December 29, 2025 • 33 mins
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:04):
It's that time. Time, time, luck and load. The Michael
Vary Show is on the air.
Speaker 2 (00:33):
Let me starting a little story to make a point
about the purpose of this first segment of the show,
which I hope you will take to heart. I'll make
it quick. So do you know the name Sandra more
than Probably not, especially if you're not from Florida. Do
(00:59):
you know the name Karen Geever's an attorney from Miami.
Probably not, unless you're one of our Florida listeners, including
our folks in say, Pensacola.
Speaker 1 (01:12):
What are our call letters in Pensacola. I just lost
my sheep.
Speaker 2 (01:18):
Either way, you don't know their name. But I'll bet
you you do know the name Catherine Harris. If you've
been following the process for a while political process, you
know the name Catherine Harris because in nineteen ninety eight
she ran far and was elected to the position of
(01:38):
Secretary of State in Florida. Not something that gets a
lot of attention, but when she was elected and took
office January fifth, nineteen ninety nine, the course of history
would change dramatically. Had she lost lost that election, our
(02:04):
history of the last twenty three years would be twenty two.
Speaker 1 (02:08):
Years would be very, very different.
Speaker 2 (02:11):
And the reason is because in a down ballot race
that most people don't pay much attention to, certainly not
the rest of the country, and very few people in Florida.
Catherine Harris managed to defeat Karen Givers, a Democrat from Miami,
(02:32):
and be the last person to be elected Secretary of
State in Florida. After that, a constitutional change occurred where
the Secretary of State would now be appointed by the governor,
as it is in Texas, but at that time it
was elected.
Speaker 1 (02:52):
And then in two thousand November, the.
Speaker 2 (02:55):
Closest election we've had, and it all came down to
the state of Florida. And first they said Bush one,
then Gore won. Then they went back and forth all night,
and then Gore conceded, and then he.
Speaker 1 (03:13):
Said, oh no, no, no, maybe I didn't concede.
Speaker 2 (03:15):
And it all came down to the paper ballots in Florida,
and what was known as a butterfly ballot. Remember the
old spiral notebooks, you would have not the three ring binder,
but the one with the entire spiral, the slinky through
the middle of the papers. Well, the way that was
(03:36):
done some voters, it was alleged wouldn't push the paper
all the way through, so that became what was known
as a dimpled chad, and all of this effort went
into a few hundred votes. It was insane because whoever
(03:57):
won Florida would win the White House, and whoever lost
Florida would lose the entire election. Forty nine other states
and everything came down to who could get to two
seventy and neither one of them could get to two
seventy electoral votes without Florida. And so there was if
you remember some of you around the hanging chads, that
was a chad that had been pushed through but not
completely disconnected from the paper. I was kind of involved
(04:21):
in that election, can you tell? I get excited? And
then there was a dimple chat. A dimple chad was
something you remember when you were in school and you'd
write a note to a girl, or if you were
a girl, to a guy, and you would take a
piece of paper and put another paper over the top
of it, and you'd write on that top paper you
kind of press down and there'd be enough under the
(04:42):
underside that if you handed that to somebody, somebody just
glancing like a blank piece of paper, but if she
took that piece of paper and ran a pencil across it,
it would reveal the indentation in the paper, and you
could send a message kind of in this coded way,
and then we had invisible link ink. But that's a
different dece Well, that was what a dimple chad was.
(05:03):
It was pushed probably from an earlier vote on another issue.
Speaker 1 (05:09):
So all this comes down.
Speaker 2 (05:12):
All this comes down to the Secretary of State and
the decisions she makes.
Speaker 1 (05:20):
Of course it would end up with the Supreme Court.
Speaker 2 (05:23):
But if the Secretary of State hadn't been Catherine Harris,
who made the decisions she did for truth on his fairness, judgment, objectivity,
which is what our party does, a Democrat would have
just swung the election to Gore, and Gore would have
been president, and who knows how life would have been different,
but it would have been worse, you'd be sure of that.
(05:45):
Not that I'm the biggest fan of George W.
Speaker 1 (05:47):
Bush.
Speaker 2 (05:47):
She made a lot of mistakes, But the point is
how much elections matter, and elections that don't get any attention.
The course of America's history was changed because the people
of floor voted for Catherine Harris instead of some woman
that is relegated to scrap peep of history. I say, all,
let's say this, the most important elections in this country
(06:11):
are not the presidential election. It gets all the attention.
It's not even Kevin McCarthy. Most government is local government.
But because you don't go home after work and turn
on Fox News and they talk about who's running for
city council, dogcatcher, sheriff, county treasurer, county judge, county courts,
(06:33):
because that's not easily told to you, because that is
not spoon fed to you. Most people don't give a
damn about the local elections. They don't know who their
school board is. And that's why when little Billy comes
home and says, Mama, this happened at school today, and
they call up to the school and the school hangs
up on them. They go to the school board and
the school board cuts off their mic and calls a
(06:55):
Biden administration says, this person should be reported to the
FBI as a terrorist. What's happening? Why is my school
so crazy? Why wouldn't it be crazy? What have you
done to ensure it's not crazy? Inspect what you expect?
What made you think that everybody but you was going
to get involved in electing a good school board that
(07:19):
would then appoint a good superintendent and principle and hold
the teachers accountable. Did you just assume that everybody else
that thinks like you, that's reasonable and rational would get
involved and run for office and support good candidates.
Speaker 1 (07:32):
Well, everybody's doing what you're doing. We're all standing back,
and then the thing.
Speaker 2 (07:36):
Drops because nobody puts their hand out to stop it
from dropping. Nobody gets involved, nobody wants to care. Pick
up the phone and start making phone calls. Ask people
you trust. Sure, you're going to get some duds in
the mix. You're going to get some people that claim
there for God, country, faith, patriotism, who are running as
Republicans because that's the only way to win in their area. Sure,
(07:59):
that's going to happen, and you're going to be disappointed
by some people, But you have to stay engaged. You've
got to win the races that matter. You got to
take back your community. When you take back your community,
then you can get integrity back in your elections, and
then you can win back to county elections, and then
you can win back to statewide elections. That has to
happen right now in elections that won't be on Fox News.
Speaker 1 (08:20):
I'm telling you, Michael Berry, the Michael Berry Show.
Speaker 3 (08:30):
I'm feeling good, I am going to the gym.
Speaker 1 (08:33):
I am working out. I do not suggest it. I
don't know who.
Speaker 3 (08:40):
Thought of this, but I will tell you a better
plan than going to the gym.
Speaker 1 (08:46):
Wake up and so a point of time.
Speaker 3 (08:48):
Put on some brand new gym clothes, procrastinate, and then
around five thirty pm you say to yourself.
Speaker 1 (09:00):
Oh wow, it's too late to go to the gym.
Speaker 3 (09:07):
I guess I will go to a bar instead, where
people will look at me and say, he earned that drink.
Clearly he has just come from the gym.
Speaker 2 (09:26):
One of the things I've noticed, and you may not
have because you have a life and you don't have
to follow this stuff for the sake of show prep,
is how many people are single and live in big
cities and post to Twitter constantly and are in media.
(09:47):
And these people are constantly aggrieved by something. They're often women,
and they feel so empowered that they're not married, children
and burdened and living in Nowheresville, America and living this
horrible life where they cook a meal for their family.
Speaker 1 (10:11):
So what they do is.
Speaker 2 (10:12):
Post all day about how upset they are and they
cry into their pillow. They're biting, and so there is
among this crowd there is a debate on social media
about how women dress at gyms, and they talk, by
the way, not only the women, the men too. They
(10:34):
talk a lot about going to the gym because they're
painfully single and incredibly lonely, So they go to the
gym all the time, and they post pictures about the gym,
and they talk about the gym, and they're at the gym.
Speaker 1 (10:47):
They're at the gym. I'm at the gym. I'm at
the gym.
Speaker 2 (10:48):
Herem where I'm moving at a gym, And everything they
do is about being at the gym. And they have
a series of posts that they put up and it
goes something like this. Usually on TikTok is where it'll start,
and then it'll gravitate to Twitter and it'll be a
woman who will post a video of herself working out
(11:10):
at the gym and she's wearing next to nothing and
she's all made up to go to the gym, and
then she'll complain that men always stare at her when
she works out. Oh, if they would just stop staring
at her.
Speaker 1 (11:28):
And then someone.
Speaker 2 (11:29):
Will reply to her post and say, men are staring
at you because of how you dress, and then the
women and then all the other women will pile on
and they'll bark back, why are you.
Speaker 1 (11:45):
Trying to tell me how to dress? This is twenty twenty.
Speaker 2 (11:47):
Three, And then this causes other people to reply back,
We're not telling you how to dress. We're just saying
if you wear a thong and a sport's brought at
the gym, people are gonna look, which is exactly what
she wants in the first place. And then she and
all the other women say, stop being so sexist, and
then the men and the women who are married come
(12:10):
back with it's not sexism, it's just human nature. And
this is how they while away their evening. These are
the people who think their lives are so much better
than yours because you're spending time with your child at.
Speaker 1 (12:26):
The park, are on homework, are.
Speaker 2 (12:31):
Nursing, or watching a movie on the couch as a couple.
Speaker 1 (12:37):
These are the people who think.
Speaker 2 (12:39):
They've got it all figured out because they're painfully single,
living in the big city and so incredibly progressive and
woke and I'm not sure, the folks on our side
are much better.
Speaker 1 (12:50):
They're all going back and forth.
Speaker 2 (12:52):
It's like, if you're actually happy, you don't need to
argue with these people all day long. But for some
reason they feel the need to. Really kind of sad.
I think we need a PSA about dressing slutty at
the gym. If you dress slutty at the gym, yes,
guys are gonna notice. It's almost as if that's what
(13:13):
you're out for.
Speaker 4 (13:17):
You've seen them walking around the gym with their predatory gaze.
They think it's okay to look at us. Well it's
not okay. I'm speaking, of course, about six gendered, heteronormative
men who feel entitled to stare us women while they
I rape us at the gym.
Speaker 1 (13:35):
Stop I raping us.
Speaker 5 (13:38):
Just because we wear sexy outfits while we exercise doesn't
mean it's okay for you to acknowledge our existence. Shame
on you can't you see we're trying to enjoy fitness.
Why is it that every time I put on a thong,
bikini or two band aids and a corkscrew, that's some
guy at the local Wyanca Jim who thinks he can
(13:59):
just all go me all he wants my prothetic breas
were not implanted for your enjoyment. That's why we women
and trans women are demanding that perverted men stop staring
at us while we lift weight in our underwear or
performed drag shows at the local public library.
Speaker 6 (14:16):
And it's enough.
Speaker 4 (14:18):
Thank you.
Speaker 7 (14:26):
Yes, I tried to cancel my gym membership. Have you
(14:52):
ever heard a lazier statement in your life than I
tried to cancel my gym membership. You cannot get out
of this. I've walked off street gangs easier than canceling
gym memberships.
Speaker 1 (15:07):
I called this.
Speaker 7 (15:08):
Guy and he said, if you really want to cancel,
there are two ways.
Speaker 1 (15:13):
No, there's just one way. I tell you and then
you do it. That's it. That's the only way.
Speaker 7 (15:20):
We're actually halfway done right now. If you would just
meet me in the middle, we could close the case
on this one.
Speaker 1 (15:29):
You know, he said.
Speaker 7 (15:31):
The first way is you can come in and cancel
in person.
Speaker 1 (15:37):
Nope, it's not that one. You want to have a meeting.
Speaker 7 (15:45):
What is that conversation going to be? As you can see,
I spent twenty six hundred dollars on four workouts. Now
from where I'm standing. The grounds for cancelation are pretty solid,
you know.
Speaker 8 (16:00):
I bet you we've got ten thousands sweet little ladies
of seventy or more that would make a pound case
that you could eat cold and enjoy.
Speaker 1 (16:11):
Michael Verry Show TV was once called a vast wasteland.
Speaker 2 (16:23):
It was a place that parents would park their kids
so they wouldn't have to raise them, wouldn't have to
spend any time with them.
Speaker 1 (16:29):
Wasn't anything wrong with that.
Speaker 2 (16:30):
I spent a lot of time sitting on a bean
bag watching Saturday morning cartoons, and I'm the better for it,
I'll be honest with you. But then we got these phones,
and then the phone became a way to text your
friends lols and fo rofl and whatever else. And then
there was that nonsense in vapid conversation. And then we
started social media, and somewhere along the way Twitter, Twitter
(16:53):
popped into our world.
Speaker 1 (16:55):
And for all the.
Speaker 2 (16:55):
Talk about how stupid and vapid and horrible and time
consuming it is, I'll be completely honest, I am better
at entertaining and engaging you because of the amount of
time I spend on Twitter. I hope it's not too much,
but it is the best place that I find the words, ideas, thoughts, commentary, quotes,
(17:18):
interviews of people that I would otherwise never come across,
and I get to share their unvarnished opinion that they
put out to the world. One such fellows by the
name of Chris Martz. He is best I can tell
a weatherman in Berryville, Virginia. I guess we'll find out
in just a moment. But I've been following this guy
for a while. While I wouldn't say I was stalking,
(17:39):
I did not say stalking one I said.
Speaker 1 (17:41):
I wouldn't say I was stalking.
Speaker 2 (17:42):
But I've been trying to get his attention, wearing him
out with emails, because this guy is just throwing heat
with facts about global warming. Now, global warming is not
technically in the news today as the top story, but
we can't put this pun intended on.
Speaker 1 (17:58):
The back burner.
Speaker 2 (18:00):
Global warming and everything that was done by the left,
at the Chinese direction, at George Soros's direction, at some
nonprofits directions has handcuffed our economy and hurt your life
and made things more expensive. So let's talk about the science.
I'm not prepared to talk about science because I'm not
smart enough to. But this fella is. I've been reading
(18:22):
him for a while and his stuff is fantastic. Chris Marts,
would you like an intro song? Do you have like
a walk up song like in baseball? Is there something
that would be, you know, inner Sandman or.
Speaker 1 (18:32):
Something that's fine? I don't care.
Speaker 2 (18:37):
I mean if you have a good walk up song,
we'll do that. Chris Marx is our guest. Welcome to
the program. I really I'm glad to have you on.
I'm a big fan of what you write. I think
you're doing great work. And my original reason for reaching
out to you as I did was to tell you
there are people out here that you will never meet
that are reading what you were saying and retweeting it
and trying to amplify your message because it is base
(19:00):
in science, actual science, and your expertise in your experience.
And I think there are a lot of people who
share your opinion who don't have the stones to speak
out as you do. So let me start by saying
thank you for the good work you do. It's a
real ministry.
Speaker 1 (19:16):
Thanks for having me on. I appreciate being here. So
let's just go down the list you posted a week ago.
Speaker 2 (19:23):
Some people constantly criticize you because you don't say what
they've been told and have dutifully repeated, and you force
people to think anew about subjects they don't want to consider,
and that makes them uncomfortable. So they insult you. And
you said, quote, you don't understand because.
Speaker 1 (19:39):
You don't read. I am not a climate change denier.
What are you?
Speaker 6 (19:45):
Well, Michael, I consider myself to be a lukewarmer, and
that's somewhere between a climate alarmist and someone who is
a quote unquote denier. So I'm kind of I'm on
the position that climate change, global warming gets real, and
there is an anthropogenic element to it to some extent.
(20:05):
But this idea that we are facing a climate crisis
is just simply scientifically unsupportable by any relevant data metric.
So basically we know from instrumental temperature data that's aggregated
and into area weighted averaging, and obviously there's a lot
of uncertainty as to precisely how much. There's about a
(20:25):
thirty percent divergence in the data sets that we have
of the instrumental service temperature data, but the planet has
warned by about a degree celsius one point two degree
cells CEUs since eighteen fifty, and all else being equal,
adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere should cause some warming,
and obviously the increase in COO too. We've increased the
(20:46):
concentration by about fifty one percent, which is a halfway
of doubling from the pre industrial level since eighteen fifty,
and so global warming theory maintains that if you increase
the CO two level, you double its that increases or
enhances rather Earth's natural greenhouse effect by about one and
(21:06):
a half percent. So we reduced the UH the emission
of long wave radiation to space by about three point
seven watts per square meter, and there's a point there's
a point eight watt per square meter difference on that. Now,
for the average listener, a lot is a is a
measure of jules per seconds amount of power and then
(21:26):
standardized per unit of area measuring one square meter. So
that's just a flux, a radiation flux for the U
to break down the technical terms of that, but how
much warming actually results from doubling. That depends on amplifying
or dampening feedback mechanisms which take in as a response
to a change in that forcing of CO two and
(21:51):
So if this is called the equilibrium climate sensitivity, and
the I p c c's best estimate of that is
about three degrees celsius, So that's the temperature change in
response to doubling CO two, But a lot of that
and there's a lot of recent estimate suggests it's less
than that. And if that's the case, and that means
that the climate system is not as sensitive to our
CO two emissions and other greenhouse gases as they claim.
(22:15):
And the other problem with really truly detecting an answerburgenic
impact on the climate is that are the energy imbalance.
Earth's energy imbalance, which causes a temperature change, must be
an end of the nearest tenth level lot for square meter.
And yet the energy imbalance that we have has a
(22:37):
sixty six times larger uncertainty than the detection limits. So
it very much could be that most of the warmon
we have seen globally since say nineteen fifty, because that's
really when CO two emissions began to take off.
Speaker 1 (22:51):
It really could be.
Speaker 6 (22:52):
Mostly natural or it could be mostly anthrobergenic, and we
just simply don't know. My point really is that in
terms of whether or not to say crisis does not
depend on whether or not it's the exact calls, because
you can look at the number of deaths from whether
related disasters and our ability to adapt and overcome the
(23:15):
adversity's nature that throws at us have resulted in ninety
six percent reduction and the absolute number of deaths not
even standardized per capita, but the absolute number of deaths
despite a six billion population, six billion person increase in
population since nineteen twenty. And then the number of people
that are malnourished is that are record low. The crop
(23:36):
he olds are at an all time record high, and
that also goes to crop production, and then you look
at the share of the world living in poverty as
an all time record low. So the human condition, the
state of our welfare has never been better than it
is today. Even with climate change projections, it's expected to
only improve by the end of the century.
Speaker 2 (24:00):
I don't want to get you out of your lane
because you have been very careful to focus on science.
Speaker 1 (24:06):
But you get called basically.
Speaker 2 (24:09):
An idiot for having opinions based purely on science that
you can defend based on science. Why do you think
that is? Why do you think? I mean, I have
my own opinions. But this this doesn't seem to me
an organic, an organic movement. It feels like it has
nefarious underpinnings.
Speaker 1 (24:31):
Your thoughts.
Speaker 6 (24:34):
Well, absolutely, and when they get pull to the work,
the name calling an adament of the pat it's the
the time that they have a loss for debate.
Speaker 1 (24:42):
Chris, I have to up now.
Speaker 2 (24:44):
I messed this line up. Hold on rub against a
break one moment. Chris Marx is our guest. You can
find him on Twitter's Fantastic. They remain scared the death
of you, and they remain scared to death of Trump.
Speaker 1 (24:55):
You're not going anywhere even if Trump does.
Speaker 6 (24:58):
You're not.
Speaker 1 (25:00):
Our guest is Chris Marks.
Speaker 2 (25:02):
He is, Uh, We're going to learn more about him,
but he has some very interesting perspectives on global warming.
I've been following him for a while, and as I
often do when I respect someone in their work, I
reach out and say, Hey, can you come on and
talk to me and a whole lot of my friends
about what you're talking about? Okay, so we're talking about
the underpinnings that backing the real impetus and genesis behind
(25:24):
the global warming movement.
Speaker 1 (25:25):
I had to cut you off, so.
Speaker 6 (25:26):
Good, Yeah, so back in the nineteen eighties we really
got a hold of the ozone, the ozone scared that
we had, and so that sign of the Montreal Protocol
and the kloofloacarbons that you know, led to the allegedly
led to the depletion of ozone in the stratosphere. And
(25:48):
the next big thing on their list of priorities to
tackle the United Nations this is, was the carbon dioxide emissions,
and they really wanted to regulate the two emissions in
the context of this new merging issue at the time,
and we're talking about nineteen eighty seven nineteen eighty eight
of this global warming movement, and this was really instigated
(26:08):
by the likes of NASA's doctor James Hansen. He was
at their god An Institute for Space Studies for many years.
And then of course, I think then Senator Al Gore,
who of course became our vice president and kind of
the political face of the climate change movement really for
the longest time until the course kind of summer came along.
(26:29):
But in the nineteen eighties, the United Nations really had
this kind of policy goal to regulate CO two emissions
because this was the way that they could really kind
of control. It had leverage over energy companies and manufacturing industry,
and so they kind of had the policy car ahead
of the scientistic course, and they were really looking for
to when they formed the UN Environment Program, and of
(26:49):
course in nineteen ninety the inter Governmental Panel and Climate
Change the IPCC, they had this kind of policy goal
to regulate these emissions, and they wanted to find They
wanted to bank royal scientists to have science that supported
that policy agenda. And so it was decided virtually a
decade ago that almost all scientific research will be funded
(27:12):
by the federal government and that's of course allocated in a
portion through Congress each year, through the Research and Development funds.
And when we decided to put politicians and therefore policy
goals in charge of that research funding, then we really
made science captive of a political agenda. And this is
something that Dwight President Dwight the Ousenhower warned could happen
(27:32):
and warned against that. They devised it against going down
this route, and is nineteen sixty one farewell address and
had now and now we have an army of scientists,
these foot soldiers whose careers their success in academia in
order to secure tenure at university, in order to get
accolades at these prestigious organizations like AMS and the American
(27:52):
Geophysical Union and the Royal Society, their careers depend on
the government and being concerned enough about climate change in
an environment environmental issues to continue to put money towards
the research so that they can have successful careers. And
when you put when you when you have this kind
of conflict of interest, it really degrades the quality of
(28:13):
science and calls them the question of modis behind it?
And this is interesting because I'm often accused of being
a you know, funded for by the fossil fuel industry,
which isn't true. But and and that would be a
conflict of interest potentially when it comes to conducting research.
But they never mentioned the fact that a lot of
these organizations, like Climate Central and the World Weather Attribution,
(28:34):
which blame climate change on extreme weather events, and they
cherry pick charts and data to show increases. When you
look at the full data setter's no increase. These organizations
are bankrolled by environmental groups and a lot of organizations
that donate the advocate for left wing calls is like
planned A Parenthood and of course, major donators and family
trusts that donate to the Democratic Party, so there's definitely
(28:57):
a conflict of interests there. And the government funding political
aspirations behind some of these policies and the science that
used to support them.
Speaker 1 (29:05):
They're the conflict of interest.
Speaker 6 (29:06):
So it's when when people always look at you know,
all then the deniers, the skeptics are funded by big oil. Well,
there's conflicts of interest everywhere, and you've got to be careful.
But so that's something that they never want to address.
Speaker 2 (29:20):
No, And you know, I think if if a conflict
of interest or potential conflict of interest is disclosed upfront,
I think that's very important. You know, It's like when
a witness goes on the stand, I start a life.
Speaker 1 (29:34):
As a lawyer.
Speaker 2 (29:35):
As long as we understand, you know, who's paying this
quote unquote expert witness, because that very likely colors what
they're doing. We'll still listen to what they have to say,
but we do deserve to know that, and then from
there we can have the conversation.
Speaker 1 (29:48):
So many people that do what you do, but.
Speaker 2 (29:50):
From the other side that is argue this issue and
they're being paid by particular interests and don't disclose it.
I find that to be disingenuous and very disturbing, particularly
when it comes from external agents of the United States
whose interest is in slowing down our fossil fuel production
and dominance.
Speaker 1 (30:09):
On that subject.
Speaker 2 (30:12):
I am of the opinion that the burning of several
thousand year old dinosaur bones as an energy source is
insanely efficient and it makes our quality of life a
lot better at a very low cost, with minimal damage
to the environment. And it's damage I'm willing to sustain
for the improvement and quality of life.
Speaker 6 (30:33):
Your thought, well, I've always been of the opinion because
I kind of be as objective as possible when we
all have biases. I have biases, everybody has bias. Every
scientist has biases, whether he or she admits it or not.
But I don't really care where our energy comes from
that we use to power modern civilization, so long as
(30:55):
it is one affordable for the working class and low
income families, two it's sustainable, and three it's efficient. So
those are free criteria that I have.
Speaker 1 (31:06):
For energy sources.
Speaker 6 (31:07):
It could come from very farts for all I care,
and I don't care. But when you've forced expensive and
unreliable intermittent energy on people. It makes their quality of
it lowers their quality of life, and that's not something
that we should be aiming for. That's not progress. And
a lot of the renewable energy technologies, primarily utility scale
wind and utility scale solar, do not fit the description
(31:30):
of a sustainable falt efficient energy source because when they
are added to the grid, they don't replace fossil fuels.
They have extreme high land requirements and that of course
increases property taxes. They have load balancing costs for their
intermittency because they're at least efficient energy sources, and all
of those, once they're factored in to the generation costs,
(31:50):
actually make them more expensive than any other technology, any
fossil field technology, any more expensive than even nuclear power.
And fossil fuels have provided our way of life for
well over one hundred and seventy five years, and they
have lifted millions, probably billions of people from poverty. They
have the technologies that have emerged as a result of
(32:10):
us using them, has doubled the average of life expectancy
in every inhabited continent, including Africa, since eighteen since the
eighteen fifties, and it has provided for warning coordination systems
that alert us when extreme weather events are coming. If
we didn't have fossil fuels power in the grid, we
wouldn't have the Wi Fi connections to connect us to
the internet to stay in touch with the National Weather
(32:32):
Service alerts when a hurricane farm is bailing up the
coast and so on, and winds simply cannot pick up
the demand to meet it, cannot sail cannot fill that
gap to meet the demand if we were to take
fossil fuels off one Now, solar power does have a future.
People put it on our roofs in their houses, and
people put it and it should be put on like
the roofs are put on canopies that covered parking lots
for shade protection, to generate electricity, but to destroy tens
(32:54):
of thousands of acres of land wilderness in the ecosystems.
Farmers by diversity, which of course is the difference from
different plants and animals that live in are in an area,
in an ecosystem and a habitat that's not that's counterproductive
to progress on both the environment and of course our
state of welfare. If we really really want to reduce
our dependence on fossil fuels, and of course we're still
(33:16):
going to need oil for as long as you know,
in control of combustion engines remain profitable because a lot
of people are still going to refuse to buy electric
cars because they cannot get them to go, you know,
nine hundred miles in the winter time on along road
trips it as a family.
Speaker 1 (33:30):
But we're still good.
Speaker 6 (33:31):
But if you want to really reduce our dependence on
say coal and natural gas, and the natural gas is
largely replaced coal in many parts of the world, especially
that the United States, we should be turned into nuclear
power and nuclear fission because it is a is the
most carbon free energy source, that's the safest energy source
on the desk of carolt hour basis, only behind solar
It's that time. Time, time, luck and load. The Michael
Vary Show is on the air.
Speaker 2 (00:33):
Let me starting a little story to make a point
about the purpose of this first segment of the show,
which I hope you will take to heart. I'll make
it quick. So do you know the name Sandra more
than Probably not, especially if you're not from Florida. Do
(00:59):
you know the name Karen Geever's an attorney from Miami.
Probably not, unless you're one of our Florida listeners, including
our folks in say, Pensacola.
Speaker 1 (01:12):
What are our call letters in Pensacola. I just lost
my sheep.
Speaker 2 (01:18):
Either way, you don't know their name. But I'll bet
you you do know the name Catherine Harris. If you've
been following the process for a while political process, you
know the name Catherine Harris because in nineteen ninety eight
she ran far and was elected to the position of
(01:38):
Secretary of State in Florida. Not something that gets a
lot of attention, but when she was elected and took
office January fifth, nineteen ninety nine, the course of history
would change dramatically. Had she lost lost that election, our
(02:04):
history of the last twenty three years would be twenty two.
Speaker 1 (02:08):
Years would be very, very different.
Speaker 2 (02:11):
And the reason is because in a down ballot race
that most people don't pay much attention to, certainly not
the rest of the country, and very few people in Florida.
Catherine Harris managed to defeat Karen Givers, a Democrat from Miami,
(02:32):
and be the last person to be elected Secretary of
State in Florida. After that, a constitutional change occurred where
the Secretary of State would now be appointed by the governor,
as it is in Texas, but at that time it
was elected.
Speaker 1 (02:52):
And then in two thousand November, the.
Speaker 2 (02:55):
Closest election we've had, and it all came down to
the state of Florida. And first they said Bush one,
then Gore won. Then they went back and forth all night,
and then Gore conceded, and then he.
Speaker 1 (03:13):
Said, oh no, no, no, maybe I didn't concede.
Speaker 2 (03:15):
And it all came down to the paper ballots in Florida,
and what was known as a butterfly ballot. Remember the
old spiral notebooks, you would have not the three ring binder,
but the one with the entire spiral, the slinky through
the middle of the papers. Well, the way that was
(03:36):
done some voters, it was alleged wouldn't push the paper
all the way through, so that became what was known
as a dimpled chad, and all of this effort went
into a few hundred votes. It was insane because whoever
(03:57):
won Florida would win the White House, and whoever lost
Florida would lose the entire election. Forty nine other states
and everything came down to who could get to two
seventy and neither one of them could get to two
seventy electoral votes without Florida. And so there was if
you remember some of you around the hanging chads, that
was a chad that had been pushed through but not
completely disconnected from the paper. I was kind of involved
(04:21):
in that election, can you tell? I get excited? And
then there was a dimple chat. A dimple chad was
something you remember when you were in school and you'd
write a note to a girl, or if you were
a girl, to a guy, and you would take a
piece of paper and put another paper over the top
of it, and you'd write on that top paper you
kind of press down and there'd be enough under the
(04:42):
underside that if you handed that to somebody, somebody just
glancing like a blank piece of paper, but if she
took that piece of paper and ran a pencil across it,
it would reveal the indentation in the paper, and you
could send a message kind of in this coded way,
and then we had invisible link ink. But that's a
different dece Well, that was what a dimple chad was.
(05:03):
It was pushed probably from an earlier vote on another issue.
Speaker 1 (05:09):
So all this comes down.
Speaker 2 (05:12):
All this comes down to the Secretary of State and
the decisions she makes.
Speaker 1 (05:20):
Of course it would end up with the Supreme Court.
Speaker 2 (05:23):
But if the Secretary of State hadn't been Catherine Harris,
who made the decisions she did for truth on his fairness, judgment, objectivity,
which is what our party does, a Democrat would have
just swung the election to Gore, and Gore would have
been president, and who knows how life would have been different,
but it would have been worse, you'd be sure of that.
(05:45):
Not that I'm the biggest fan of George W.
Speaker 1 (05:47):
Bush.
Speaker 2 (05:47):
She made a lot of mistakes, But the point is
how much elections matter, and elections that don't get any attention.
The course of America's history was changed because the people
of floor voted for Catherine Harris instead of some woman
that is relegated to scrap peep of history. I say, all,
let's say this, the most important elections in this country
(06:11):
are not the presidential election. It gets all the attention.
It's not even Kevin McCarthy. Most government is local government.
But because you don't go home after work and turn
on Fox News and they talk about who's running for
city council, dogcatcher, sheriff, county treasurer, county judge, county courts,
(06:33):
because that's not easily told to you, because that is
not spoon fed to you. Most people don't give a
damn about the local elections. They don't know who their
school board is. And that's why when little Billy comes
home and says, Mama, this happened at school today, and
they call up to the school and the school hangs
up on them. They go to the school board and
the school board cuts off their mic and calls a
(06:55):
Biden administration says, this person should be reported to the
FBI as a terrorist. What's happening? Why is my school
so crazy? Why wouldn't it be crazy? What have you
done to ensure it's not crazy? Inspect what you expect?
What made you think that everybody but you was going
to get involved in electing a good school board that
(07:19):
would then appoint a good superintendent and principle and hold
the teachers accountable. Did you just assume that everybody else
that thinks like you, that's reasonable and rational would get
involved and run for office and support good candidates.
Speaker 1 (07:32):
Well, everybody's doing what you're doing. We're all standing back,
and then the thing.
Speaker 2 (07:36):
Drops because nobody puts their hand out to stop it
from dropping. Nobody gets involved, nobody wants to care. Pick
up the phone and start making phone calls. Ask people
you trust. Sure, you're going to get some duds in
the mix. You're going to get some people that claim
there for God, country, faith, patriotism, who are running as
Republicans because that's the only way to win in their area. Sure,
(07:59):
that's going to happen, and you're going to be disappointed
by some people, But you have to stay engaged. You've
got to win the races that matter. You got to
take back your community. When you take back your community,
then you can get integrity back in your elections, and
then you can win back to county elections, and then
you can win back to statewide elections. That has to
happen right now in elections that won't be on Fox News.
Speaker 1 (08:20):
I'm telling you, Michael Berry, the Michael Berry Show.
Speaker 3 (08:30):
I'm feeling good, I am going to the gym.
Speaker 1 (08:33):
I am working out. I do not suggest it. I
don't know who.
Speaker 3 (08:40):
Thought of this, but I will tell you a better
plan than going to the gym.
Speaker 1 (08:46):
Wake up and so a point of time.
Speaker 3 (08:48):
Put on some brand new gym clothes, procrastinate, and then
around five thirty pm you say to yourself.
Speaker 1 (09:00):
Oh wow, it's too late to go to the gym.
Speaker 3 (09:07):
I guess I will go to a bar instead, where
people will look at me and say, he earned that drink.
Clearly he has just come from the gym.
Speaker 2 (09:26):
One of the things I've noticed, and you may not
have because you have a life and you don't have
to follow this stuff for the sake of show prep,
is how many people are single and live in big
cities and post to Twitter constantly and are in media.
(09:47):
And these people are constantly aggrieved by something. They're often women,
and they feel so empowered that they're not married, children
and burdened and living in Nowheresville, America and living this
horrible life where they cook a meal for their family.
Speaker 1 (10:11):
So what they do is.
Speaker 2 (10:12):
Post all day about how upset they are and they
cry into their pillow. They're biting, and so there is
among this crowd there is a debate on social media
about how women dress at gyms, and they talk, by
the way, not only the women, the men too. They
(10:34):
talk a lot about going to the gym because they're
painfully single and incredibly lonely, So they go to the
gym all the time, and they post pictures about the gym,
and they talk about the gym, and they're at the gym.
Speaker 1 (10:47):
They're at the gym. I'm at the gym. I'm at
the gym.
Speaker 2 (10:48):
Herem where I'm moving at a gym, And everything they
do is about being at the gym. And they have
a series of posts that they put up and it
goes something like this. Usually on TikTok is where it'll start,
and then it'll gravitate to Twitter and it'll be a
woman who will post a video of herself working out
(11:10):
at the gym and she's wearing next to nothing and
she's all made up to go to the gym, and
then she'll complain that men always stare at her when
she works out. Oh, if they would just stop staring
at her.
Speaker 1 (11:28):
And then someone.
Speaker 2 (11:29):
Will reply to her post and say, men are staring
at you because of how you dress, and then the
women and then all the other women will pile on
and they'll bark back, why are you.
Speaker 1 (11:45):
Trying to tell me how to dress? This is twenty twenty.
Speaker 2 (11:47):
Three, And then this causes other people to reply back,
We're not telling you how to dress. We're just saying
if you wear a thong and a sport's brought at
the gym, people are gonna look, which is exactly what
she wants in the first place. And then she and
all the other women say, stop being so sexist, and
then the men and the women who are married come
(12:10):
back with it's not sexism, it's just human nature. And
this is how they while away their evening. These are
the people who think their lives are so much better
than yours because you're spending time with your child at.
Speaker 1 (12:26):
The park, are on homework, are.
Speaker 2 (12:31):
Nursing, or watching a movie on the couch as a couple.
Speaker 1 (12:37):
These are the people who think.
Speaker 2 (12:39):
They've got it all figured out because they're painfully single,
living in the big city and so incredibly progressive and
woke and I'm not sure, the folks on our side
are much better.
Speaker 1 (12:50):
They're all going back and forth.
Speaker 2 (12:52):
It's like, if you're actually happy, you don't need to
argue with these people all day long. But for some
reason they feel the need to. Really kind of sad.
I think we need a PSA about dressing slutty at
the gym. If you dress slutty at the gym, yes,
guys are gonna notice. It's almost as if that's what
(13:13):
you're out for.
Speaker 4 (13:17):
You've seen them walking around the gym with their predatory gaze.
They think it's okay to look at us. Well it's
not okay. I'm speaking, of course, about six gendered, heteronormative
men who feel entitled to stare us women while they
I rape us at the gym.
Speaker 1 (13:35):
Stop I raping us.
Speaker 5 (13:38):
Just because we wear sexy outfits while we exercise doesn't
mean it's okay for you to acknowledge our existence. Shame
on you can't you see we're trying to enjoy fitness.
Why is it that every time I put on a thong,
bikini or two band aids and a corkscrew, that's some
guy at the local Wyanca Jim who thinks he can
(13:59):
just all go me all he wants my prothetic breas
were not implanted for your enjoyment. That's why we women
and trans women are demanding that perverted men stop staring
at us while we lift weight in our underwear or
performed drag shows at the local public library.
Speaker 6 (14:16):
And it's enough.
Speaker 4 (14:18):
Thank you.
Speaker 7 (14:26):
Yes, I tried to cancel my gym membership. Have you
(14:52):
ever heard a lazier statement in your life than I
tried to cancel my gym membership. You cannot get out
of this. I've walked off street gangs easier than canceling
gym memberships.
Speaker 1 (15:07):
I called this.
Speaker 7 (15:08):
Guy and he said, if you really want to cancel,
there are two ways.
Speaker 1 (15:13):
No, there's just one way. I tell you and then
you do it. That's it. That's the only way.
Speaker 7 (15:20):
We're actually halfway done right now. If you would just
meet me in the middle, we could close the case
on this one.
Speaker 1 (15:29):
You know, he said.
Speaker 7 (15:31):
The first way is you can come in and cancel
in person.
Speaker 1 (15:37):
Nope, it's not that one. You want to have a meeting.
Speaker 7 (15:45):
What is that conversation going to be? As you can see,
I spent twenty six hundred dollars on four workouts. Now
from where I'm standing. The grounds for cancelation are pretty solid,
you know.
Speaker 8 (16:00):
I bet you we've got ten thousands sweet little ladies
of seventy or more that would make a pound case
that you could eat cold and enjoy.
Speaker 1 (16:11):
Michael Verry Show TV was once called a vast wasteland.
Speaker 2 (16:23):
It was a place that parents would park their kids
so they wouldn't have to raise them, wouldn't have to
spend any time with them.
Speaker 1 (16:29):
Wasn't anything wrong with that.
Speaker 2 (16:30):
I spent a lot of time sitting on a bean
bag watching Saturday morning cartoons, and I'm the better for it,
I'll be honest with you. But then we got these phones,
and then the phone became a way to text your
friends lols and fo rofl and whatever else. And then
there was that nonsense in vapid conversation. And then we
started social media, and somewhere along the way Twitter, Twitter
(16:53):
popped into our world.
Speaker 1 (16:55):
And for all the.
Speaker 2 (16:55):
Talk about how stupid and vapid and horrible and time
consuming it is, I'll be completely honest, I am better
at entertaining and engaging you because of the amount of
time I spend on Twitter. I hope it's not too much,
but it is the best place that I find the words, ideas, thoughts, commentary, quotes,
(17:18):
interviews of people that I would otherwise never come across,
and I get to share their unvarnished opinion that they
put out to the world. One such fellows by the
name of Chris Martz. He is best I can tell
a weatherman in Berryville, Virginia. I guess we'll find out
in just a moment. But I've been following this guy
for a while. While I wouldn't say I was stalking,
(17:39):
I did not say stalking one I said.
Speaker 1 (17:41):
I wouldn't say I was stalking.
Speaker 2 (17:42):
But I've been trying to get his attention, wearing him
out with emails, because this guy is just throwing heat
with facts about global warming. Now, global warming is not
technically in the news today as the top story, but
we can't put this pun intended on.
Speaker 1 (17:58):
The back burner.
Speaker 2 (18:00):
Global warming and everything that was done by the left,
at the Chinese direction, at George Soros's direction, at some
nonprofits directions has handcuffed our economy and hurt your life
and made things more expensive. So let's talk about the science.
I'm not prepared to talk about science because I'm not
smart enough to. But this fella is. I've been reading
(18:22):
him for a while and his stuff is fantastic. Chris Marts,
would you like an intro song? Do you have like
a walk up song like in baseball? Is there something
that would be, you know, inner Sandman or.
Speaker 1 (18:32):
Something that's fine? I don't care.
Speaker 2 (18:37):
I mean if you have a good walk up song,
we'll do that. Chris Marx is our guest. Welcome to
the program. I really I'm glad to have you on.
I'm a big fan of what you write. I think
you're doing great work. And my original reason for reaching
out to you as I did was to tell you
there are people out here that you will never meet
that are reading what you were saying and retweeting it
and trying to amplify your message because it is base
(19:00):
in science, actual science, and your expertise in your experience.
And I think there are a lot of people who
share your opinion who don't have the stones to speak
out as you do. So let me start by saying
thank you for the good work you do. It's a
real ministry.
Speaker 1 (19:16):
Thanks for having me on. I appreciate being here. So
let's just go down the list you posted a week ago.
Speaker 2 (19:23):
Some people constantly criticize you because you don't say what
they've been told and have dutifully repeated, and you force
people to think anew about subjects they don't want to consider,
and that makes them uncomfortable. So they insult you. And
you said, quote, you don't understand because.
Speaker 1 (19:39):
You don't read. I am not a climate change denier.
What are you?
Speaker 6 (19:45):
Well, Michael, I consider myself to be a lukewarmer, and
that's somewhere between a climate alarmist and someone who is
a quote unquote denier. So I'm kind of I'm on
the position that climate change, global warming gets real, and
there is an anthropogenic element to it to some extent.
(20:05):
But this idea that we are facing a climate crisis
is just simply scientifically unsupportable by any relevant data metric.
So basically we know from instrumental temperature data that's aggregated
and into area weighted averaging, and obviously there's a lot
of uncertainty as to precisely how much. There's about a
(20:25):
thirty percent divergence in the data sets that we have
of the instrumental service temperature data, but the planet has
warned by about a degree celsius one point two degree
cells CEUs since eighteen fifty, and all else being equal,
adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere should cause some warming,
and obviously the increase in COO too. We've increased the
(20:46):
concentration by about fifty one percent, which is a halfway
of doubling from the pre industrial level since eighteen fifty,
and so global warming theory maintains that if you increase
the CO two level, you double its that increases or
enhances rather Earth's natural greenhouse effect by about one and
(21:06):
a half percent. So we reduced the UH the emission
of long wave radiation to space by about three point
seven watts per square meter, and there's a point there's
a point eight watt per square meter difference on that. Now,
for the average listener, a lot is a is a
measure of jules per seconds amount of power and then
(21:26):
standardized per unit of area measuring one square meter. So
that's just a flux, a radiation flux for the U
to break down the technical terms of that, but how
much warming actually results from doubling. That depends on amplifying
or dampening feedback mechanisms which take in as a response
to a change in that forcing of CO two and
(21:51):
So if this is called the equilibrium climate sensitivity, and
the I p c c's best estimate of that is
about three degrees celsius, So that's the temperature change in
response to doubling CO two, But a lot of that
and there's a lot of recent estimate suggests it's less
than that. And if that's the case, and that means
that the climate system is not as sensitive to our
CO two emissions and other greenhouse gases as they claim.
(22:15):
And the other problem with really truly detecting an answerburgenic
impact on the climate is that are the energy imbalance.
Earth's energy imbalance, which causes a temperature change, must be
an end of the nearest tenth level lot for square meter.
And yet the energy imbalance that we have has a
(22:37):
sixty six times larger uncertainty than the detection limits. So
it very much could be that most of the warmon
we have seen globally since say nineteen fifty, because that's
really when CO two emissions began to take off.
Speaker 1 (22:51):
It really could be.
Speaker 6 (22:52):
Mostly natural or it could be mostly anthrobergenic, and we
just simply don't know. My point really is that in
terms of whether or not to say crisis does not
depend on whether or not it's the exact calls, because
you can look at the number of deaths from whether
related disasters and our ability to adapt and overcome the
(23:15):
adversity's nature that throws at us have resulted in ninety
six percent reduction and the absolute number of deaths not
even standardized per capita, but the absolute number of deaths
despite a six billion population, six billion person increase in
population since nineteen twenty. And then the number of people
that are malnourished is that are record low. The crop
(23:36):
he olds are at an all time record high, and
that also goes to crop production, and then you look
at the share of the world living in poverty as
an all time record low. So the human condition, the
state of our welfare has never been better than it
is today. Even with climate change projections, it's expected to
only improve by the end of the century.
Speaker 2 (24:00):
I don't want to get you out of your lane
because you have been very careful to focus on science.
Speaker 1 (24:06):
But you get called basically.
Speaker 2 (24:09):
An idiot for having opinions based purely on science that
you can defend based on science. Why do you think
that is? Why do you think? I mean, I have
my own opinions. But this this doesn't seem to me
an organic, an organic movement. It feels like it has
nefarious underpinnings.
Speaker 1 (24:31):
Your thoughts.
Speaker 6 (24:34):
Well, absolutely, and when they get pull to the work,
the name calling an adament of the pat it's the
the time that they have a loss for debate.
Speaker 1 (24:42):
Chris, I have to up now.
Speaker 2 (24:44):
I messed this line up. Hold on rub against a
break one moment. Chris Marx is our guest. You can
find him on Twitter's Fantastic. They remain scared the death
of you, and they remain scared to death of Trump.
Speaker 1 (24:55):
You're not going anywhere even if Trump does.
Speaker 6 (24:58):
You're not.
Speaker 1 (25:00):
Our guest is Chris Marks.
Speaker 2 (25:02):
He is, Uh, We're going to learn more about him,
but he has some very interesting perspectives on global warming.
I've been following him for a while, and as I
often do when I respect someone in their work, I
reach out and say, Hey, can you come on and
talk to me and a whole lot of my friends
about what you're talking about? Okay, so we're talking about
the underpinnings that backing the real impetus and genesis behind
(25:24):
the global warming movement.
Speaker 1 (25:25):
I had to cut you off, so.
Speaker 6 (25:26):
Good, Yeah, so back in the nineteen eighties we really
got a hold of the ozone, the ozone scared that
we had, and so that sign of the Montreal Protocol
and the kloofloacarbons that you know, led to the allegedly
led to the depletion of ozone in the stratosphere. And
(25:48):
the next big thing on their list of priorities to
tackle the United Nations this is, was the carbon dioxide emissions,
and they really wanted to regulate the two emissions in
the context of this new merging issue at the time,
and we're talking about nineteen eighty seven nineteen eighty eight
of this global warming movement, and this was really instigated
(26:08):
by the likes of NASA's doctor James Hansen. He was
at their god An Institute for Space Studies for many years.
And then of course, I think then Senator Al Gore,
who of course became our vice president and kind of
the political face of the climate change movement really for
the longest time until the course kind of summer came along.
(26:29):
But in the nineteen eighties, the United Nations really had
this kind of policy goal to regulate CO two emissions
because this was the way that they could really kind
of control. It had leverage over energy companies and manufacturing industry,
and so they kind of had the policy car ahead
of the scientistic course, and they were really looking for
to when they formed the UN Environment Program, and of
(26:49):
course in nineteen ninety the inter Governmental Panel and Climate
Change the IPCC, they had this kind of policy goal
to regulate these emissions, and they wanted to find They
wanted to bank royal scientists to have science that supported
that policy agenda. And so it was decided virtually a
decade ago that almost all scientific research will be funded
(27:12):
by the federal government and that's of course allocated in a
portion through Congress each year, through the Research and Development funds.
And when we decided to put politicians and therefore policy
goals in charge of that research funding, then we really
made science captive of a political agenda. And this is
something that Dwight President Dwight the Ousenhower warned could happen
(27:32):
and warned against that. They devised it against going down
this route, and is nineteen sixty one farewell address and
had now and now we have an army of scientists,
these foot soldiers whose careers their success in academia in
order to secure tenure at university, in order to get
accolades at these prestigious organizations like AMS and the American
(27:52):
Geophysical Union and the Royal Society, their careers depend on
the government and being concerned enough about climate change in
an environment environmental issues to continue to put money towards
the research so that they can have successful careers. And
when you put when you when you have this kind
of conflict of interest, it really degrades the quality of
(28:13):
science and calls them the question of modis behind it?
And this is interesting because I'm often accused of being
a you know, funded for by the fossil fuel industry,
which isn't true. But and and that would be a
conflict of interest potentially when it comes to conducting research.
But they never mentioned the fact that a lot of
these organizations, like Climate Central and the World Weather Attribution,
(28:34):
which blame climate change on extreme weather events, and they
cherry pick charts and data to show increases. When you
look at the full data setter's no increase. These organizations
are bankrolled by environmental groups and a lot of organizations
that donate the advocate for left wing calls is like
planned A Parenthood and of course, major donators and family
trusts that donate to the Democratic Party, so there's definitely
(28:57):
a conflict of interests there. And the government funding political
aspirations behind some of these policies and the science that
used to support them.
Speaker 1 (29:05):
They're the conflict of interest.
Speaker 6 (29:06):
So it's when when people always look at you know,
all then the deniers, the skeptics are funded by big oil. Well,
there's conflicts of interest everywhere, and you've got to be careful.
But so that's something that they never want to address.
Speaker 2 (29:20):
No, And you know, I think if if a conflict
of interest or potential conflict of interest is disclosed upfront,
I think that's very important. You know, It's like when
a witness goes on the stand, I start a life.
Speaker 1 (29:34):
As a lawyer.
Speaker 2 (29:35):
As long as we understand, you know, who's paying this
quote unquote expert witness, because that very likely colors what
they're doing. We'll still listen to what they have to say,
but we do deserve to know that, and then from
there we can have the conversation.
Speaker 1 (29:48):
So many people that do what you do, but.
Speaker 2 (29:50):
From the other side that is argue this issue and
they're being paid by particular interests and don't disclose it.
I find that to be disingenuous and very disturbing, particularly
when it comes from external agents of the United States
whose interest is in slowing down our fossil fuel production
and dominance.
Speaker 1 (30:09):
On that subject.
Speaker 2 (30:12):
I am of the opinion that the burning of several
thousand year old dinosaur bones as an energy source is
insanely efficient and it makes our quality of life a
lot better at a very low cost, with minimal damage
to the environment. And it's damage I'm willing to sustain
for the improvement and quality of life.
Speaker 6 (30:33):
Your thought, well, I've always been of the opinion because
I kind of be as objective as possible when we
all have biases. I have biases, everybody has bias. Every
scientist has biases, whether he or she admits it or not.
But I don't really care where our energy comes from
that we use to power modern civilization, so long as
(30:55):
it is one affordable for the working class and low
income families, two it's sustainable, and three it's efficient. So
those are free criteria that I have.
Speaker 1 (31:06):
For energy sources.
Speaker 6 (31:07):
It could come from very farts for all I care,
and I don't care. But when you've forced expensive and
unreliable intermittent energy on people. It makes their quality of
it lowers their quality of life, and that's not something
that we should be aiming for. That's not progress. And
a lot of the renewable energy technologies, primarily utility scale
wind and utility scale solar, do not fit the description
(31:30):
of a sustainable falt efficient energy source because when they
are added to the grid, they don't replace fossil fuels.
They have extreme high land requirements and that of course
increases property taxes. They have load balancing costs for their
intermittency because they're at least efficient energy sources, and all
of those, once they're factored in to the generation costs,
(31:50):
actually make them more expensive than any other technology, any
fossil field technology, any more expensive than even nuclear power.
And fossil fuels have provided our way of life for
well over one hundred and seventy five years, and they
have lifted millions, probably billions of people from poverty. They
have the technologies that have emerged as a result of
(32:10):
us using them, has doubled the average of life expectancy
in every inhabited continent, including Africa, since eighteen since the
eighteen fifties, and it has provided for warning coordination systems
that alert us when extreme weather events are coming. If
we didn't have fossil fuels power in the grid, we
wouldn't have the Wi Fi connections to connect us to
the internet to stay in touch with the National Weather
(32:32):
Service alerts when a hurricane farm is bailing up the
coast and so on, and winds simply cannot pick up
the demand to meet it, cannot sail cannot fill that
gap to meet the demand if we were to take
fossil fuels off one Now, solar power does have a future.
People put it on our roofs in their houses, and
people put it and it should be put on like
the roofs are put on canopies that covered parking lots
for shade protection, to generate electricity, but to destroy tens
(32:54):
of thousands of acres of land wilderness in the ecosystems.
Farmers by diversity, which of course is the difference from
different plants and animals that live in are in an area,
in an ecosystem and a habitat that's not that's counterproductive
to progress on both the environment and of course our
state of welfare. If we really really want to reduce
our dependence on fossil fuels, and of course we're still
(33:16):
going to need oil for as long as you know,
in control of combustion engines remain profitable because a lot
of people are still going to refuse to buy electric
cars because they cannot get them to go, you know,
nine hundred miles in the winter time on along road
trips it as a family.
Speaker 1 (33:30):
But we're still good.
Speaker 6 (33:31):
But if you want to really reduce our dependence on
say coal and natural gas, and the natural gas is
largely replaced coal in many parts of the world, especially
that the United States, we should be turned into nuclear
power and nuclear fission because it is a is the
most carbon free energy source, that's the safest energy source
on the desk of carolt hour basis, only behind solar
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
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
The Burden
The Burden is a documentary series that takes listeners into the hidden places where justice is done (and undone). It dives deep into the lives of heroes and villains. And it focuses a spotlight on those who triumph even when the odds are against them. Season 5 - The Burden: Death & Deceit in Alliance On April Fools Day 1999, 26-year-old Yvonne Layne was found murdered in her Alliance, Ohio home. David Thorne, her ex-boyfriend and father of one of her children, was instantly a suspect. Another young man admitted to the murder, and David breathed a sigh of relief, until the confessed murderer fingered David; “He paid me to do it.” David was sentenced to life without parole. Two decades later, Pulitzer winner and podcast host, Maggie Freleng (Bone Valley Season 3: Graves County, Wrongful Conviction, Suave) launched a “live” investigation into David's conviction alongside Jason Baldwin (himself wrongfully convicted as a member of the West Memphis Three). Maggie had come to believe that the entire investigation of David was botched by the tiny local police department, or worse, covered up the real killer. Was Maggie correct? Was David’s claim of innocence credible? In Death and Deceit in Alliance, Maggie recounts the case that launched her career, and ultimately, “broke” her.” The results will shock the listener and reduce Maggie to tears and self-doubt. This is not your typical wrongful conviction story. In fact, it turns the genre on its head. It asks the question: What if our champions are foolish? Season 4 - The Burden: Get the Money and Run “Trying to murder my father, this was the thing that put me on the path.” That’s Joe Loya and that path was bank robbery. Bank, bank, bank, bank, bank. In season 4 of The Burden: Get the Money and Run, we hear from Joe who was once the most prolific bank robber in Southern California, and beyond. He used disguises, body doubles, proxies. He leaped over counters, grabbed the money and ran. Even as the FBI was closing in. It was a showdown between a daring bank robber, and a patient FBI agent. Joe was no ordinary bank robber. He was bright, articulate, charismatic, and driven by a dark rage that he summoned up at will. In seven episodes, Joe tells all: the what, the how… and the why. Including why he tried to murder his father. Season 3 - The Burden: Avenger Miriam Lewin is one of Argentina’s leading journalists today. At 19 years old, she was kidnapped off the streets of Buenos Aires for her political activism and thrown into a concentration camp. Thousands of her fellow inmates were executed, tossed alive from a cargo plane into the ocean. Miriam, along with a handful of others, will survive the camp. Then as a journalist, she will wage a decades long campaign to bring her tormentors to justice. Avenger is about one woman’s triumphant battle against unbelievable odds to survive torture, claim justice for the crimes done against her and others like her, and change the future of her country. Season 2 - The Burden: Empire on Blood Empire on Blood is set in the Bronx, NY, in the early 90s, when two young drug dealers ruled an intersection known as “The Corner on Blood.” The boss, Calvin Buari, lived large. He and a protege swore they would build an empire on blood. Then the relationship frayed and the protege accused Calvin of a double homicide which he claimed he didn’t do. But did he? Award-winning journalist Steve Fishman spent seven years to answer that question. This is the story of one man’s last chance to overturn his life sentence. He may prevail, but someone’s gotta pay. The Burden: Empire on Blood is the director’s cut of the true crime classic which reached #1 on the charts when it was first released half a dozen years ago. Season 1 - The Burden In the 1990s, Detective Louis N. Scarcella was legendary. In a city overrun by violent crime, he cracked the toughest cases and put away the worst criminals. “The Hulk” was his nickname. Then the story changed. Scarcella ran into a group of convicted murderers who all say they are innocent. They turned themselves into jailhouse-lawyers and in prison founded a lway firm. When they realized Scarcella helped put many of them away, they set their sights on taking him down. And with the help of a NY Times reporter they have a chance. For years, Scarcella insisted he did nothing wrong. But that’s all he’d say. Until we tracked Scarcella to a sauna in a Russian bathhouse, where he started to talk..and talk and talk. “The guilty have gone free,” he whispered. And then agreed to take us into the belly of the beast. Welcome to The Burden.