing the
truth.
That's what I meant to say.
So this book is verycomprehensive.
It has every chapter has about12 different references.
You can go to original paperswritten by scientists.
(30:40):
You also have a list of I thinkI have 50 scientists that have
debunked parts of the climatechange narrative and have been
suppressed.
They're there but they justdon't give them.
You really have to find them inthe.
(31:01):
They don't get any press butthey do have their papers out,
but the press doesn't reallypick up on those.
So you have the press which isreally an arm of the Democratic
Party right now, which reportsonly on things that they want to
(31:21):
push.
So that's called the mainstreammedia, except for maybe Fox.
So that's called the mainstreammedia, except for maybe Fox.
(31:43):
I'm not sure, but I think mostof them are a Democratic I guess
arms of the Democratic Party inthe US.
So you can go to outsidenewspapers that are still news,
that they still present the news, and you can find those and it
can be translated automatically,and then you can read those
(32:05):
articles and Translate itautomatically, and then you can
read those articles and I use AIto translate it does an
excellent job, by the way byanyone that does not believe in
it.
I'll have another podcast aboutAI and some of the insanity
that I've heard from people whodon't know anything about AI,
(32:26):
but I'll have to set some peoplestraight as to what this is.
But this is not the podcast.
This book is the result of alot of research into research
(32:48):
papers published by scientistswho have basically debunked some
of the narratives of climatechange.
Of course, it also talks aboutreal climate change.
Yes, we have climate change, butit may not be due to the
reasons they say it is.
It's climate change.
(33:08):
We have ice ages, we have allkinds of things that are
changing the planet.
The planet is warming and thenthe planet will cool off.
In fact, I think we're in acooling period right now because
, if you look at the charts, itwas much warmer before.
So it all depends on the timeInstantaneously in our lifetimes
(33:35):
, which are short compared tothe life of the planet.
We're not gonna make anychanges by reducing or
increasing what we burn for fuel.
Okay, we're not going to make ahuge difference because the
planet has been here a long timeand we're just a bleep in its
(34:00):
lifetime a bleep, so it's allpropaganda.
And one of the things I do agreewith is in the electric cars,
because the issue is not so muchcarbon dioxide with the cars,
but it's the pollutants, even ifyou have a good filter in your
(34:23):
car, you still are emittingnoxious pollutants, and so in
cities where you have a lot ofcars and vehicles, electric cars
can contribute to reducing thepollution in the city itself.
So that can be very helpful,but it's not because of climate
(34:48):
change.
It's because when you burn afuel inside a car, you are
emitting pollutants, but thecarbon dioxide hasn't gone up
significantly, and we havecreated more plants, and we can
do even better by setting upbuildings that are green.
(35:10):
With green plants growing offof them, we can do a lot of
things.
So, yeah, we can make a citygreen, and they are doing that
in other parts of the world.
So there is some climate change,yes, and there may be different
(35:33):
temperatures around cities thanthere are in Iceland, and there
may be different concentrationsof carbon dioxide and oxygen in
different parts of the world.
If you're in a forest, youmight actually have too much
oxygen and this might fuel aforest fire, but in the city,
(35:56):
there may be more carbon dioxidebecause you're burning a lot of
fuel and it's all concentratedin one location.
Okay, so it is a good idea tostop burning gasoline inside a
city.
Okay it, it really would make adifference in the quality of
(36:17):
life of people breathing the air.
Okay, so let's look at it fromthe real point of view of what.
It's not the carbon dioxide orthe methane, but it's actually
the pollutants that you breathe.
So some changes are necessary.
But getting rid of cows andgoing to artificially grown meat
(36:42):
is nauseating to even thinkabout it and dangerous as hell.
Okay, to end all oil productionand just switch to windmills is
(37:04):
dumb, because there's no wayyou're ever going to equal the
energy capacity of burning fuelat this point.
And there are many, many otherissues.
But this is a start torealizing that what are the
things that are wrong with thisclimate change agenda and what
(37:29):
things make sense, and realizingthat the people making these
decisions don't have any sciencedegrees whatsoever.
There was a group of people thatwere questioned.
There were people that aremaking legislation.
They asked them what's theconcentration of methane in the
(37:50):
air and or carbon dioxide?
They said the carbon dioxide inthe air was 30%.
The oxygen is 16%, just to giveyou an idea.
The rest is nitrogen, and if wehad 30% carbon dioxide, I think
(38:10):
we'd all be dead.
I don't know.
Some said 5%, but nobody knewthat it was 0.05%.
In other words, they just hadno idea of what the
concentration of carbon dioxidein the air was or the
concentration of methane.
(38:31):
They had no clue.
And these are people makingdecisions to at least have a
chemistry degree and know whatthe molecular structure of
(38:51):
carbon dioxide, oxygen, nitrogenand the atmosphere and
composition is.
Why do we have these peoplewith no degrees in science
making legislation about climatechange when they don't even
know what the concentration ofcarbon dioxide in the air is and
they think it's 5% or 30%?
(39:12):
These are people that have nobusiness working on legislation
like this.
So, anyway, I'm going to leaveyou now, but listen.
Start by looking at my report.
I know it sounds funny.
I do have two versions of thereport.
One is more scientific than theother.
(39:34):
This one is moretongue-in-cheek, so this is for
the people that may not be soscientifically minded.
This actually does have evenmore.
When I rewrote this, I had evenmore references that I think
you'll really enjoy.
If you're writing anyinformation on climate change,
(39:57):
this is the perfect report tostart with.
You can go to the referencesand read up.
It's $25.
You have to look up.
You just type farting cows andmelting ice on Amazon and you
find it.
You can also go to my websiteat cloverleafpub and um, or you
(40:18):
just search Lydia Lopinto onAmazon and you'll find all my
publications.
Uh, thank you very much foryour time.
And uh, take a look.
I mean, obviously a lot ofpeople in the UK are buying this
report, so they must really bein trouble over there.
I don't know what's going on inthe UK.
I was surprised that they werebuying it at such.
(40:42):
I sell like two or three a dayof these over there.
You know Australia is buyingthem.
The US they're still under thefog of the mainstream media and
the information is so suppressedby the left that they have no
(41:04):
idea what's going on.
But the UK people have realizedthat they need to do something,
so they're looking into it.
So, anyway, take a look at thisreport.
I think you will find there's alot of good information in
there.
You can go ahead and follow allthe rabbit holes and find out
(41:25):
all the information from thescientists and make up your own
minds.
Like I said, there is climatechange.
It's just not because of thereasons they say, and things are
not as bad as you might thinkas well.
Okay, thank you very much andgood night.
Hi everybody.
This is Lydia again.
Today I'm doing two podcastsbecause we're going to have the
holidays and I'm going to be toobusy to do any more podcasts,
but I wanted to do a podcastabout my best-selling book.
Now I have to say this is mybest-selling book.
It's selling like crazy in theUK and it's called Farting Cows
(00:27):
and Melting Eyes.
Now, I have to warn you that Idid publish this book under a
different name and it haddifferent content, but I rewrote
it because the name it was tooscientific and it only attracted
a small audience.
But now, with this new name, ithas become quite popular.
(00:50):
Okay, so Farting Cows andMelting Ice is a catchy name and
it's the great climate panicdebunked.
And why is it selling in the UK?
Well, first of all, I'madvertising in the UK through
Amazon and I seem to sell a lotof copies of it.
(01:11):
Apparently, in the UK, theclimate regulations are killing
these people.
They're really so upset and sothey buy the book.
Well, we talked about the wokeagenda, and the climate change
is sort of like the woke agenda.
(01:31):
It's another manufacturedcrisis by the left.
The Green New Deal is based onclimate change.
It was written by AOC and she,I don't think, took a chemical
(01:54):
engineering course like I did.
I don't think she's a chemicalengineer.
I don't think she understandsclimate change, or if it's true
or not.
She wrote what she thought werethe problems.
Okay, unfortunately, theproblems are not what they seem.
So we can dig into the nittygritty, but overall, all I can
(02:23):
remember is Mr Trump saying 2016, and now in his new and I know
a lot of people hate Trump, Idon't necessarily vote for him,
but he did say it was a hoax andI wanted to find out if he was
right.
So I did the research.
(02:44):
I never really just dismissedsome statements and I wanted to
find out if he was right, so Idid the research.
I never really just dismisssome statements.
I like to do research, I'm anengineer.
So I said, well, there must besome scientific basis for that
statement.
And sure enough, I found itOkay.
Sure enough, I found it OkayRight now, in climate change and
(03:10):
melting ice my new name for thebook to get sales.
Let's talk about methane, cowsand carbon dioxide.
These are the key issues inclimate change.
People throw these terms around, but the majority of people
don't know what they're talkingabout.
(03:30):
Let's talk about methane.
That is a weight, uh, four,four hydrogens, so it's a pretty
heavy molecule.
It's got one carbon and fourhydrogens.
(04:03):
Okay, so this is what you use torun your stove.
Okay, so if you have a gasstove or a gas dryer, like I do,
you are burning methane withoxygen to create carbon dioxide
in water, and that's how you getyour heat, because when you
burn the methane, it generatesheat.
Okay, so it's a fuel, and itgenerates heat okay, so it's a
(04:26):
fuel.
What happens to the carbondioxide Once you generate this
heat?
It goes into plants.
It becomes part of the nextplant.
It's absorbed by the plants inthe process called
photosynthesis.
It's absorbed by the plants inthe process called
photosynthesis, and that carbondioxide now becomes the
(04:48):
carbohydrates that you eat.
So it's a really neat systemthat nature, or God, has created
.
It's all cyclical and it allworks.
Okay.
This idea that methane is ourenemy and we need to reduce it
(05:08):
is just not right.
Okay, let's look at what is theconcentration of methane.
They're claiming it's 0.000018%, so let's put that into
perspective.
It's like finding two redgrains of sand on an entire
(05:39):
beach.
Why is it so low?
Because it oxidizes in theatmosphere.
It doesn't last very long.
It starts oxidizing with thesun and everything, and so it
disappears pretty much as soonas it goes into the atmosphere.
(06:02):
So those two little red grainsof sand is what's left over.
And now let's look at where doesmethane come from?
It doesn't come from cow farts,as indicated in my book.
That was just a joke.
(06:22):
It's a burp.
In my book, that was just ajoke it's a burp.
When a cow digests grass, itdoes this by a process which is
(06:43):
the same type of process as yourcompost pile.
So if you compost anything, ifyou do composting of your leaves
or anything, and it's at thebottom of the pile, you're going
to get methane.
Okay.
Where oxygen is not there, thenas the stuff goes up through
the compost pile, it's going tooxidize and it'll become carbon
dioxide, okay, okay.
(07:03):
So that's a process that alsohappens in swamps.
If you have a swamp or awetlands everywhere there's a
wetland at the bottom you'regoing to have methane.
As it comes up, it's going toturn into carbon dioxide, okay,
(07:24):
and that's why you can findmethane in the earth.
That's been trapped formillions of years as swamp lands
settled and the methane nevercame out.
Okay, so it's still there andthen we're using it ourselves.
We're using methane that's inthe earth already.
It's in the earth already it'sin the earth If we don't use it.
(07:48):
By banning it, you're not goingto stop the earth from making
methane.
Methane is a natural process.
It is made from plants.
When the leaves drop in thecompost or there's a swamp, the
methane is created all of thetime.
(08:08):
It represents 30 percent ofglobal emissions and it does
come up and it does oxidize onits own.
So to stop burning methane,you're not really going to
change much.
30% of global emissions comefrom wetlands and not from
(08:38):
agriculture.
Now, if we didn't have cows,what are we going to have Wild
animals?
Right, if they are herbivores,these animals are going to also
create methane.
You yourself create methanewhen you breathe, when you
digest food.
(08:59):
A vegetable is creating methanein their stomach and in it.
It's just part of the naturalprocess of decomposition.
So you're not going to stopmethane from being created at
all and it's always going tocontinue to be created, even if
(09:21):
you stop burning it.
It's going to be more of it, ofcourse, because nothing's going
to burn it down by burning it,what are you doing?
You're creating carbon dioxide.
What is this carbon dioxide andhow bad is it?
Okay, so let's look at.
Methane has a short lifespan ofabout 10 years in the atmosphere
(09:44):
, unlike carbon dioxide, whichcan linger for centuries.
It oxidizes into carbon dioxidein water, making its long-term
impact for less significant thanoften portrayed.
So the cows frequently targetedas major climate villains are
(10:06):
not really the problem.
Policies to reduce methaneemissions from cows often push
lab-grown meats in plant-baseddiets, despite their significant
energy demands andenvironmental trade-offs.
So you're going to eat aplant-based diet.
(10:28):
You're going to create methaneyourself.
Okay, the cow is creatingmethane from the plants and
you're going to create methanefrom the plants.
There is nothing to stop themethane from being created.
If you're going to protectwetlands and you're not going to
get rid of them or pave themover, they're going to continue
(10:48):
to make methane from theleftover materials that die off
into the swamp and they're goingto continue to grow and the
methane will accumulate at thebottom.
It's being created right now inall of our garbage piles that we
(11:09):
have all over the planet.
Every time you have a landfill,guess what?
You have?
Methane, because underneath thelandfill there's no oxygen.
So you end up making methane.
And what do you do with themethane?
You vent it out or you burn itinto carbon dioxide.
So, considering the fact thatwe create so much carbon dioxide
(11:37):
, considering the fact that wecreate so much carbon dioxide
the carbon dioxide on Earth is0.04%, 0.04% or 300 parts per
million and the fact that wehave created some extra carbon
dioxide, we think becausethere's no evidence that we've
(12:01):
created more Okay, the fact thatwe've done that has actually
greened the planet more.
Okay, so that has increased thegreening by 31% since 1982.
Increased the greening by 31%since 1982.
It says also that in thepre-Cambrian period, levels
(12:27):
reached 4,000 parts per millionin biodiversity flourished.
Right now it's 380 parts permillion.
Now, the data they claim iscoming from the.
Okay, so the data that they sayis coming from the ice core.
So, in other words, they wentinto the ice cores in Greenland,
(12:52):
I think.
They bore down and they got iceand there's movies of this and
inside the ice they figured outhow long ago this ice was made
and from there they were able togo with a little needle into a
bubble and see that that carbondioxide was less than it is
(13:16):
today by about.
Well, if it's 380 parts permillion.
Today it might have been 300 or290.
So it's a very small difference.
Okay, this is all the climatechange is about.
Okay, they've done Warsaw ringsfrom wood, they've done all
(13:41):
kinds of studies, all right.
Unfortunately, the recent datathat I exposed here in this
report shows that those bubblesmeasurements may be incorrect
because they found out that ifthere was carbon dioxide a
couple of thousand years ago, itprobably migrated out, because
(14:06):
carbon dioxide molecules aresmall and they go through ice
crystals, which are pretty large.
So it's like an ant goingthrough the Holland Tunnel.
I mean, what's the HollandTunnel to an ant?
Nothing.
It just goes right through.
Ice is a crystal, it has voidsin it and over time the carbon
(14:33):
dioxide moves away.
So this is recent data that I.
I show you the references andeverything, every single chapter
in my book, and it goes througha lot of research.
It lists all the scientists,lots and lots of scientists,
that are in disagreement withclimate change in their research
(14:58):
reports.
It also talks about mediamanipulation, because they want
to push the Green New Dealnarrative out.
They manipulate the searchengines and the media to
suppress information that wouldcounteract the climate change
(15:26):
data and they also play gameswith the people that disagree
with them and they won't publishtheir papers or they'll
threaten their careers orthey'll blackball them.
This is fascism.
This is climate fascism, andit's not necessarily a
(15:46):
scientific conversation.
It's gotten so political thatthere's no science left in this
narrative.
The left is gone because thefew people that continued the
research and changed theiropinions based on new data they
suppressed those.
So they don't care that there'snew data that shows that maybe
(16:09):
we were wrong.
They don't care.
They want to push their agendaagenda the fact that methane is
bad, and I've heard suchnonsense as an engineer and a
chemist about methane that Icouldn't believe, as if these
(16:30):
people have never taken achemistry course.
Course, I've heard things thatit produces more carbon dioxide
than a hydrocarbon.
Well, methane has fourhydrogens and a hydrocarbon
could have 12 or 15.
So I don't think it does youknow?
(16:54):
You just have to know somechemistry to know that's a wrong
statement.
So it's full of people talkingaway in wrong statements and the
real scientists doing the realresearch telling you the truth
they're suppressed.
So climate change has becomesuch a profitable enterprise to
(17:18):
sell you on these sustainablethings like windmills and solar
panels and everything else thatit's become political because
they want to make money offthese items, and they people are
(17:39):
paying more for windmills andsolar panels than they would pay
for oil or methane.
When methane would have been aperfect, it would be a perfect
fuel for America because it'sbetter than burning oil and it's
(18:01):
still a good option.
It doesn't produce as muchcarbon dioxide as oil or wood
and it's a good option for carseven because it's relatively
clean, generating only water andcarbon dioxide but no
(18:23):
pollutants, and it has been usedsince World War II as a fuel
for cars even.
But this whole narrative aboutmethane is so completely wrong
that it has to be motivated bypolitics, because it's trying to
manipulate people into buyinginto the fact that methane is
(18:48):
bad and batteries are better, ormethane is bad and windmills
are better, or methane is badand grass is better, if they
don't tell you the truth.
So just remember 1.7 parts permillion methane molecules in the
(19:13):
air.
Two red grains of sand on abeach is the methane that's in
the air, and for that they wantto kill the um meat industry.
They want to kill and they wantto put you on eating
manufactured meat which, by theway, produced this the same
(19:34):
amount of gases, because it's asimilar process inside that
kettle where they create themeat, they grow the meat, and I
have another report onartificial meat that I started
writing it.
But after I found out a lotabout artificial meat I got
nauseous and I put that projectaside for a while because it's
(20:00):
nauseating.
As a chemical engineer, havingworked in food companies, having
worked on designs forpharmaceutical companies, I've
designed sewage treatment plants, I've designed almost every
kind of chemical engineeringprocess.
I spent about, I would say,about 14 years as a chemical
(20:23):
engineer before I became achemical, a technical writer, as
a chemical engineer, before Ibecame a chemical, a technical
writer.
But I mean, some of the stuff Iworked on was pretty nauseating
.
I mean, definitely thewastewater treatment plants I
had to visit.
They were not pretty and theydidn't smell good either.
But when I read about growingyour own meat in a kettle, I was
(20:52):
totally nauseated because it'sso gross.
It is gross even for me.
And the other thing that Ididn't like was the fact that oh
my God, a cow.
God gave it an immune system.
Okay, we all have an immunesystem that keeps us alive,
(21:17):
because if we didn't have animmune system we'd die
immediately from all thebacteria, molds and everything
else that is trying to kill usbacteria, molds and everything
else that is trying to kill us.
So the immune system works byitself to fight anything that
comes to attack on a cellularlevel.
It's all programmed into yourgenes.
(21:39):
Guess what the kettle in thelab does not have?
It does not have a naturalimmune system.
They don't have that technologyyet.
They don't know how to do thatyet.
All they're doing is growingthe cells.
Okay, so they grow the cells ina pot.
(22:00):
It's growing in the medium.
It's alive.
It's growing mess, muscle.
You're growing a steak,basically.
Okay.
They later kind of press ittogether with a 3D printer and
they make what's something thatlooks like a steak, gross as it
(22:20):
might seem.
Okay, so it is meat, butthere's no immune system.
So it is meat, but there's noimmune system.
So in order to make sure thereare no bacteria and no molds in
there or viruses, there is atremendous amount of testing
(22:43):
that needs to take place, and ifone batch gets messed up with a
virus, they have to throw outthe whole batch.
Now you've got to dispose ofthis batch contaminated batch.
Where are you going to put allthis meat full of bacteria, oh,
in the sewer.
That's not good, okay.
(23:04):
Okay.
(23:31):
The environmental problemscreated by such a process are
meat that is full of bacteria orsome sort of virus into the
landfill.
This needs to be completelydisinfected and this will be a
very disgusting chemical processto disinfect that meat, very
disgusting chemical process todisinfect that meat, separate it
from the liquid and dispose itproperly.
(23:53):
This is like disposing ofnuclear waste.
I mean, these viruses could bereally serious, while if you
have a cow and it has an immunesystem and it's killing this
virus or bacteria before it evenbecomes a problem or else it
(24:15):
dies, and if it dies then youbury it or you dispose of it.
But most of the time you'veyou've even boosted his immune
system by giving the cow somesort of vaccine or some medicine
to keep it from getting viruses.
But with these batches of meatthat they're growing, oh my God,
(24:40):
there's millions of viruses andbacteria that exist in the
world that they have no immunesystem to fight.
I don't see how they canpossibly control that process.
I wouldn't want to work in afactory like that because you
(25:01):
are at risk of beingcontaminated by a virus or a
bacteria that grows in the pot.
You're cooking over there, youknow, and it's very dangerous.
I wouldn't want to work there,but they're doing it and they
think they have it under control.
(25:23):
But then they thought that themad cow disease wasn't going to
happen in the UK until ithappened and they had to
basically kill 100,000 cowsbecause they had fed the cows a
feed that contained animalmaterials.
(25:45):
That contained animal materialsand it produced a protein that
was not a toxin, it was aprotein that destroyed you.
Okay, so you can't fool aroundwith Mother Nature.
If Mother Nature made the cow aherbivore, you don't feed it
(26:08):
meat.
It didn't work out.
They had to destroy 100,000cows.
I'm just waiting for the othershoe to fall and see when are
they going to find out thatthese meat-producing reactors
are going to be so contaminatedthat they're going to have to
basically nuke the whole plantbecause there's going to be some
(26:31):
deadly bacteria in there thatcould get into the population.
So I really don't like whatthis meat production is, and the
more I find out about it, theworse it is.
So that report is halfway done.
That report nauseated me andstarted worrying me and I
(26:52):
started looking at labels to seeif it had artificial meat I
couldn't eat.
But I don't want to ruin yourholiday with that report.
But the farting cows andmelting ice report is much
better.
It's done with a humor in itbecause as we are moving into
(27:15):
the new administration and theyseem to be a lot less convinced
that the climate change is areal thing I mean, at least Mr
Trump doesn't believe in it.
I don't know about the rest ofthe people, but I have a feeling
that the climate changenarrative is going to change
(27:38):
with this new administrationbecause, first of all, the data
is already there.
If I was able to find it onusing search engines and
extracting it from researchpapers I have a search engine
that goes into research papers,okay.
So if I was able to find it,anybody can find it.
(28:00):
The research is already there.
It's been there for a long time.
That politics has been keepingit alive because they have.
Obviously, climate change ismaking them money.
There's a whole chapter in thebook about how they make money
from pollution credits and Iworked in that industry of the
(28:25):
pollution credit trading in acompany called Sempra at that
point and I trained theprogrammers on how to program
pollution credits trading andhow they were supposed to
approach that, and so I knew alittle bit about it and I found
(28:52):
out also some nauseating thingsabout how people have been
profiting from these pollutioncredits.
And it's basically the right topollute.
I know it seems crazy, but itis the right to pollute.
You buy a pollution credit andit allows you to pollute so much
(29:16):
and you buy that right fromsomebody else and these are
trading commodities.
Okay, it explains it more inthe book about how that works.
But climate change how can youbelieve in climate change and
(29:37):
trade pollution credits?
I guess Al Gore did a lot ofthat, you know.
So everything that you see, allthis narrative and the fact that
they suppress information tokeep their narrative going, only
points to one thing the minutethey're trying to manipulate
(29:58):
data, suppress information,shadow ban people, the minute
they try to do that, you knowthat we're dealing with a hoax.
You know that there's nothingtrue about it, because otherwise
they wouldn't try to suppressthe truth.
They're only trying to suppressthe lies.
(30:18):
They're only trying to keep uptheir lies by suppressing the
truth.
That's what I meant to say.
So this book is verycomprehensive.
It has every chapter has about12 different references.
You can go to original paperswritten by scientists.
(30:40):
You also have a list of I thinkI have 50 scientists that have
debunked parts of the climatechange narrative and have been
suppressed.
They're there but they justdon't give them.
You really have to find them inthe.
(31:01):
They don't get any press butthey do have their papers out,
but the press doesn't reallypick up on those.
So you have the press which isreally an arm of the Democratic
Party right now, which reportsonly on things that they want to
(31:21):
push.
So that's called the mainstreammedia, except for maybe Fox.
So that's called the mainstreammedia, except for maybe Fox.
(31:43):
I'm not sure, but I think mostof them are a Democratic I guess
arms of the Democratic Party inthe US.
So you can go to outsidenewspapers that are still news,
that they still present the news, and you can find those and it
can be translated automatically,and then you can read those
(32:05):
articles and Translate itautomatically, and then you can
read those articles and I use AIto translate it does an
excellent job, by the way byanyone that does not believe in
it.
I'll have another podcast aboutAI and some of the insanity
that I've heard from people whodon't know anything about AI,
(32:26):
but I'll have to set some peoplestraight as to what this is.
But this is not the podcast.
This book is the result of alot of research into research
(32:48):
papers published by scientistswho have basically debunked some
of the narratives of climatechange.
Of course, it also talks aboutreal climate change.
Yes, we have climate change, butit may not be due to the
reasons they say it is.
It's climate change.
(33:08):
We have ice ages, we have allkinds of things that are
changing the planet.
The planet is warming and thenthe planet will cool off.
In fact, I think we're in acooling period right now because
, if you look at the charts, itwas much warmer before.
So it all depends on the timeInstantaneously in our lifetimes
(33:35):
, which are short compared tothe life of the planet.
We're not gonna make anychanges by reducing or
increasing what we burn for fuel.
Okay, we're not going to make ahuge difference because the
planet has been here a long timeand we're just a bleep in its
(34:00):
lifetime a bleep, so it's allpropaganda.
And one of the things I do agreewith is in the electric cars,
because the issue is not so muchcarbon dioxide with the cars,
but it's the pollutants, even ifyou have a good filter in your
(34:23):
car, you still are emittingnoxious pollutants, and so in
cities where you have a lot ofcars and vehicles, electric cars
can contribute to reducing thepollution in the city itself.
So that can be very helpful,but it's not because of climate
(34:48):
change.
It's because when you burn afuel inside a car, you are
emitting pollutants, but thecarbon dioxide hasn't gone up
significantly, and we havecreated more plants, and we can
do even better by setting upbuildings that are green.
(35:10):
With green plants growing offof them, we can do a lot of
things.
So, yeah, we can make a citygreen, and they are doing that
in other parts of the world.
So there is some climate change,yes, and there may be different
(35:33):
temperatures around cities thanthere are in Iceland, and there
may be different concentrationsof carbon dioxide and oxygen in
different parts of the world.
If you're in a forest, youmight actually have too much
oxygen and this might fuel aforest fire, but in the city,
(35:56):
there may be more carbon dioxidebecause you're burning a lot of
fuel and it's all concentratedin one location.
Okay, so it is a good idea tostop burning gasoline inside a
city.
Okay it, it really would make adifference in the quality of
(36:17):
life of people breathing the air.
Okay, so let's look at it fromthe real point of view of what.
It's not the carbon dioxide orthe methane, but it's actually
the pollutants that you breathe.
So some changes are necessary.
But getting rid of cows andgoing to artificially grown meat
(36:42):
is nauseating to even thinkabout it and dangerous as hell.
Okay, to end all oil productionand just switch to windmills is
(37:04):
dumb, because there's no wayyou're ever going to equal the
energy capacity of burning fuelat this point.
And there are many, many otherissues.
But this is a start torealizing that what are the
things that are wrong with thisclimate change agenda and what
(37:29):
things make sense, and realizingthat the people making these
decisions don't have any sciencedegrees whatsoever.
There was a group of people thatwere questioned.
There were people that aremaking legislation.
They asked them what's theconcentration of methane in the
(37:50):
air and or carbon dioxide?
They said the carbon dioxide inthe air was 30%.
The oxygen is 16%, just to giveyou an idea.
The rest is nitrogen, and if wehad 30% carbon dioxide, I think
(38:10):
we'd all be dead.
I don't know.
Some said 5%, but nobody knewthat it was 0.05%.
In other words, they just hadno idea of what the
concentration of carbon dioxidein the air was or the
concentration of methane.
(38:31):
They had no clue.
And these are people makingdecisions to at least have a
chemistry degree and know whatthe molecular structure of
(38:51):
carbon dioxide, oxygen, nitrogenand the atmosphere and
composition is.
Why do we have these peoplewith no degrees in science
making legislation about climatechange when they don't even
know what the concentration ofcarbon dioxide in the air is and
they think it's 5% or 30%?
(39:12):
These are people that have nobusiness working on legislation
like this.
So, anyway, I'm going to leaveyou now, but listen.
Start by looking at my report.
I know it sounds funny.
I do have two versions of thereport.
One is more scientific than theother.
(39:34):
This one is moretongue-in-cheek, so this is for
the people that may not be soscientifically minded.
This actually does have evenmore.
When I rewrote this, I had evenmore references that I think
you'll really enjoy.
If you're writing anyinformation on climate change,
(39:57):
this is the perfect report tostart with.
You can go to the referencesand read up.
It's $25.
You have to look up.
You just type farting cows andmelting ice on Amazon and you
find it.
You can also go to my websiteat cloverleafpub and um, or you
(40:18):
just search Lydia Lopinto onAmazon and you'll find all my
publications.
Uh, thank you very much foryour time.
And uh, take a look.
I mean, obviously a lot ofpeople in the UK are buying this
report, so they must really bein trouble over there.
I don't know what's going on inthe UK.
I was surprised that they werebuying it at such.
(40:42):
I sell like two or three a dayof these over there.
You know Australia is buyingthem.
The US they're still under thefog of the mainstream media and
the information is so suppressedby the left that they have no
(41:04):
idea what's going on.
But the UK people have realizedthat they need to do something,
so they're looking into it.
So, anyway, take a look at thisreport.
I think you will find there's alot of good information in
there.
You can go ahead and follow allthe rabbit holes and find out
(41:25):
all the information from thescientists and make up your own
minds.
Like I said, there is climatechange.
It's just not because of thereasons they say, and things are
not as bad as you might thinkas well.
Okay, thank you very much andgood night.
Popular Podcasts
Are You A Charlotte?
In 1997, actress Kristin Davis’ life was forever changed when she took on the role of Charlotte York in Sex and the City. As we watched Carrie, Samantha, Miranda and Charlotte navigate relationships in NYC, the show helped push once unacceptable conversation topics out of the shadows and altered the narrative around women and sex. We all saw ourselves in them as they searched for fulfillment in life, sex and friendships. Now, Kristin Davis wants to connect with you, the fans, and share untold stories and all the behind the scenes. Together, with Kristin and special guests, what will begin with Sex and the City will evolve into talks about themes that are still so relevant today. "Are you a Charlotte?" is much more than just rewatching this beloved show, it brings the past and the present together as we talk with heart, humor and of course some optimism.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com