Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
I'll bet you a steak dinner that there's not a
farmer that would give his land away even if he
got free electricity. Nope, not gonna happen. Steak dinner, yep,
let's do this.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
You would be the some farm or some rancher gives
away six hundred forty acres. Now, I'm going to assume
that that's not the only six hundred forty acres they own,
but maybe even so, I think they would be such
a gigantic hero in the state of Colorado that they
could do just about anything. They damn well, please Hell's bells,
(00:38):
I quit and run them for governor. I'd make them governor,
That's what I'd do. So drag him is sitting back
there because you know, I started talking about nuclear power
and how much I love nuclear power, and he starts
digging around on energy dot gov and he comes up
with and he asked me about the size of a uh,
is it plutonium or.
Speaker 3 (00:59):
You anyum pellet?
Speaker 4 (01:00):
A uranium pellet.
Speaker 3 (01:01):
Well, from the website energy dot gov. It's got a
really cool graphics about the equivalent unit of energy from
one uranium pellet.
Speaker 4 (01:14):
Is equal too, and then it gives the equivalent.
Speaker 3 (01:17):
One ton of coal or one hundred and twenty gallons
of oil or seventeen thousand cubic feet of natural gas.
Speaker 4 (01:29):
And Dragon asked me.
Speaker 2 (01:30):
What I thought the size of that pellet was, and,
thinking the weird way I think, I thought, well, it's
not really the size of a pellet like I would
think of a pellet. Agreed, So I thought, maybe it's
maybe at a maximum twelve inches long and maybe an
inch in diameter.
Speaker 3 (01:47):
Yeah, foot long hot dog?
Speaker 2 (01:48):
Yeah, exactly a foot long hot dog, which you know,
maybe for lunch today, I'll have a foot long hot dog.
That sounds good. So what is the size of a
uranium pellet?
Speaker 3 (01:57):
Oh, uranium fuel pellets are roughly about a half an
inch in length and less than a centimeter in diameter.
Speaker 4 (02:11):
We we are, we.
Speaker 2 (02:12):
Are some of the stupidest for for all of the
scientific advances that we make, modern medicine, modern technology, the
I'm always fast. I can remember the days when I
was fascinated by fax machines.
Speaker 4 (02:26):
You mean I can.
Speaker 2 (02:28):
I can feed that piece of paper in there and
it's going to go out the other end somewhere and
people can read that. Remember that old fax paper that
was kind of creakly and nasty.
Speaker 3 (02:37):
Remember that it was it a little waxy, yeah, kind
of waxy whatever.
Speaker 2 (02:40):
Remember that fax paper or the you know, remember the
mimeograph machines back in the dark ages when I was
in that one room schoolhouse. And now I'm sitting here
holding an iPhone that has you know, a thousand times
more computing power than the first Apple two.
Speaker 4 (02:56):
Eye or whatever it was that I did I ever
first purchased.
Speaker 3 (02:58):
Well, Michael, it hurts even a lot more, it really does,
because I dove into this just a little bit deeper.
Speaker 4 (03:04):
You can't stop, which I love.
Speaker 3 (03:06):
What is the wast after one ton of coal is used?
How much is left over? Well, roughly one ton of
coal will produce one hundred to two hundred pounds of
waste after it's burned. All right, okay, now, just just
your curiosity.
Speaker 4 (03:26):
The d tidy little pellet.
Speaker 3 (03:29):
What's left over from that pellet after it's all used up?
But that's all that's left over. We'll go back to
the Energy dot gov statistics here. All, let me clarify
all for anybody who's not paying attention to all of
(03:56):
the used nuclear fuel produced by the US nuclear energy
industry over the last sixty years could fit on a
football field at the depth of less than ten yards.
Speaker 2 (04:14):
And we've actually put all of that into a mountain
in Utah, deep underground. And I believe that sometime in
the future will develop some sort of technology that will
allow us to reuse that waste material as some sort
of new fuel.
Speaker 3 (04:30):
So we all, well all you may bee over there
probably did not watch the Super Bowl yesterday, but everybody
else did. So that field piled ten yards high. That's
all of the used nuclear fuel for the past sixty years.
Speaker 2 (04:50):
So that crappy game, with the crappy pregame show and
the crappy, crappy halftime show, we could have mostly covered
it up with nicular waste.
Speaker 4 (05:01):
And just not had to have watched any of it.
Speaker 2 (05:03):
Yeah, do you ever miss the third floor?
Speaker 3 (05:12):
Can I go back downstairs?
Speaker 4 (05:13):
Now?
Speaker 2 (05:16):
Just think about how think of your sphere of influence,
Think of all the people you can today talk about
Do you know what we're doing to ourselves?
Speaker 4 (05:25):
We're sitting here, everybody's.
Speaker 2 (05:28):
Trying to Over the weekend, I talked about electric vehicles
and how Ford Motor Company is losing something. Don't hold
me to these numbers. I have to go back and
find story. But Ford Motor Company is losing something like
fifty six thousand dollars per use vehicle that it manufactured,
per EV that it manufactures, and they.
Speaker 4 (05:51):
Can't sell them.
Speaker 2 (05:53):
And the only reason that Ford is making a profit
is because Ford Motor Company is very transparent, one of
the few motorc GM and Stillantas are not this transparent.
But they show the profit and loss from all of
their divisions. So they're making so much money because so
many people want internal combustion engines versus an EV, that
(06:15):
they're still able to make a profit losing.
Speaker 4 (06:18):
I mean they're not even breaking even.
Speaker 2 (06:20):
They're losing fifty six thousand dollars on every EV they make,
every single one, and we could. I don't know what
your electric bill is. I know, for example, what my
propein bill is. I just got my latest propane bill
for the undisclosed location. Holy moly, batman. But if if
(06:44):
my little electric cooperative down there would just build a
nuclear power plant, Jimney Christmas. Now, I know you have
embedded costs and you know prices, but reliable, consistent, last
forever just goes on and on and on. But we
don't do that. Let me do this real quickly, so
(07:09):
in doing some show prep, which I did not use
this for the weekend program because well maybe they would
have been interested, but I'd rather bring it to you anyway.
You know, we've talked about Senate Bill three. Senate Bill
three is the bill that the Marxist and Jared Poulus
and others out of the Colorado Pollet Bureau are pushing
that would ban the sale, manufacture, and ownership of any firearm,
(07:34):
any gun, long gun, or handgun that has a detachable magazine.
Those would be banned in the future. They were supposed
to vote on that bill Friday. Now, when it comes
to firearms and gun control, I think the Marxist Democrats
out of the Polot Bureau are actually starting to read
(07:57):
the tea leaves from November five. I think they're actually
beginning to understand the way. Oh hang on a minute,
and I don't care how much. Tom Sullivan, the state
Senator from Centennial, that is quite frankly, in my opinion,
using the death, the tragic death of his son in
(08:17):
the Aurora theater shooting to push his now emotional based
bill to ban these firearms because his son was killed
with a rifle that had a detachable magazine that had
more than fifteen rounds in it. Well, this bill would
do nothing to either bring his son back or to
(08:38):
prevent some crazy nut job like the Aurora theater shooter, who,
by the way, despite all the psychological help he was
getting from CU Boulder, nonetheless went back, grabbed crazy, and
killed a bunch of people. So that bill was supposed
to be voted on the Senate floor last Friday, but
(09:01):
they decided to put off that vote until the end
of this week. What happened a couple of Democrats backed
out at the last minute. Now, this delay, this postponement,
(09:25):
came after one of the original co sponsors an absolute dufous.
I hope that somebody in this audience knows him, and
I hope you tell him that I said he's a dufus.
In fact, I think he's stupid. His name is Mark Snyder.
He's from Manitou Springs. He was one of the original
(09:48):
co sponsors of Senate Bill three. Well, he withdrew his
support of the measure. In one story I read, he
says that he did not realize the effective ban on
the sale and manufacture of most guns would effectively ban
the sale and manufacture of most guns. You signed onto
(10:13):
the bill? Stupid, you were a co sponsor? Did you
read it or did you just like a typical Democrat? So,
oh my god, gun control? Yeh, I'll sign this bill.
I'll sign this bill. Let me repeat that. Mark Snyder,
the state Senator from Manitou Springs, says he didn't really
a co sponsor Senate Bill IREI says he didn't realize
(10:35):
that the effective ban on the sale and manufacture of
most guns would effectively ban the sale and manufacturer.
Speaker 4 (10:40):
Of most guns.
Speaker 2 (10:44):
These are the idiots that want to make the laws
that affect your life. They quite frankly affect your personal safety.
Then there's also a Senate majority whip, another Yahoo by
the name of Nick Hendrickson. He's from puebl Oh Pueblo,
you think about Pueblo. Maybe he's thinking about some memories
(11:07):
of recall elections of years past for other contentious gun
control measures. Now, I don't think the bill would stand
up in court if the bill passes, But apparently Polus
is pushing some meadi mouthed excuses for not being fully
on board with this gun control measure.
Speaker 4 (11:26):
Either.
Speaker 2 (11:27):
He's the Colorado Sun reports that Polus, who's just as
stupid as the rest of and obviously wants to run
for higher office. You know, I got an idea, Jared.
You know, when you when you get term limited and
you're no no longer governor, why don't you go somewhere
and make another billion dollars? Why don't you go somewhere
(11:47):
and make another you know, I don't know, maybe half
a billion dollars. Why don't you just leave us alone
and go away. You you've you've run the Department of Ed,
You've you've been a congressman, You've you've been a governor.
Speaker 4 (12:01):
So you know, you kind of been there, done that.
Speaker 2 (12:04):
Find something else to do, Like, why don't you start
a wolf rehabilitation farm somewhere? You got that property out
in Will County. You could start an animal sanctuary for
wolves that you know, rather than having to kill them
because they eat up everybody's cattle, why don't you just
take them in and keep them on a little ranch
(12:24):
out there. You'll get yourself. You got a little place,
a little ranch at well, you and Marli can just
go out there and collect wolves all day long. Why
don't you do that? Dumb ass? Anyway from the Colorado Sun.
The Sun says he is generally skeptical of policies that
targets specific models of firearms. Well, that's kind of interesting
(12:47):
because this bill doesn't target specific models of firearms. It
targets all firearms that have a detachable magazine to them,
and you're generally skeptical of it. Anyway, Center Bill three
(13:08):
has been put off until probably this coming Friday. They'll
wait till the last minute. Now, why do I bring
it up? I bring this up because I want to
make sure that all of you understand that this is
not done yet. You've got two Democrats now that are like,
maybe this might be a step too far, So don't
(13:30):
let up on your opposition and remind Mark Snyder of
Manitou Springs just how dumb it has to be to
sponsor a bill that effectively bans the sale of all
guns in the state of Colorado. And now that you've
realized that it effectively bans the sale of all guns
in Colorado, you're starting to back off. So why don't
(13:51):
you just why don't you just kill the bill? Just
kill the stupid bill. Colorado Peak reports that while Democrats
are dragging their feet negotiating behind closed doors with police
and other uncommitted Democrats for a week. They're most certainly
(14:11):
counting on Colorado's who have strongly opposed this unconstitutional and
wildly unsafe bill to cool their jets and stop our
effective lobbying against it. Well, we're not going to let
that happen, are we. No, we're not going to let
that happen. So once again, call the Colorado State Senate,
(14:33):
email them and tell them that you are opposed to
Senate Bill three. And quite frankly, people that support Senate
Bill three ought to be primary. You know what, we
can probably find some even in Colorado. Still, you might
be able to find a I don't want to, but
I could probably find a reasonable Democrat that's not as
(14:57):
Marxist and far off the deep end as these able
to control the governor's office and control the public Bureau
right now. So whatever you're doing out there, don't let
uh keep it going. Speaking of keeping it going, the
energizer bunny that we have to. That's the current president
(15:19):
of the United States. He's moving so fast on so
many fronts. Did you hear in the news. I didn't hear.
I thought I heard this last night, but I wasn't
paying any attention, but apparently he wants to get rid
of the penny. All right, Well that's I truly don't care.
I understand that people will have to recalculate their point
(15:40):
of sales, their prices and everything else. I get that,
But do you know how much it? Speaking of stupidity,
do you know what it costs us to manufacture a penny?
I've heard anywhere from three to four cents to manufacture
a penny. Why don't we just make it out of ten?
I mean, instead of using copper, when we just make
it out of ten or what? Or better yet, just
(16:03):
get rid of it.
Speaker 4 (16:04):
Now.
Speaker 2 (16:04):
I don't know whether or not he has the authority
to order the US men to stop to stop producing
the penny. Congress has the right to coin and uh,
you know, print currency or you know, to level of currencies.
So whether that is exclusive to Congress or not, I
(16:25):
don't know. I truly hadn't thought about it. But the
US Mint is part of the executive branch. So I
suppose that if, again, a unitary press executive, if he
wanted to get rid of the penny, well, then get
rid of the penny. How many pennies do you have
sitting in a jar? And probably does as many as
(16:46):
I just have changed sitting in ten cans at home,
like no ten cans like pork and beans, but a
nice big ten can. I should take that in and
pour it into King Superson Margot. I'm down here in
the a Canon City today, and you got a little
bit of fuzzy signal going on there, So if you
(17:06):
could have that, old.
Speaker 1 (17:07):
Mister Beard, red the Redbeard, just push your own up
there a little.
Speaker 4 (17:11):
Bit, you know, throw some nighters in with the mix,
and just push your own up. I appreciate that. We'll
just clear it right up. And actually that's why I'm
down here in the Kenny City. Mama's here. She going
the nitress too, and.
Speaker 2 (17:23):
Uh whooped up bone Dad with some mop pass and
we're trying to get her out talking to you soon.
I'm telling mister Redbeard to put a little more nitrous.
And we don't use nitros, we use moonshine. We got
moonshine out there in that generator.
Speaker 3 (17:38):
Clef quick funny thing. I had never known what R. D.
Mercer looked like. Oh yeah, until today when I was
trying to put up something from Michael saysco here dot com.
Speaker 4 (17:47):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (17:48):
Now, I know a lot of the radio world tries
to figure out what we here on air look look like,
and they have a picture of what we look like
in our head if they haven't seen us already at
Michael says, go here dot com or haven't and seeing
other photos of us on social media. But our D
Mercer looks exactly like you would picture him, and if you.
Speaker 2 (18:11):
Dig far enough, like in the story that I ran
from one of the Tulsa TV stations about the death
of him in the funny how we refer to him
as r D Mercery, Right, there's a great picture of
him out in his front yard and he got this
really funny looking fat bulldog. Perfect perfect, perfect, perfect perfect,
(18:38):
So for I don't know. For decades now, we've been
told that climate change is destroying the housing market. There
are all these apocalyptic predictions of collapsing property values in
high risk areas like Florida and California.
Speaker 4 (18:53):
You know, sea level rise.
Speaker 2 (18:55):
One of the things I talked about Saturday was how
you go back and I've arreadyed for AMMI in period
I think it was where sea levels were actually upwards
of nine meters higher than sea levels are today, and
there was it was warmer, but there was less CO
two in the air. Now, think about nine meters high
(19:19):
higher sea level in Miami Dade County or West Palm Beach,
well mar Lago would be underwater. So the media, with
the help of obviously the Church of the climate activists
and the climate industrial complex, they insist that sea level rise, wildfires,
all the all the weather that is happening, that always happens,
(19:40):
that somehow that's rendering homes unensurable and undesirable. But if
you if you ignore the fear mongering, what do we
really have? Well, we have although it's and again your
mile age mayberry.
Speaker 4 (19:59):
Hym in.
Speaker 2 (20:00):
And I know in particular areas like I in my neighborhood,
housing prices have skyrocketed and some have sold and some
have been put on the market simply people have had
to move for whatever reason, and they decided to keep
the home, but they're going to rent the home out.
And I've looked at some of the rental prices and
(20:21):
I'm like, holy crap, maybe I should just move into
the motel six and rent my house out. And there
are some houses that I have been sitting on the
market for probably three or four months now, but some
houses are moving too. I guess the point is, when
you peel back all the fear mongering, what really is
(20:42):
going on. Well, we still have a thriving housing market,
we have rising prices, and I can't find any data
to support the narrative that there's some catastrophe in the
housing market because of climate change. So I want to
give you some numbers. Just look at Florida and cal California,
the two states where they claimed, you know, where they
(21:04):
claim that you know, hurricanes are more frequent, they're more damaging,
and they cost more, and that people aren't going to
build on the beach fronts, and or or in California
where now, by the way, mayor Baths of Los Angeles
is appointed a recoveries are who happens to be an
old Obama supporter who thinks that that white MAGA supporters
(21:25):
are all racist. By the way, But I but I digress.
But California is another good housing market to look at
and see whether or not whether related damages are truly
escalating or if this is just you know, a manufactured
fear mongering. So let's look at Florida, the new York
Times on February third. So this is just what this
(21:48):
is this only this is a week old. That giant
sucking sound. It's climate change devouring your home's value. There's
the fear mongering. What are the facts? If you go
to the Federal Reserve, they have a website thread the
Federal Reserve Economic data. When you look at that, the
(22:10):
All Transactions House price index for Florida shows a clear
upward trend over the last several decades.
Speaker 4 (22:19):
Now there is a dip. When is this dip?
Speaker 2 (22:23):
Oh yeah, two thousand and eight, as just before two
thousand and eight, when suddenly you know, there's all this
boom going on because of subprime mortgages. You've got housing
prices really escalating, and then at the peak of two
thousand and eight, boom, it starts to drop down again.
It never drops down below pre two thousand and eight levels,
(22:45):
But from say two thousand and eleven on, housing prices
in Florida have continued to increase. So if climate change
was really scaring off buyers, why hasn't there been decline
in prices? If climate change rising sea levels, you know,
(23:08):
increased intensity of hurricanes, and you know, increased frequency of hurricanes.
If all those things are so bad, you would think
that if I'm thinking about moving, maybe I'll move someplace
that's a little more neutral then Florida. Well the reality
is a lot simpler. Florida remains a top destination for
retirees and obviously for remote workers because of lifestyle, all
(23:30):
these tax advantages, rising regulatory and construction costs, not climate fears.
Those are the primary pressures on housing markets. Think about Colorado,
think specifically about Denver and all the additional regulatory burdens
you have just to build a single family and well
(23:52):
the same is true for California and Florida. But for
all these places, then Florida, you build a new home,
you're going to have to meet you know, increased buildings
codes that were put in twenty years ago to meet
hurricane standards. Well, that's obviously going to increase the price
of a house. That's not because the hurricanes are stronger.
(24:13):
It's because insurers and home builders and quite frankly, homeowners
want their homes to be able to withstand hurricanes. It's
much easier. Just like I told you when we had
the fire in New Mexico and our home down there
was pretty close to burning down would the insurance company
do when they called me and said, we want to
put a temporary irrigation system in and start flooding your
(24:37):
acreage with water. That was because it was cheaper to
do that than to pay the cost the actual cost
of rebuilding that place. So it wasn't because the wildfire
was any intenser or worse or even more frequent. It
was just that, oh, it's cheaper to do this than
(24:58):
to rebuild your home. So if climate change would really
was truly the reason to scare off buyers, that you'd
see a decline in prices, and there is not a
decline in prices. So you got Florida as an example.
It's good at California where it really challenges the narrative.
Business Insider found this headline again February fourth, six days ago.
(25:23):
The climate crisis is set to erase one point four
to seven trillion dollars in US home values. Here are
five areas predicted to get hit, to get hit hard,
Business Insider, and they go through and they cite Fresno, California. Okay, well,
(25:43):
look once again, let's go to the Federal Reserve. The
All Transactions House Price Index for Fresno shows consistent growth,
and why because it has an appeal because it's an
affordable alternative to living on the coast in California. And
rising property values in Fresno have more to do with
(26:05):
actual population shifts and regulatory challenges than anything to do
with the climate. Claims that somehow climate changes undermining property
markets in Fresno don't deal with anything about local economic realities. Now,
if you look at the chart from fred the Federal
Reserves All Index data, you'll see that once again you
(26:31):
have the exact almost parallel to what you have in
Florida in two thousand. You know, prices have been somewhat
steadily increasing, but then they zoom up or between two
thousand and two thousand and eight, subprime mortgages, Oh, you
can't afford to pay this loan. That's okay, we'll give
you that. We'll give you the mortgage anyway, So everybody's
(26:51):
buying houses, driving the price up, and then the collapse
hits and prices collapse again, but not below pre financial
crisis levels, and then starting again in about ten twenty eleven,
prices of housing in Fresno continue to steadily increase. Now,
(27:13):
both of these articles The New York Times and Business Insider.
They blame the increase in insurance premiums on climate risks,
but they totally ignore all the regulatory and economic factors
that play what I believe to be a much larger role.
Go to the Financial Times. They say the insurance premiums
(27:36):
are often driven by stricter regulations requiring higher capital reserves
for insurers. Climate change, they write, was currently the minor
factor in the increase in losses. Once again, think about
the cost of building a home and think about the
(27:57):
value in that home. If you know, the tornado that
hit our home, what now a couple of years ago.
If it had hit ten years ago, obviously the damages
would have been much less. But between rising housing demand,
rising costs of replacement, costs of you know, dry wall, wood,
(28:19):
steel beams, paint, concrete, everything that goes into rebuilding that
portion of our home that was destroyed. Well, yeah, I
expected my insurance premium to rise. Now, it may later
in April when it comes due again, But when it
came due shortly after that tornado hit, there was not
really an increase.
Speaker 4 (28:38):
And there was nothing because.
Speaker 2 (28:39):
I actually talked to the to the agent and I
actually also talked to the adjuster. What can I expect, Well,
it's a it's a rare event. It's it's a natural event.
You didn't do anything, you didn't fall asleep smoking a cigarette.
Uh so your premium is probably not going to go up,
and indeed it did not. But now we've got inflation,
(29:06):
rising costs of building materials, increased labor costs. Those significantly
influenced premiums, not climate change. And then post disaster rebuilding
efforts those face inflated prices and that drives up insurance rates.
Think about the demand. Just take Pacific Palisades, California, and
(29:26):
you think about how much material and equipment and manpower
it's going to take to rebuild that. Well, you go
to buy a sheet of plywood. Plywood is going to
be in really high demand, and market prices are going
to demand that that plywood is simply going to cost
you more. That's what a free market does.
Speaker 4 (29:48):
You know, state.
Speaker 2 (29:49):
Mandated insurance pools like you have in Florida, and I
think they have one in California, but I'm not sure.
And there's one in Colorado too, And then you put
restrictions on premium adjustments. That distorts the market, and that
creates artificial pressures. They really have hardly anything to do
with climate risk, if anything at all, whether related damages.
Speaker 4 (30:16):
Consistent, they're not escalating. What do I mean?
Speaker 2 (30:21):
Well, what I mean is the media often push the
idea that whether related costs is what's driving this is it.
Let's look at the data.
Speaker 4 (30:31):
Tell me.
Speaker 1 (30:31):
Getting rid of the penny is not a money grab
for the tax coffers. There's not a grocery store in
the country that's going to round down. They're all going
to round up. So your grocery bill is going to
go up, even if it's only by pennies, it's still
going to go up. And if it goes up, the
tax revenue at the bottom of your receipt is going
(30:52):
to be more. Thank you, government, So what's your solution.
Speaker 2 (30:59):
Because we're spending four cents for every penny that we produce,
then we're losing three cents if not more, on every
single one of those pennies, and that's adding to the
budget deficit and to the national debt. So you're either
(31:20):
gonna pay it for it here or you're gonna pay
for it there. You're gonna pay for it everywhere either way,
So I'm for getting rid of it. I understand that.
Uh yeah, of course they're not going to lower the
prices instead of everything. You know, we'll just get to
a price instead of the old pricing trick. It's uh,
(31:42):
buy this for only three ninety nine, it's on sale
for three eighty nine. Okay, now it's on sale for
three ninety it's on sale for four dollars.
Speaker 4 (31:53):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (31:54):
It's funny how intractable we get about any little change
when we're going through all of this change right now,
which is really amazing. So back to home prices and
whether or not whether related damages, well weather related damages
are not consistent. Total weather damages in the United States
(32:19):
between twenty twelve and twenty twenty three, adjusted for inflation,
are totally inconsistent. Twenty in terms of millions of dollars
adjusted to twenty twenty three dollar values, twenty twelve was
at about fifty twenty fourteen is all the way down
to barely perceivable, as was twenty fifteen. Twenty sixteen drops
(32:41):
up to about ten thousand million dollars adjusted twenty twenty three,
and twenty seventeen jumps up to well over one hundred
thousand millions of dollars adjusted to twenty twenty three, and
then drops right back down to about fifty to about
half of what it was in twenty seventeen, and then
for twenty two twenty twenty three remains almost the same. So,
(33:04):
despite the increased media focus on these climate disasters, that
none of the data shows any significant trend of rising costs.
It's just there's a myth of ever escalating climate costs
in this country. But the damage has remain consistent over time.
The numbers simply do not support the notion of a
(33:25):
worsening climate crisis. What the actually reflect is stable economic impacts.
Florida in California have always faced natural disasters, hurricanes and wildfires.
What's changed is not the frequency and not the severity
of these events, but the media, the cabal's insistence that
(33:47):
every incident has to be framed as part of some
sort of apocalyptic climate narrative. And everybody carries a camera
in their pocket, and so you see more of these events,
more than ever before, and you see them really up
close and personal. The increased visibility feeds the perception that
actual disasters are becoming more frequent, even when the data shows.
Speaker 4 (34:10):
Otherwise,
I'll bet you a steak dinner that there's not a
farmer that would give his land away even if he
got free electricity. Nope, not gonna happen. Steak dinner, yep,
let's do this.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
You would be the some farm or some rancher gives
away six hundred forty acres. Now, I'm going to assume
that that's not the only six hundred forty acres they own,
but maybe even so, I think they would be such
a gigantic hero in the state of Colorado that they
could do just about anything. They damn well, please Hell's bells,
(00:38):
I quit and run them for governor. I'd make them governor,
That's what I'd do. So drag him is sitting back
there because you know, I started talking about nuclear power
and how much I love nuclear power, and he starts
digging around on energy dot gov and he comes up
with and he asked me about the size of a uh,
is it plutonium or.
Speaker 3 (00:59):
You anyum pellet?
Speaker 4 (01:00):
A uranium pellet.
Speaker 3 (01:01):
Well, from the website energy dot gov. It's got a
really cool graphics about the equivalent unit of energy from
one uranium pellet.
Speaker 4 (01:14):
Is equal too, and then it gives the equivalent.
Speaker 3 (01:17):
One ton of coal or one hundred and twenty gallons
of oil or seventeen thousand cubic feet of natural gas.
Speaker 4 (01:29):
And Dragon asked me.
Speaker 2 (01:30):
What I thought the size of that pellet was, and,
thinking the weird way I think, I thought, well, it's
not really the size of a pellet like I would
think of a pellet. Agreed, So I thought, maybe it's
maybe at a maximum twelve inches long and maybe an
inch in diameter.
Speaker 3 (01:47):
Yeah, foot long hot dog?
Speaker 2 (01:48):
Yeah, exactly a foot long hot dog, which you know,
maybe for lunch today, I'll have a foot long hot dog.
That sounds good. So what is the size of a
uranium pellet?
Speaker 3 (01:57):
Oh, uranium fuel pellets are roughly about a half an
inch in length and less than a centimeter in diameter.
Speaker 4 (02:11):
We we are, we.
Speaker 2 (02:12):
Are some of the stupidest for for all of the
scientific advances that we make, modern medicine, modern technology, the
I'm always fast. I can remember the days when I
was fascinated by fax machines.
Speaker 4 (02:26):
You mean I can.
Speaker 2 (02:28):
I can feed that piece of paper in there and
it's going to go out the other end somewhere and
people can read that. Remember that old fax paper that
was kind of creakly and nasty.
Speaker 3 (02:37):
Remember that it was it a little waxy, yeah, kind
of waxy whatever.
Speaker 2 (02:40):
Remember that fax paper or the you know, remember the
mimeograph machines back in the dark ages when I was
in that one room schoolhouse. And now I'm sitting here
holding an iPhone that has you know, a thousand times
more computing power than the first Apple two.
Speaker 4 (02:56):
Eye or whatever it was that I did I ever
first purchased.
Speaker 3 (02:58):
Well, Michael, it hurts even a lot more, it really does,
because I dove into this just a little bit deeper.
Speaker 4 (03:04):
You can't stop, which I love.
Speaker 3 (03:06):
What is the wast after one ton of coal is used?
How much is left over? Well, roughly one ton of
coal will produce one hundred to two hundred pounds of
waste after it's burned. All right, okay, now, just just
your curiosity.
Speaker 4 (03:26):
The d tidy little pellet.
Speaker 3 (03:29):
What's left over from that pellet after it's all used up?
But that's all that's left over. We'll go back to
the Energy dot gov statistics here. All, let me clarify
all for anybody who's not paying attention to all of
(03:56):
the used nuclear fuel produced by the US nuclear energy
industry over the last sixty years could fit on a
football field at the depth of less than ten yards.
Speaker 2 (04:14):
And we've actually put all of that into a mountain
in Utah, deep underground. And I believe that sometime in
the future will develop some sort of technology that will
allow us to reuse that waste material as some sort
of new fuel.
Speaker 3 (04:30):
So we all, well all you may bee over there
probably did not watch the Super Bowl yesterday, but everybody
else did. So that field piled ten yards high. That's
all of the used nuclear fuel for the past sixty years.
Speaker 2 (04:50):
So that crappy game, with the crappy pregame show and
the crappy, crappy halftime show, we could have mostly covered
it up with nicular waste.
Speaker 4 (05:01):
And just not had to have watched any of it.
Speaker 2 (05:03):
Yeah, do you ever miss the third floor?
Speaker 3 (05:12):
Can I go back downstairs?
Speaker 4 (05:13):
Now?
Speaker 2 (05:16):
Just think about how think of your sphere of influence,
Think of all the people you can today talk about
Do you know what we're doing to ourselves?
Speaker 4 (05:25):
We're sitting here, everybody's.
Speaker 2 (05:28):
Trying to Over the weekend, I talked about electric vehicles
and how Ford Motor Company is losing something. Don't hold
me to these numbers. I have to go back and
find story. But Ford Motor Company is losing something like
fifty six thousand dollars per use vehicle that it manufactured,
per EV that it manufactures, and they.
Speaker 4 (05:51):
Can't sell them.
Speaker 2 (05:53):
And the only reason that Ford is making a profit
is because Ford Motor Company is very transparent, one of
the few motorc GM and Stillantas are not this transparent.
But they show the profit and loss from all of
their divisions. So they're making so much money because so
many people want internal combustion engines versus an EV, that
(06:15):
they're still able to make a profit losing.
Speaker 4 (06:18):
I mean they're not even breaking even.
Speaker 2 (06:20):
They're losing fifty six thousand dollars on every EV they make,
every single one, and we could. I don't know what
your electric bill is. I know, for example, what my
propein bill is. I just got my latest propane bill
for the undisclosed location. Holy moly, batman. But if if
(06:44):
my little electric cooperative down there would just build a
nuclear power plant, Jimney Christmas. Now, I know you have
embedded costs and you know prices, but reliable, consistent, last
forever just goes on and on and on. But we
don't do that. Let me do this real quickly, so
(07:09):
in doing some show prep, which I did not use
this for the weekend program because well maybe they would
have been interested, but I'd rather bring it to you anyway.
You know, we've talked about Senate Bill three. Senate Bill
three is the bill that the Marxist and Jared Poulus
and others out of the Colorado Pollet Bureau are pushing
that would ban the sale, manufacture, and ownership of any firearm,
(07:34):
any gun, long gun, or handgun that has a detachable magazine.
Those would be banned in the future. They were supposed
to vote on that bill Friday. Now, when it comes
to firearms and gun control, I think the Marxist Democrats
out of the Polot Bureau are actually starting to read
(07:57):
the tea leaves from November five. I think they're actually
beginning to understand the way. Oh hang on a minute,
and I don't care how much. Tom Sullivan, the state
Senator from Centennial, that is quite frankly, in my opinion,
using the death, the tragic death of his son in
(08:17):
the Aurora theater shooting to push his now emotional based
bill to ban these firearms because his son was killed
with a rifle that had a detachable magazine that had
more than fifteen rounds in it. Well, this bill would
do nothing to either bring his son back or to
(08:38):
prevent some crazy nut job like the Aurora theater shooter, who,
by the way, despite all the psychological help he was
getting from CU Boulder, nonetheless went back, grabbed crazy, and
killed a bunch of people. So that bill was supposed
to be voted on the Senate floor last Friday, but
(09:01):
they decided to put off that vote until the end
of this week. What happened a couple of Democrats backed
out at the last minute. Now, this delay, this postponement,
(09:25):
came after one of the original co sponsors an absolute dufous.
I hope that somebody in this audience knows him, and
I hope you tell him that I said he's a dufus.
In fact, I think he's stupid. His name is Mark Snyder.
He's from Manitou Springs. He was one of the original
(09:48):
co sponsors of Senate Bill three. Well, he withdrew his
support of the measure. In one story I read, he
says that he did not realize the effective ban on
the sale and manufacture of most guns would effectively ban
the sale and manufacture of most guns. You signed onto
(10:13):
the bill? Stupid, you were a co sponsor? Did you
read it or did you just like a typical Democrat? So,
oh my god, gun control? Yeh, I'll sign this bill.
I'll sign this bill. Let me repeat that. Mark Snyder,
the state Senator from Manitou Springs, says he didn't really
a co sponsor Senate Bill IREI says he didn't realize
(10:35):
that the effective ban on the sale and manufacture of
most guns would effectively ban the sale and manufacturer.
Speaker 4 (10:40):
Of most guns.
Speaker 2 (10:44):
These are the idiots that want to make the laws
that affect your life. They quite frankly affect your personal safety.
Then there's also a Senate majority whip, another Yahoo by
the name of Nick Hendrickson. He's from puebl Oh Pueblo,
you think about Pueblo. Maybe he's thinking about some memories
(11:07):
of recall elections of years past for other contentious gun
control measures. Now, I don't think the bill would stand
up in court if the bill passes, But apparently Polus
is pushing some meadi mouthed excuses for not being fully
on board with this gun control measure.
Speaker 4 (11:26):
Either.
Speaker 2 (11:27):
He's the Colorado Sun reports that Polus, who's just as
stupid as the rest of and obviously wants to run
for higher office. You know, I got an idea, Jared.
You know, when you when you get term limited and
you're no no longer governor, why don't you go somewhere
and make another billion dollars? Why don't you go somewhere
(11:47):
and make another you know, I don't know, maybe half
a billion dollars. Why don't you just leave us alone
and go away. You you've you've run the Department of Ed,
You've you've been a congressman, You've you've been a governor.
Speaker 4 (12:01):
So you know, you kind of been there, done that.
Speaker 2 (12:04):
Find something else to do, Like, why don't you start
a wolf rehabilitation farm somewhere? You got that property out
in Will County. You could start an animal sanctuary for
wolves that you know, rather than having to kill them
because they eat up everybody's cattle, why don't you just
take them in and keep them on a little ranch
(12:24):
out there. You'll get yourself. You got a little place,
a little ranch at well, you and Marli can just
go out there and collect wolves all day long. Why
don't you do that? Dumb ass? Anyway from the Colorado Sun.
The Sun says he is generally skeptical of policies that
targets specific models of firearms. Well, that's kind of interesting
(12:47):
because this bill doesn't target specific models of firearms. It
targets all firearms that have a detachable magazine to them,
and you're generally skeptical of it. Anyway, Center Bill three
(13:08):
has been put off until probably this coming Friday. They'll
wait till the last minute. Now, why do I bring
it up? I bring this up because I want to
make sure that all of you understand that this is
not done yet. You've got two Democrats now that are like,
maybe this might be a step too far, So don't
(13:30):
let up on your opposition and remind Mark Snyder of
Manitou Springs just how dumb it has to be to
sponsor a bill that effectively bans the sale of all
guns in the state of Colorado. And now that you've
realized that it effectively bans the sale of all guns
in Colorado, you're starting to back off. So why don't
(13:51):
you just why don't you just kill the bill? Just
kill the stupid bill. Colorado Peak reports that while Democrats
are dragging their feet negotiating behind closed doors with police
and other uncommitted Democrats for a week. They're most certainly
(14:11):
counting on Colorado's who have strongly opposed this unconstitutional and
wildly unsafe bill to cool their jets and stop our
effective lobbying against it. Well, we're not going to let
that happen, are we. No, we're not going to let
that happen. So once again, call the Colorado State Senate,
(14:33):
email them and tell them that you are opposed to
Senate Bill three. And quite frankly, people that support Senate
Bill three ought to be primary. You know what, we
can probably find some even in Colorado. Still, you might
be able to find a I don't want to, but
I could probably find a reasonable Democrat that's not as
(14:57):
Marxist and far off the deep end as these able
to control the governor's office and control the public Bureau
right now. So whatever you're doing out there, don't let
uh keep it going. Speaking of keeping it going, the
energizer bunny that we have to. That's the current president
(15:19):
of the United States. He's moving so fast on so
many fronts. Did you hear in the news. I didn't hear.
I thought I heard this last night, but I wasn't
paying any attention, but apparently he wants to get rid
of the penny. All right, Well that's I truly don't care.
I understand that people will have to recalculate their point
(15:40):
of sales, their prices and everything else. I get that,
But do you know how much it? Speaking of stupidity,
do you know what it costs us to manufacture a penny?
I've heard anywhere from three to four cents to manufacture
a penny. Why don't we just make it out of ten?
I mean, instead of using copper, when we just make
it out of ten or what? Or better yet, just
(16:03):
get rid of it.
Speaker 4 (16:04):
Now.
Speaker 2 (16:04):
I don't know whether or not he has the authority
to order the US men to stop to stop producing
the penny. Congress has the right to coin and uh,
you know, print currency or you know, to level of currencies.
So whether that is exclusive to Congress or not, I
(16:25):
don't know. I truly hadn't thought about it. But the
US Mint is part of the executive branch. So I
suppose that if, again, a unitary press executive, if he
wanted to get rid of the penny, well, then get
rid of the penny. How many pennies do you have
sitting in a jar? And probably does as many as
(16:46):
I just have changed sitting in ten cans at home,
like no ten cans like pork and beans, but a
nice big ten can. I should take that in and
pour it into King Superson Margot. I'm down here in
the a Canon City today, and you got a little
bit of fuzzy signal going on there, So if you
(17:06):
could have that, old.
Speaker 1 (17:07):
Mister Beard, red the Redbeard, just push your own up
there a little.
Speaker 4 (17:11):
Bit, you know, throw some nighters in with the mix,
and just push your own up. I appreciate that. We'll
just clear it right up. And actually that's why I'm
down here in the Kenny City. Mama's here. She going
the nitress too, and.
Speaker 2 (17:23):
Uh whooped up bone Dad with some mop pass and
we're trying to get her out talking to you soon.
I'm telling mister Redbeard to put a little more nitrous.
And we don't use nitros, we use moonshine. We got
moonshine out there in that generator.
Speaker 3 (17:38):
Clef quick funny thing. I had never known what R. D.
Mercer looked like. Oh yeah, until today when I was
trying to put up something from Michael saysco here dot com.
Speaker 4 (17:47):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (17:48):
Now, I know a lot of the radio world tries
to figure out what we here on air look look like,
and they have a picture of what we look like
in our head if they haven't seen us already at
Michael says, go here dot com or haven't and seeing
other photos of us on social media. But our D
Mercer looks exactly like you would picture him, and if you.
Speaker 2 (18:11):
Dig far enough, like in the story that I ran
from one of the Tulsa TV stations about the death
of him in the funny how we refer to him
as r D Mercery, Right, there's a great picture of
him out in his front yard and he got this
really funny looking fat bulldog. Perfect perfect, perfect, perfect perfect,
(18:38):
So for I don't know. For decades now, we've been
told that climate change is destroying the housing market. There
are all these apocalyptic predictions of collapsing property values in
high risk areas like Florida and California.
Speaker 4 (18:53):
You know, sea level rise.
Speaker 2 (18:55):
One of the things I talked about Saturday was how
you go back and I've arreadyed for AMMI in period
I think it was where sea levels were actually upwards
of nine meters higher than sea levels are today, and
there was it was warmer, but there was less CO
two in the air. Now, think about nine meters high
(19:19):
higher sea level in Miami Dade County or West Palm Beach,
well mar Lago would be underwater. So the media, with
the help of obviously the Church of the climate activists
and the climate industrial complex, they insist that sea level rise, wildfires,
all the all the weather that is happening, that always happens,
(19:40):
that somehow that's rendering homes unensurable and undesirable. But if
you if you ignore the fear mongering, what do we
really have? Well, we have although it's and again your
mile age mayberry.
Speaker 4 (19:59):
Hym in.
Speaker 2 (20:00):
And I know in particular areas like I in my neighborhood,
housing prices have skyrocketed and some have sold and some
have been put on the market simply people have had
to move for whatever reason, and they decided to keep
the home, but they're going to rent the home out.
And I've looked at some of the rental prices and
(20:21):
I'm like, holy crap, maybe I should just move into
the motel six and rent my house out. And there
are some houses that I have been sitting on the
market for probably three or four months now, but some
houses are moving too. I guess the point is, when
you peel back all the fear mongering, what really is
(20:42):
going on. Well, we still have a thriving housing market,
we have rising prices, and I can't find any data
to support the narrative that there's some catastrophe in the
housing market because of climate change. So I want to
give you some numbers. Just look at Florida and cal California,
the two states where they claimed, you know, where they
(21:04):
claim that you know, hurricanes are more frequent, they're more damaging,
and they cost more, and that people aren't going to
build on the beach fronts, and or or in California
where now, by the way, mayor Baths of Los Angeles
is appointed a recoveries are who happens to be an
old Obama supporter who thinks that that white MAGA supporters
(21:25):
are all racist. By the way, But I but I digress.
But California is another good housing market to look at
and see whether or not whether related damages are truly
escalating or if this is just you know, a manufactured
fear mongering. So let's look at Florida, the new York
Times on February third. So this is just what this
(21:48):
is this only this is a week old. That giant
sucking sound. It's climate change devouring your home's value. There's
the fear mongering. What are the facts? If you go
to the Federal Reserve, they have a website thread the
Federal Reserve Economic data. When you look at that, the
(22:10):
All Transactions House price index for Florida shows a clear
upward trend over the last several decades.
Speaker 4 (22:19):
Now there is a dip. When is this dip?
Speaker 2 (22:23):
Oh yeah, two thousand and eight, as just before two
thousand and eight, when suddenly you know, there's all this
boom going on because of subprime mortgages. You've got housing
prices really escalating, and then at the peak of two
thousand and eight, boom, it starts to drop down again.
It never drops down below pre two thousand and eight levels,
(22:45):
But from say two thousand and eleven on, housing prices
in Florida have continued to increase. So if climate change
was really scaring off buyers, why hasn't there been decline
in prices? If climate change rising sea levels, you know,
(23:08):
increased intensity of hurricanes, and you know, increased frequency of hurricanes.
If all those things are so bad, you would think
that if I'm thinking about moving, maybe I'll move someplace
that's a little more neutral then Florida. Well the reality
is a lot simpler. Florida remains a top destination for
retirees and obviously for remote workers because of lifestyle, all
(23:30):
these tax advantages, rising regulatory and construction costs, not climate fears.
Those are the primary pressures on housing markets. Think about Colorado,
think specifically about Denver and all the additional regulatory burdens
you have just to build a single family and well
(23:52):
the same is true for California and Florida. But for
all these places, then Florida, you build a new home,
you're going to have to meet you know, increased buildings
codes that were put in twenty years ago to meet
hurricane standards. Well, that's obviously going to increase the price
of a house. That's not because the hurricanes are stronger.
(24:13):
It's because insurers and home builders and quite frankly, homeowners
want their homes to be able to withstand hurricanes. It's
much easier. Just like I told you when we had
the fire in New Mexico and our home down there
was pretty close to burning down would the insurance company
do when they called me and said, we want to
put a temporary irrigation system in and start flooding your
(24:37):
acreage with water. That was because it was cheaper to
do that than to pay the cost the actual cost
of rebuilding that place. So it wasn't because the wildfire
was any intenser or worse or even more frequent. It
was just that, oh, it's cheaper to do this than
(24:58):
to rebuild your home. So if climate change would really
was truly the reason to scare off buyers, that you'd
see a decline in prices, and there is not a
decline in prices. So you got Florida as an example.
It's good at California where it really challenges the narrative.
Business Insider found this headline again February fourth, six days ago.
(25:23):
The climate crisis is set to erase one point four
to seven trillion dollars in US home values. Here are
five areas predicted to get hit, to get hit hard,
Business Insider, and they go through and they cite Fresno, California. Okay, well,
(25:43):
look once again, let's go to the Federal Reserve. The
All Transactions House Price Index for Fresno shows consistent growth,
and why because it has an appeal because it's an
affordable alternative to living on the coast in California. And
rising property values in Fresno have more to do with
(26:05):
actual population shifts and regulatory challenges than anything to do
with the climate. Claims that somehow climate changes undermining property
markets in Fresno don't deal with anything about local economic realities. Now,
if you look at the chart from fred the Federal
Reserves All Index data, you'll see that once again you
(26:31):
have the exact almost parallel to what you have in
Florida in two thousand. You know, prices have been somewhat
steadily increasing, but then they zoom up or between two
thousand and two thousand and eight, subprime mortgages, Oh, you
can't afford to pay this loan. That's okay, we'll give
you that. We'll give you the mortgage anyway, So everybody's
(26:51):
buying houses, driving the price up, and then the collapse
hits and prices collapse again, but not below pre financial
crisis levels, and then starting again in about ten twenty eleven,
prices of housing in Fresno continue to steadily increase. Now,
(27:13):
both of these articles The New York Times and Business Insider.
They blame the increase in insurance premiums on climate risks,
but they totally ignore all the regulatory and economic factors
that play what I believe to be a much larger role.
Go to the Financial Times. They say the insurance premiums
(27:36):
are often driven by stricter regulations requiring higher capital reserves
for insurers. Climate change, they write, was currently the minor
factor in the increase in losses. Once again, think about
the cost of building a home and think about the
(27:57):
value in that home. If you know, the tornado that
hit our home, what now a couple of years ago.
If it had hit ten years ago, obviously the damages
would have been much less. But between rising housing demand,
rising costs of replacement, costs of you know, dry wall, wood,
(28:19):
steel beams, paint, concrete, everything that goes into rebuilding that
portion of our home that was destroyed. Well, yeah, I
expected my insurance premium to rise. Now, it may later
in April when it comes due again, But when it
came due shortly after that tornado hit, there was not
really an increase.
Speaker 4 (28:38):
And there was nothing because.
Speaker 2 (28:39):
I actually talked to the to the agent and I
actually also talked to the adjuster. What can I expect, Well,
it's a it's a rare event. It's it's a natural event.
You didn't do anything, you didn't fall asleep smoking a cigarette.
Uh so your premium is probably not going to go up,
and indeed it did not. But now we've got inflation,
(29:06):
rising costs of building materials, increased labor costs. Those significantly
influenced premiums, not climate change. And then post disaster rebuilding
efforts those face inflated prices and that drives up insurance rates.
Think about the demand. Just take Pacific Palisades, California, and
(29:26):
you think about how much material and equipment and manpower
it's going to take to rebuild that. Well, you go
to buy a sheet of plywood. Plywood is going to
be in really high demand, and market prices are going
to demand that that plywood is simply going to cost
you more. That's what a free market does.
Speaker 4 (29:48):
You know, state.
Speaker 2 (29:49):
Mandated insurance pools like you have in Florida, and I
think they have one in California, but I'm not sure.
And there's one in Colorado too, And then you put
restrictions on premium adjustments. That distorts the market, and that
creates artificial pressures. They really have hardly anything to do
with climate risk, if anything at all, whether related damages.
Speaker 4 (30:16):
Consistent, they're not escalating. What do I mean?
Speaker 2 (30:21):
Well, what I mean is the media often push the
idea that whether related costs is what's driving this is it.
Let's look at the data.
Speaker 4 (30:31):
Tell me.
Speaker 1 (30:31):
Getting rid of the penny is not a money grab
for the tax coffers. There's not a grocery store in
the country that's going to round down. They're all going
to round up. So your grocery bill is going to
go up, even if it's only by pennies, it's still
going to go up. And if it goes up, the
tax revenue at the bottom of your receipt is going
(30:52):
to be more. Thank you, government, So what's your solution.
Speaker 2 (30:59):
Because we're spending four cents for every penny that we produce,
then we're losing three cents if not more, on every
single one of those pennies, and that's adding to the
budget deficit and to the national debt. So you're either
(31:20):
gonna pay it for it here or you're gonna pay
for it there. You're gonna pay for it everywhere either way,
So I'm for getting rid of it. I understand that.
Uh yeah, of course they're not going to lower the
prices instead of everything. You know, we'll just get to
a price instead of the old pricing trick. It's uh,
(31:42):
buy this for only three ninety nine, it's on sale
for three eighty nine. Okay, now it's on sale for
three ninety it's on sale for four dollars.
Speaker 4 (31:53):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (31:54):
It's funny how intractable we get about any little change
when we're going through all of this change right now,
which is really amazing. So back to home prices and
whether or not whether related damages, well weather related damages
are not consistent. Total weather damages in the United States
(32:19):
between twenty twelve and twenty twenty three, adjusted for inflation,
are totally inconsistent. Twenty in terms of millions of dollars
adjusted to twenty twenty three dollar values, twenty twelve was
at about fifty twenty fourteen is all the way down
to barely perceivable, as was twenty fifteen. Twenty sixteen drops
(32:41):
up to about ten thousand million dollars adjusted twenty twenty three,
and twenty seventeen jumps up to well over one hundred
thousand millions of dollars adjusted to twenty twenty three, and
then drops right back down to about fifty to about
half of what it was in twenty seventeen, and then
for twenty two twenty twenty three remains almost the same. So,
(33:04):
despite the increased media focus on these climate disasters, that
none of the data shows any significant trend of rising costs.
It's just there's a myth of ever escalating climate costs
in this country. But the damage has remain consistent over time.
The numbers simply do not support the notion of a
(33:25):
worsening climate crisis. What the actually reflect is stable economic impacts.
Florida in California have always faced natural disasters, hurricanes and wildfires.
What's changed is not the frequency and not the severity
of these events, but the media, the cabal's insistence that
(33:47):
every incident has to be framed as part of some
sort of apocalyptic climate narrative. And everybody carries a camera
in their pocket, and so you see more of these events,
more than ever before, and you see them really up
close and personal. The increased visibility feeds the perception that
actual disasters are becoming more frequent, even when the data shows.
Speaker 4 (34:10):
Otherwise,
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.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.