Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Isn't it great to see the Democrat Party get their
very own John McCain. Before I go, I want to
talk about climate for a little bit. Before I do,
I'm gonna go to a text message fifty four to
thirty one, rights Mike. I think a shopping trip to
Costco is one of the best places to see where
(00:23):
we are as a society. People wandering around with no concern,
no interest about anything but themselves, and if you ask
them to move their cart, hang on. I would say,
It's not just Costco, It's Walmart, Sam's Super Walmart, It's
(00:45):
King Supers, Safeway, Whole Foods, Sprouts, Natural Grocers, any place
where the public you know, go to. Was it? Oh?
I had some some glasses fixed and I ran over
to Park Metals Mall. It's the same thing in Park Meadows.
You know how in the mall, At least in Park
(01:10):
Meadows they've got the big you know, on the upper floor.
The middle is open, so it opens up to the ceiling.
It's I don't know, it's I guess that's the architecture,
but it makes for limited space on the upper level. Well,
(01:33):
so I'm trying to you know, I've parked so I'm
on the upper level walking. I'm walking to my right
to go over to the stairs with the escalator to
go down to where Lens Crafters is because they're the
ones that can fix these sunglasses. And I and I
swear people just like entire families walking shoulder to shoulder,
(01:55):
just lollygagging along. Excuse me, excuse me, and to where
I finally had to like kind of bump to get oh,
oh excuse me. Yeah, well pay attention. You forget that
in everybody owned, everybody's own worlds. They are the main
character and it is their own world and and I'm
(02:17):
intruding into their world. I go through life trying to
not like be in anybody's way, and I just want
everybody else to stay out of my way. Uh So, yeah, Jim,
I think you're spot on. So there's a lot going
on in the world about climate. I don't know why
all of a sudden, but it's gotten really bad, and
(02:40):
I feel like I owe it to you to let
you know that, Yeah, things are getting pretty bad, and
you ought to be scared. Camera fixed some really good
shrimp last night, and with it was some some rice.
We had some really good rice. I don't know for
a fact, but I'm guessing that rice is probably the
(03:05):
most common staple eaten by people in the world, simply
because of the number of Asians. So when you think
about Asia and you know the billions of people that
live there, that that's probably one of the largest staples.
And I kind of like rice. My doctor encourages me
not to eat rice because of the carbos carbs in
(03:26):
it and the insulin spike. But I love rice, but
not now. I'm scared to eat it. I'm really scared.
And then Reuter's got back in again on the mystery
blackout in Spain and Portugal.
Speaker 2 (03:44):
The power is back on in Spain and Portugal after
one of Europe's biggest ever blackouts, but there are still
no answers as to what actually caused it.
Speaker 1 (03:57):
I thought I gave you an answer. I thought I
told you that there was a blip because the solar
and wind got maxed out and then so the it oscillated,
it dropped off, and then that caused them to start
pulling pulling power from the French from the European grid,
(04:18):
and that collapsed the grid. But I guess Reuters didn't
listen to.
Speaker 2 (04:22):
Me or how they could prevent it from happening again.
Our Iberian co Bureau chief Ashbin Ling, is looking at
this story. Ashbin, what do we actually know?
Speaker 3 (04:33):
It's extremely unclear still what caused the blackout, and there
is something of a political blame game initiating. We are
also seeing an intense discussion about the merits of different
power sources Spain, is and Portugal, our big renewables producers.
French ministers were saying yesterday, well, you know, if they
(04:55):
used more nuclear power, perhaps that wouldn't have happened.
Speaker 1 (05:00):
Really.
Speaker 3 (05:01):
The Spanish Prime Minister has firmly rejected that, saying actually
even nuclear power couldn't help us get this restarted. We
were relying on a lot of hydro. The Spanish power
grid operator has said that this is absolutely not a
cyber attack from their point of view. They say there
was a massive drop off in power supply. What cause
that is becoming a key area of investigation. It is unclear.
(05:26):
The Spanish Prime Minister Pedros Sanchez is not ruling out
a cyber attack.
Speaker 1 (05:32):
Now, oh now we got to think about cyber attacks.
I think I know the real reason, but Reuters won't
want to go there. I think it's Donald Trump and.
Speaker 2 (05:41):
As chaos and in the absence of concrete answers, what
are the authorities doing to make sure there is a
repeat of this, What.
Speaker 1 (05:49):
Are we doing to make sure it never happens again?
Speaker 3 (05:52):
Well, that is the big question, is whether it can
happen again. We've heard energy analysts saying that this could
indeed happen again. This was, you know, one of the
possibly the only big power cut in the era of
green electricity, certainly the largest that anyone can remember. There
has been an ongoing debate about, you know, the viability
(06:14):
of European grids, whether they are having sufficient amounts of
investment in them, particularly now that we are seeing these
new sources of power come online.
Speaker 2 (06:24):
Some analysts suggesting.
Speaker 3 (06:25):
That, you know, you're trying to operate a ferrari on
a country road and that sometimes that will result in
its own challenges to the system. Whether that was the
case here, whether there was a third party's involvement, it
still very much remains to be seen.
Speaker 1 (06:40):
Uh a third party involvement as a big man out
there somewhere or now.
Speaker 4 (06:45):
Republicans passed all of these changes out of committee yesterday
and the goal is to make them part of that
broader reconciliation, build that big budget bill that we've heard
so much about, with the goal to pass all of
this by the summer. Recording from Washington, d C. Molina
Weiss cup INTV News.
Speaker 5 (07:01):
But Ben Pile, co founder of Climate Debate UK, says
there is a lot of hysteria driving climate policy.
Speaker 6 (07:08):
And this sort of tendency of a lot of people
within the global green movement to sort of talk about deadlines,
you know, ten years left to save the planet and
so on and so forth.
Speaker 5 (07:17):
Many people have made the ten years claim over the decades,
including former US Vice President Al Gore. In two thousand
and six. Claire said that most political leaders know that
the debate has become irrational, but are terrified.
Speaker 1 (07:31):
It's become irrational. Do we have anything to back that up, Well,
we'll see.
Speaker 5 (07:36):
Of saying so for fear of being called climate deniers,
a British government spokesperson said that they remain focused on
their mission for the UK to be a clean energy
superpower while treading lightly on people's lives. Pile disputed this
and said it will be expensive.
Speaker 6 (07:52):
Of the next five years. The Clean Power by twenty
thirty agenda is going to lock Britain into extremely expensive
renoble energy subsidies.
Speaker 5 (08:03):
Schemes over reliance on renewable energy has drawn criticism in
recent days following the huge blackouts throughout Spain and Portugal.
Energy expert Catherine Porter said the initial fault in Spain's
power grid was made worse by an over reliance on
solar power, which led to cascading blackouts that lasted for
over eight hours in the Iberian Peninsula.
Speaker 1 (08:26):
So we're starting to see a little bit. There's a crack.
There's a crack. It's kind of like, you know, God
looked down on the blasphemous church of the climate activist
and threw down a boulder lightning and started to split
it up. And I think that we're seeing the beginning,
(08:47):
perhaps of the end of all the climate hysteria.
Speaker 7 (08:51):
Is there hysteria in the international climate debate? Britain's former
Prime Minister Tony Blair suggests there is, as he calls
for a new approach, it comes up. Spain and Portugal
were recently hit by cascating blackouts, which some say were
made worse by an over reliance on solar power, and
these International correspondent Malcolm Hudson has more for us from London.
Speaker 5 (09:12):
In a new policy paper, former British Prime Minister Tony
Blair said hystery should be taken out of the international
climate debate.
Speaker 1 (09:20):
Now. I just want to caution it's not that Tony
Blair has changed his mind about climate change. We just
need to get the hysteria out of it.
Speaker 5 (09:30):
Saying that voters feel they are being made to make
financial sacrifices and changes to their lifestyle in what Blair
refers to as doomed policy, despite the fact that in
developed nations these changes will lead to a minimal impact
to global carbon emissions. Blair said that by twenty thirty,
almost two thirds of global emissions will come from China,
(09:51):
India and Southeast Asia, and said that means any strategy
based on phasing out fossil fuels in the short term
is doomed to fail. But while he appeared to hit
out against the net zero carbon emission policies, Blair went
on to clarify that Prime Minister Kias Starmer's approach to
net zero is the right one, supporting the government's plan
(10:12):
for net zero by twenty fifty. Late fifty, Prime Minister
Angela Reina responded, Tony's clarified his comments, and he welcomes
our direction of trouble, and that's on renewables. Invested in
the renewables and nuclear as part of the mix. What
we can't rely on fossil fuels forever. The British Government
rejected Blair's claim of hysteria in the climate debate.
Speaker 1 (10:32):
Do you get what happened there? So Tony Blair comes
out and says we get rid of hysteria, and then
oh well, hysterics then clamp down on him and he
backs off. Well, let me clarify my remark for.
Speaker 5 (10:47):
The mission policies. Blair went on to clarify that Prime
Minister Kias Starmer's approach to net zero is the right one.
Speaker 1 (10:53):
Oh so, which need really hysteria? I didn't really mean hysteria.
And what kir Starmer's doing in the UK, the PM's
doing exactly the right thing.
Speaker 5 (11:04):
Orting the government's plan for net ZERU by twenty fifty, still.
Speaker 1 (11:07):
Going to net zero by twenty fifty late fifty.
Speaker 5 (11:10):
Prime Minister Angela Rena responded, Tony's clarified these comments and
he welcomes our direction of travel, and that's on renewables.
Invested in the renewables and nuclears.
Speaker 1 (11:20):
Patam, I like the facts, she says, and he accepts
our direction. Oh did he get trued out? Did he
get told this is what you have to.
Speaker 5 (11:29):
Do, or say makes what we can't rely on fossil
fuels forever. The British government rejected Blair's claim of hysteria
in the climate debate, and.
Speaker 1 (11:37):
There's no hysteria. There's no hysteria whatsoever. Really is that
really true or not true? Every four to five years
we release what's called the National Climate Assessment, the NCAA's
that's a report that the government does that tries to
(11:58):
summarize the impacts of climate change on the economy. Well,
the latest version, the fifth National Climate Assessment, has a flood.
It dropped back in twenty twenty three with a flood
of fanfare and of course dire predictions, many of which
you see amplified, you know, across all the media outlets,
(12:20):
which you hear right there. Tony Blair tries to kind
of say wait a minute, and he gets chewed out
for it. For example, when this report came out in
November of twenty twenty three, there was a headline at
CNN that no place in the United States is safe
from the climate crisis, but a new report shows where
(12:41):
it's most severe. Now, this assessment I talked about this
a little bit on Saturday, is funded by something called
the US Global Change Research Program. It's a conglomeration of
fourteen federal agencies including NOW and KNOW in the EPA,
(13:01):
and Defense, Energy, and State. This was all established back
in nineteen ninety to coordinate climate change research. But since
its beginnings it's been co opted by the activists in
the Church of the Climate, by the congregants in the
Church of the Climate activists, and so now the authors
(13:22):
of these assessments come from universities, so they do research
to get outcomes based on the research grants that tell
them we want you to prove X. So they go
out and they do research to prove X whether X
is true or not. And on NGOs, which get money
(13:42):
again from the government, and the NGOs are always almost
always activist organizations that are pushing a particular agenda. And
of course the federal agency, I mean the federal labs
kind of like rout out here, the National Research for
Renewable Energy that were they just laid off a bunch
of people they funded. But guess what. So there's a
(14:11):
single contradiction in the report, and one that I believe
exemplifies the fundamental flaws in the report. So they have charts,
and in the charts it talks about observed changes in
hot and cold extremes, and it gives actual observation data.
(14:35):
And in the report itself, it shows a clear documented
decline in the number of days above ninety five degrees
across most of the US between two thousand and nine
and twenty twenty one, a decline. The number of days
above ninety five degrees across the United States declined during
(14:57):
that period. But then you go to the next chart
and it's called the projected changes to haught and cold
extremes at two degrees integrade of global warming, and that
projection shows increases. So the actual observed data is, well,
(15:17):
we've had a decline in number of days above ninety
five degrees. But then they go on to say, but oh,
there's going to be an increase. That's the climate hysteria.
And I think it's beginning to break down. And I
think we owe Spain and Portugal a debt of gratitude
for showing that total reliance on Winden's. You want Wind's solar,
(15:40):
that's fine, you want to reet you want to rely
on it totally. You're an idiot.
Speaker 5 (15:53):
Do these news agencies not realize that if you're going
to lie about the little.
Speaker 6 (15:57):
Things and get caught, well, how do we see what
the big things.
Speaker 1 (16:03):
I've really reached the way where I don't trust anything
in the media. I watch it and I just I'm
constantly questioning everything that they say from multiple sources, on
absolutely everything nowadays. Oh yeah, I mean it's the sun
came up today. Well let me see if I can
(16:23):
really prove that. Or that's right east. Maybe he should
look in the west. You never know, because climate change
might you know, throw the sun off. So I forgot.
I was going to do this story yesterday. Then dragon
comes running in here when I'm talking about the note
days above ninety five degrees for well almost a decade,
(16:48):
well not quite a decade, But I forgot about the
sea level rising because part of the climate narrative has
been this relentlessly painting of a dire picture that the
ice caps are melting, that the oceans are rising, and
(17:09):
we are actually humanity itself is teetering on catastrophic flooding.
Politicians say it, activists say it. Mediallitis to try to
tell you, and it's always about this dramatic incremental, which
seems kind of that was stupid for me to say
dramatic incremental. But they try to make the incremental dramatic
(17:29):
rising global temperatures, and that's going to create this unprecedented disaster.
But what if the underlying fundamental assumptions driving those predictions
were not true? Just I think it was last week.
My notes don't have a date on it, but I
(17:49):
think it was last week. New Scientist read a story
about why vanishing sea ice at the polls is a
crisis for the entire planet. Extremely low sea if ice
levels in the Arctic and Antarctica signal a new normal
that may accelerate global warming and disrupt ocean currents, on
(18:13):
top of the consequences for people in wildlife that rely
on the ice. Now, I don't know. Over a decade
or longer, I've talked about this pattern of contradictions between
what we're told about sea level rise and what the
data actually shows, contradictions that now culminate in actually, I
(18:34):
think probably a far deeper crisis of scientific understanding, not
a crisis of sea level rises or Arctic melting or not,
but actually of a crisis of scientific understanding that the
body of work that has led not all, but a
lot of coastal policy makers, those that are tasked with
(18:56):
real world decisions about infrastructure or zoning or emergency response
to flooding or hurricanes or whatever. They're starting to understand
what is really happening. And I think they become skeptical
when the headline scream about surging seas, because the local
tide gauges tell a different story entirely. It goes back
(19:19):
to that climate assessment saying that, oh, we're going to
see all these rising days above ninety five degrees fahrenheit,
but we've actually seen a decline. So if you imagine
a graph over here on the left, and days above
ninety five degrees are on decline. But then the study
(19:41):
comes out in twenty twenty three, and we're supposed to now,
just based on modeling, supposed to see an increase a
V shape, But yet there is no V shape, no
no V shape whatsoever. The currency levels measured at the
(20:02):
Battery tide gauge in New York city are roughly equivalent
to the levels that they first observed in the early
nineteen forties. So let's see sixty to get to two
thousand plus twenty five. So eighty five years there has
(20:26):
been catastrophic sea level rise. Where if it's the same,
then where isn't the Halocene thermal maximum? That's the period
when Greenland was between four and eight and a half
degrees centigrade warmer than it is today, astonishing Despite that warmth,
(20:49):
global sea levels were lower than they are today. How
is this possible? If the models that predict catastrophic sea
level rise are correct, if Greenland's ice sheet survive that
warming without de losing the coasts, then how do we
reconcile that with the claims that the current models and
the modest warming that they show will do. So there's not.
(21:15):
There is, however, something else, and that's adjusting reality. Where
you can find a particularly a very peculiar pattern in
satellite sea level measurements, because every time a new satellite
is launched, the sea level trend is adjusted upward, not downward,
never flat, always up, never flat, always up. So you
(21:37):
might wonder whether these corrections reflect science or instead is
a reflect a narrative, and I think it reflects the narrative.
Why would every time a new satellite is launched to
do measurements, is the sea level trend adjusted upward? It's
never flat, it's never downward, it's always adjusted upward. Now
(22:03):
there are well, let me just pull the story that
dragontended a surprising shift is underway at the bottom of
the world after decades of contributing to rising sea levels.
So they buy this is from what KTVU? Where's KATVU?
Is that? I'm not sure where this is anyway, it's
(22:26):
a story. It's a Fox affiliate. I can't I can't
find where this affiliate is, so anyway, it's it's probably
an ap or or a New York Times story. It's
some story just making the rounds on the Fox affiliates.
But the headline is interesting and Artica gains eyes for
(22:47):
the first time in decades, reversing trend of mass loss.
Study finds, well, wait a minute, according to the data
that I read, there has not been a massive loss.
So if there's not been a massive loss, if we
accept my premise is being truthful, then this story says, oh,
but now there is an increase. But they try to
couch it in the idea that, oh, there's been a loss,
(23:10):
but now the trends is different, the story, says. A
study published this week in Science China Earth Sciences finds
that the Antarctic ice sheet experienced a record breaking mass
gain between twenty one and twenty three, largely due to
anonymous increases in precipitation. The rebound is especially significant in
(23:33):
East Antarctica, where four major glacier basins had previously shown
signs of destabilization. Researchers from Tanji University and other institutions
analyzed satellite cradimetry data from Grace and Grace fomissions, which
measure variations in Earth's gravity, to detect changes in ice mass.
(23:55):
I've not heard that one before. I'm not quite sure
how that one works. Left go study that One of
the most notable gains where in East Antarctica's wooks Land
and Queen Maryland region, including the Totten Denman Moscow University
in the Sin's Bay Glacier. These glaciers had been losing
mass at the accelerating rate from twenty eleven to twenty twenty,
driven by surface melting and faster ice discharge into the ocean,
(24:19):
but now appear to have partially recovered. But scientists warn
that this shift doesn't mean the climate crisis is over.
The gains were linked to unusual precipitation patterns. Well has
ever thought to ask what's caused the changing reciptation patterns that?
(24:40):
Let see, this is if Greenland was warmer with lower
sea levels, If Antarctica is gaining mass overall, and if
our models rely on flawed assumptions, then what is driving
current sea level rise? If there is? You see, the
(25:01):
IPCC asserts with high confidence they do that sea levels
will continue rising primarily due to melting glaciers and ice sheets.
But if the biggest ice sheets aren't losing mass and
some are actually gaining, as this paper says, how do
you square that with certainty? You don't. But I'm kind
(25:22):
of curious about what the data actually shows. So what
I'll do between now and tomorrow is dig in to
find out what the data actually shows and see whether
or not. Oh, is it because of increased precipitation? Okay,
let's say it is. What's causing you increased precipitation, Changes
in our behavior, changes in our in our fuel uses,
(25:46):
our decarbonization, what really is it? So I'll try to
come tomorrow with a full breakdown of what the data
actually says.
Speaker 6 (25:56):
Michael in the immortal words of that courageous lady Credit Tunberg,
how dare you?
Speaker 3 (26:04):
How dare you?
Speaker 1 (26:06):
How dare I? Well, pretty soon it will make any
difference whether the climate's changing or the sea level is
rising or not.
Speaker 8 (26:16):
Because turned out to some breaking news from overseas, India
has launched a military operation against Pakistan. Sannan's Nick Robertson
is joining us now on the phone.
Speaker 1 (26:28):
He is now, just in case you're wondering, India has nukes,
Pakistan has nukes.
Speaker 8 (26:37):
In Pakistan, and of course this has to do with Kashmir,
the long standing zone of conflict between these two nations.
At Nick, what's happening?
Speaker 9 (26:50):
Well, just beginning to get some sticky information here. We
have what the Indian governments is saying that it hit
a number of sites that it says are inside Pakistan
and inside Pakistan administered Kashmian. Now, Pakistani officials say that
they believe that India was going to strike that attacked
(27:14):
inside Indian controlled Kashmir that killed twenty six civilians several
weeks ago. The information literally is only coming in at
the moment, and we're tent pointing the locations that we're
now going from the Pakistani military informing three different places
that the Pakistani military says has been hit. One it's
(27:38):
the Sakabad which is the capital of Pakistan controlled Kashmir,
one that is counting, and the other one is about
Haa Wilpoor, which is in the main part of Pakistan,
that being not inside Pakistan administered Kashmir. And the reason
that I make that distinction is because, as I say,
(27:58):
Pakistan was expected, I think India to strike back. There
were levels strike back that they were worried about, and
their maximum main concern was if India hit inside Pakistan proper,
which appears to have happened, that for the Pakistani side
would be a massive exhalation. They said that if it
(28:20):
happened inside Pakistan Administered Kashmir, then they would be a
lower level respond But a strike in Pakistan proper, as
appears to have happened. I've been found by several senior
security officials inside Pakistan beyond shadow of a doubt, they
said that if there was an Indian strike in Pakistan proper,
(28:41):
they would respond in a similar way back in part.
Speaker 1 (28:46):
Of them that they would respond back in a similar way. Well,
Pakistan's National Security Council said they authorized their countries are
enforced us to avenge the strikes by India. Hmmm, So,
India launched air strikes on Wednesday, something called Operation Sindhoor.
They targeted terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan and in the Pakistani
(29:10):
controlled Jamma and Kashmir region, where they said it was
the launch pad for the attack on tourists near the
town a Palagrim on the twice. Back on April twenty second,
Pakistan said the strikes had killed and injured civilians, including
a woman and childhood a mosque. Their National Security Council
called the strikes acts of war. And then they said
(29:33):
in a statement today this morning, in constance with Article
fifty one of the u in Charter, Pakistan reserves the
right to respond in self defense at a time, place
and manner of its choosing. They just copied it from
us to avenge the loss of innocent Pakistani lives and
blatant violations of our sovereignty. Oh, the Armed Forces of
(29:55):
Pakistan have been duly authorized to undertake corresponding actions in
this regard so they started shelling into Kashmir. India said
they killed several civilians. Pakistan also claimed that it shot
down several Indian military jets. So calling Margo Rubio, calling Rubio,
(30:20):
here we go. I always said there'd be some tipping point.
This may or may not be it. I have no
idea whether it is or not. But this is a
this is kind of the equivalent of And you could
read it either way. It's either the equivalent of North Korea,
(30:40):
because this is Kashmir of North Korea crossing into Pakistan,
just to put it geographically kind of that way, or
you could say it's the equivalent of South Korea deciding
to move in through the DMZ from the south. Although
Pakistan and India are really kind of east west, it's
also kind of a little south, a little north, so
(31:00):
it's somewhat analogous. But are these tensions are long standing
and there have been skirmishes in the Kashmir for decades
and now there's actually incursions terrorist attacks.
Speaker 2 (31:18):
Hmm.
Speaker 1 (31:20):
I'd like to know the who won't, where, when and why,
because that's going to tell us a lot about what's
going to happen next. And we could have a broader conflict,
Before we know
Isn't it great to see the Democrat Party get their
very own John McCain. Before I go, I want to
talk about climate for a little bit. Before I do,
I'm gonna go to a text message fifty four to
thirty one, rights Mike. I think a shopping trip to
Costco is one of the best places to see where
(00:23):
we are as a society. People wandering around with no concern,
no interest about anything but themselves, and if you ask
them to move their cart, hang on. I would say,
It's not just Costco, It's Walmart, Sam's Super Walmart, It's
(00:45):
King Supers, Safeway, Whole Foods, Sprouts, Natural Grocers, any place
where the public you know, go to. Was it? Oh?
I had some some glasses fixed and I ran over
to Park Metals Mall. It's the same thing in Park Meadows.
You know how in the mall, At least in Park
(01:10):
Meadows they've got the big you know, on the upper floor.
The middle is open, so it opens up to the ceiling.
It's I don't know, it's I guess that's the architecture,
but it makes for limited space on the upper level. Well,
(01:33):
so I'm trying to you know, I've parked so I'm
on the upper level walking. I'm walking to my right
to go over to the stairs with the escalator to
go down to where Lens Crafters is because they're the
ones that can fix these sunglasses. And I and I
swear people just like entire families walking shoulder to shoulder,
(01:55):
just lollygagging along. Excuse me, excuse me, and to where
I finally had to like kind of bump to get oh,
oh excuse me. Yeah, well pay attention. You forget that
in everybody owned, everybody's own worlds. They are the main
character and it is their own world and and I'm
(02:17):
intruding into their world. I go through life trying to
not like be in anybody's way, and I just want
everybody else to stay out of my way. Uh So, yeah, Jim,
I think you're spot on. So there's a lot going
on in the world about climate. I don't know why
all of a sudden, but it's gotten really bad, and
(02:40):
I feel like I owe it to you to let
you know that, Yeah, things are getting pretty bad, and
you ought to be scared. Camera fixed some really good
shrimp last night, and with it was some some rice.
We had some really good rice. I don't know for
a fact, but I'm guessing that rice is probably the
(03:05):
most common staple eaten by people in the world, simply
because of the number of Asians. So when you think
about Asia and you know the billions of people that
live there, that that's probably one of the largest staples.
And I kind of like rice. My doctor encourages me
not to eat rice because of the carbos carbs in
(03:26):
it and the insulin spike. But I love rice, but
not now. I'm scared to eat it. I'm really scared.
And then Reuter's got back in again on the mystery
blackout in Spain and Portugal.
Speaker 2 (03:44):
The power is back on in Spain and Portugal after
one of Europe's biggest ever blackouts, but there are still
no answers as to what actually caused it.
Speaker 1 (03:57):
I thought I gave you an answer. I thought I
told you that there was a blip because the solar
and wind got maxed out and then so the it oscillated,
it dropped off, and then that caused them to start
pulling pulling power from the French from the European grid,
(04:18):
and that collapsed the grid. But I guess Reuters didn't
listen to.
Speaker 2 (04:22):
Me or how they could prevent it from happening again.
Our Iberian co Bureau chief Ashbin Ling, is looking at
this story. Ashbin, what do we actually know?
Speaker 3 (04:33):
It's extremely unclear still what caused the blackout, and there
is something of a political blame game initiating. We are
also seeing an intense discussion about the merits of different
power sources Spain, is and Portugal, our big renewables producers.
French ministers were saying yesterday, well, you know, if they
(04:55):
used more nuclear power, perhaps that wouldn't have happened.
Speaker 1 (05:00):
Really.
Speaker 3 (05:01):
The Spanish Prime Minister has firmly rejected that, saying actually
even nuclear power couldn't help us get this restarted. We
were relying on a lot of hydro. The Spanish power
grid operator has said that this is absolutely not a
cyber attack from their point of view. They say there
was a massive drop off in power supply. What cause
that is becoming a key area of investigation. It is unclear.
(05:26):
The Spanish Prime Minister Pedros Sanchez is not ruling out
a cyber attack.
Speaker 1 (05:32):
Now, oh now we got to think about cyber attacks.
I think I know the real reason, but Reuters won't
want to go there. I think it's Donald Trump and.
Speaker 2 (05:41):
As chaos and in the absence of concrete answers, what
are the authorities doing to make sure there is a
repeat of this, What.
Speaker 1 (05:49):
Are we doing to make sure it never happens again?
Speaker 3 (05:52):
Well, that is the big question, is whether it can
happen again. We've heard energy analysts saying that this could
indeed happen again. This was, you know, one of the
possibly the only big power cut in the era of
green electricity, certainly the largest that anyone can remember. There
has been an ongoing debate about, you know, the viability
(06:14):
of European grids, whether they are having sufficient amounts of
investment in them, particularly now that we are seeing these
new sources of power come online.
Speaker 2 (06:24):
Some analysts suggesting.
Speaker 3 (06:25):
That, you know, you're trying to operate a ferrari on
a country road and that sometimes that will result in
its own challenges to the system. Whether that was the
case here, whether there was a third party's involvement, it
still very much remains to be seen.
Speaker 1 (06:40):
Uh a third party involvement as a big man out
there somewhere or now.
Speaker 4 (06:45):
Republicans passed all of these changes out of committee yesterday
and the goal is to make them part of that
broader reconciliation, build that big budget bill that we've heard
so much about, with the goal to pass all of
this by the summer. Recording from Washington, d C. Molina
Weiss cup INTV News.
Speaker 5 (07:01):
But Ben Pile, co founder of Climate Debate UK, says
there is a lot of hysteria driving climate policy.
Speaker 6 (07:08):
And this sort of tendency of a lot of people
within the global green movement to sort of talk about deadlines,
you know, ten years left to save the planet and
so on and so forth.
Speaker 5 (07:17):
Many people have made the ten years claim over the decades,
including former US Vice President Al Gore. In two thousand
and six. Claire said that most political leaders know that
the debate has become irrational, but are terrified.
Speaker 1 (07:31):
It's become irrational. Do we have anything to back that up, Well,
we'll see.
Speaker 5 (07:36):
Of saying so for fear of being called climate deniers,
a British government spokesperson said that they remain focused on
their mission for the UK to be a clean energy
superpower while treading lightly on people's lives. Pile disputed this
and said it will be expensive.
Speaker 6 (07:52):
Of the next five years. The Clean Power by twenty
thirty agenda is going to lock Britain into extremely expensive
renoble energy subsidies.
Speaker 5 (08:03):
Schemes over reliance on renewable energy has drawn criticism in
recent days following the huge blackouts throughout Spain and Portugal.
Energy expert Catherine Porter said the initial fault in Spain's
power grid was made worse by an over reliance on
solar power, which led to cascading blackouts that lasted for
over eight hours in the Iberian Peninsula.
Speaker 1 (08:26):
So we're starting to see a little bit. There's a crack.
There's a crack. It's kind of like, you know, God
looked down on the blasphemous church of the climate activist
and threw down a boulder lightning and started to split
it up. And I think that we're seeing the beginning,
(08:47):
perhaps of the end of all the climate hysteria.
Speaker 7 (08:51):
Is there hysteria in the international climate debate? Britain's former
Prime Minister Tony Blair suggests there is, as he calls
for a new approach, it comes up. Spain and Portugal
were recently hit by cascating blackouts, which some say were
made worse by an over reliance on solar power, and
these International correspondent Malcolm Hudson has more for us from London.
Speaker 5 (09:12):
In a new policy paper, former British Prime Minister Tony
Blair said hystery should be taken out of the international
climate debate.
Speaker 1 (09:20):
Now. I just want to caution it's not that Tony
Blair has changed his mind about climate change. We just
need to get the hysteria out of it.
Speaker 5 (09:30):
Saying that voters feel they are being made to make
financial sacrifices and changes to their lifestyle in what Blair
refers to as doomed policy, despite the fact that in
developed nations these changes will lead to a minimal impact
to global carbon emissions. Blair said that by twenty thirty,
almost two thirds of global emissions will come from China,
(09:51):
India and Southeast Asia, and said that means any strategy
based on phasing out fossil fuels in the short term
is doomed to fail. But while he appeared to hit
out against the net zero carbon emission policies, Blair went
on to clarify that Prime Minister Kias Starmer's approach to
net zero is the right one, supporting the government's plan
(10:12):
for net zero by twenty fifty. Late fifty, Prime Minister
Angela Reina responded, Tony's clarified his comments, and he welcomes
our direction of trouble, and that's on renewables. Invested in
the renewables and nuclear as part of the mix. What
we can't rely on fossil fuels forever. The British Government
rejected Blair's claim of hysteria in the climate debate.
Speaker 1 (10:32):
Do you get what happened there? So Tony Blair comes
out and says we get rid of hysteria, and then
oh well, hysterics then clamp down on him and he
backs off. Well, let me clarify my remark for.
Speaker 5 (10:47):
The mission policies. Blair went on to clarify that Prime
Minister Kias Starmer's approach to net zero is the right one.
Speaker 1 (10:53):
Oh so, which need really hysteria? I didn't really mean hysteria.
And what kir Starmer's doing in the UK, the PM's
doing exactly the right thing.
Speaker 5 (11:04):
Orting the government's plan for net ZERU by twenty fifty, still.
Speaker 1 (11:07):
Going to net zero by twenty fifty late fifty.
Speaker 5 (11:10):
Prime Minister Angela Rena responded, Tony's clarified these comments and
he welcomes our direction of travel, and that's on renewables.
Invested in the renewables and nuclears.
Speaker 1 (11:20):
Patam, I like the facts, she says, and he accepts
our direction. Oh did he get trued out? Did he
get told this is what you have to.
Speaker 5 (11:29):
Do, or say makes what we can't rely on fossil
fuels forever. The British government rejected Blair's claim of hysteria
in the climate debate, and.
Speaker 1 (11:37):
There's no hysteria. There's no hysteria whatsoever. Really is that
really true or not true? Every four to five years
we release what's called the National Climate Assessment, the NCAA's
that's a report that the government does that tries to
(11:58):
summarize the impacts of climate change on the economy. Well,
the latest version, the fifth National Climate Assessment, has a flood.
It dropped back in twenty twenty three with a flood
of fanfare and of course dire predictions, many of which
you see amplified, you know, across all the media outlets,
(12:20):
which you hear right there. Tony Blair tries to kind
of say wait a minute, and he gets chewed out
for it. For example, when this report came out in
November of twenty twenty three, there was a headline at
CNN that no place in the United States is safe
from the climate crisis, but a new report shows where
(12:41):
it's most severe. Now, this assessment I talked about this
a little bit on Saturday, is funded by something called
the US Global Change Research Program. It's a conglomeration of
fourteen federal agencies including NOW and KNOW in the EPA,
(13:01):
and Defense, Energy, and State. This was all established back
in nineteen ninety to coordinate climate change research. But since
its beginnings it's been co opted by the activists in
the Church of the Climate, by the congregants in the
Church of the Climate activists, and so now the authors
(13:22):
of these assessments come from universities, so they do research
to get outcomes based on the research grants that tell
them we want you to prove X. So they go
out and they do research to prove X whether X
is true or not. And on NGOs, which get money
(13:42):
again from the government, and the NGOs are always almost
always activist organizations that are pushing a particular agenda. And
of course the federal agency, I mean the federal labs
kind of like rout out here, the National Research for
Renewable Energy that were they just laid off a bunch
of people they funded. But guess what. So there's a
(14:11):
single contradiction in the report, and one that I believe
exemplifies the fundamental flaws in the report. So they have charts,
and in the charts it talks about observed changes in
hot and cold extremes, and it gives actual observation data.
(14:35):
And in the report itself, it shows a clear documented
decline in the number of days above ninety five degrees
across most of the US between two thousand and nine
and twenty twenty one, a decline. The number of days
above ninety five degrees across the United States declined during
(14:57):
that period. But then you go to the next chart
and it's called the projected changes to haught and cold
extremes at two degrees integrade of global warming, and that
projection shows increases. So the actual observed data is, well,
(15:17):
we've had a decline in number of days above ninety
five degrees. But then they go on to say, but oh,
there's going to be an increase. That's the climate hysteria.
And I think it's beginning to break down. And I
think we owe Spain and Portugal a debt of gratitude
for showing that total reliance on Winden's. You want Wind's solar,
(15:40):
that's fine, you want to reet you want to rely
on it totally. You're an idiot.
Speaker 5 (15:53):
Do these news agencies not realize that if you're going
to lie about the little.
Speaker 6 (15:57):
Things and get caught, well, how do we see what
the big things.
Speaker 1 (16:03):
I've really reached the way where I don't trust anything
in the media. I watch it and I just I'm
constantly questioning everything that they say from multiple sources, on
absolutely everything nowadays. Oh yeah, I mean it's the sun
came up today. Well let me see if I can
(16:23):
really prove that. Or that's right east. Maybe he should
look in the west. You never know, because climate change
might you know, throw the sun off. So I forgot.
I was going to do this story yesterday. Then dragon
comes running in here when I'm talking about the note
days above ninety five degrees for well almost a decade,
(16:48):
well not quite a decade, But I forgot about the
sea level rising because part of the climate narrative has
been this relentlessly painting of a dire picture that the
ice caps are melting, that the oceans are rising, and
(17:09):
we are actually humanity itself is teetering on catastrophic flooding.
Politicians say it, activists say it. Mediallitis to try to
tell you, and it's always about this dramatic incremental, which
seems kind of that was stupid for me to say
dramatic incremental. But they try to make the incremental dramatic
(17:29):
rising global temperatures, and that's going to create this unprecedented disaster.
But what if the underlying fundamental assumptions driving those predictions
were not true? Just I think it was last week.
My notes don't have a date on it, but I
(17:49):
think it was last week. New Scientist read a story
about why vanishing sea ice at the polls is a
crisis for the entire planet. Extremely low sea if ice
levels in the Arctic and Antarctica signal a new normal
that may accelerate global warming and disrupt ocean currents, on
(18:13):
top of the consequences for people in wildlife that rely
on the ice. Now, I don't know. Over a decade
or longer, I've talked about this pattern of contradictions between
what we're told about sea level rise and what the
data actually shows, contradictions that now culminate in actually, I
(18:34):
think probably a far deeper crisis of scientific understanding, not
a crisis of sea level rises or Arctic melting or not,
but actually of a crisis of scientific understanding that the
body of work that has led not all, but a
lot of coastal policy makers, those that are tasked with
(18:56):
real world decisions about infrastructure or zoning or emergency response
to flooding or hurricanes or whatever. They're starting to understand
what is really happening. And I think they become skeptical
when the headline scream about surging seas, because the local
tide gauges tell a different story entirely. It goes back
(19:19):
to that climate assessment saying that, oh, we're going to
see all these rising days above ninety five degrees fahrenheit,
but we've actually seen a decline. So if you imagine
a graph over here on the left, and days above
ninety five degrees are on decline. But then the study
(19:41):
comes out in twenty twenty three, and we're supposed to now,
just based on modeling, supposed to see an increase a
V shape, But yet there is no V shape, no
no V shape whatsoever. The currency levels measured at the
(20:02):
Battery tide gauge in New York city are roughly equivalent
to the levels that they first observed in the early
nineteen forties. So let's see sixty to get to two
thousand plus twenty five. So eighty five years there has
(20:26):
been catastrophic sea level rise. Where if it's the same,
then where isn't the Halocene thermal maximum? That's the period
when Greenland was between four and eight and a half
degrees centigrade warmer than it is today, astonishing Despite that warmth,
(20:49):
global sea levels were lower than they are today. How
is this possible? If the models that predict catastrophic sea
level rise are correct, if Greenland's ice sheet survive that
warming without de losing the coasts, then how do we
reconcile that with the claims that the current models and
the modest warming that they show will do. So there's not.
(21:15):
There is, however, something else, and that's adjusting reality. Where
you can find a particularly a very peculiar pattern in
satellite sea level measurements, because every time a new satellite
is launched, the sea level trend is adjusted upward, not downward,
never flat, always up, never flat, always up. So you
(21:37):
might wonder whether these corrections reflect science or instead is
a reflect a narrative, and I think it reflects the narrative.
Why would every time a new satellite is launched to
do measurements, is the sea level trend adjusted upward? It's
never flat, it's never downward, it's always adjusted upward. Now
(22:03):
there are well, let me just pull the story that
dragontended a surprising shift is underway at the bottom of
the world after decades of contributing to rising sea levels.
So they buy this is from what KTVU? Where's KATVU?
Is that? I'm not sure where this is anyway, it's
(22:26):
a story. It's a Fox affiliate. I can't I can't
find where this affiliate is, so anyway, it's it's probably
an ap or or a New York Times story. It's
some story just making the rounds on the Fox affiliates.
But the headline is interesting and Artica gains eyes for
(22:47):
the first time in decades, reversing trend of mass loss.
Study finds, well, wait a minute, according to the data
that I read, there has not been a massive loss.
So if there's not been a massive loss, if we
accept my premise is being truthful, then this story says, oh,
but now there is an increase. But they try to
couch it in the idea that, oh, there's been a loss,
(23:10):
but now the trends is different, the story, says. A
study published this week in Science China Earth Sciences finds
that the Antarctic ice sheet experienced a record breaking mass
gain between twenty one and twenty three, largely due to
anonymous increases in precipitation. The rebound is especially significant in
(23:33):
East Antarctica, where four major glacier basins had previously shown
signs of destabilization. Researchers from Tanji University and other institutions
analyzed satellite cradimetry data from Grace and Grace fomissions, which
measure variations in Earth's gravity, to detect changes in ice mass.
(23:55):
I've not heard that one before. I'm not quite sure
how that one works. Left go study that One of
the most notable gains where in East Antarctica's wooks Land
and Queen Maryland region, including the Totten Denman Moscow University
in the Sin's Bay Glacier. These glaciers had been losing
mass at the accelerating rate from twenty eleven to twenty twenty,
driven by surface melting and faster ice discharge into the ocean,
(24:19):
but now appear to have partially recovered. But scientists warn
that this shift doesn't mean the climate crisis is over.
The gains were linked to unusual precipitation patterns. Well has
ever thought to ask what's caused the changing reciptation patterns that?
(24:40):
Let see, this is if Greenland was warmer with lower
sea levels, If Antarctica is gaining mass overall, and if
our models rely on flawed assumptions, then what is driving
current sea level rise? If there is? You see, the
(25:01):
IPCC asserts with high confidence they do that sea levels
will continue rising primarily due to melting glaciers and ice sheets.
But if the biggest ice sheets aren't losing mass and
some are actually gaining, as this paper says, how do
you square that with certainty? You don't. But I'm kind
(25:22):
of curious about what the data actually shows. So what
I'll do between now and tomorrow is dig in to
find out what the data actually shows and see whether
or not. Oh, is it because of increased precipitation? Okay,
let's say it is. What's causing you increased precipitation, Changes
in our behavior, changes in our in our fuel uses,
(25:46):
our decarbonization, what really is it? So I'll try to
come tomorrow with a full breakdown of what the data
actually says.
Speaker 6 (25:56):
Michael in the immortal words of that courageous lady Credit Tunberg,
how dare you?
Speaker 3 (26:04):
How dare you?
Speaker 1 (26:06):
How dare I? Well, pretty soon it will make any
difference whether the climate's changing or the sea level is
rising or not.
Speaker 8 (26:16):
Because turned out to some breaking news from overseas, India
has launched a military operation against Pakistan. Sannan's Nick Robertson
is joining us now on the phone.
Speaker 1 (26:28):
He is now, just in case you're wondering, India has nukes,
Pakistan has nukes.
Speaker 8 (26:37):
In Pakistan, and of course this has to do with Kashmir,
the long standing zone of conflict between these two nations.
At Nick, what's happening?
Speaker 9 (26:50):
Well, just beginning to get some sticky information here. We
have what the Indian governments is saying that it hit
a number of sites that it says are inside Pakistan
and inside Pakistan administered Kashmian. Now, Pakistani officials say that
they believe that India was going to strike that attacked
(27:14):
inside Indian controlled Kashmir that killed twenty six civilians several
weeks ago. The information literally is only coming in at
the moment, and we're tent pointing the locations that we're
now going from the Pakistani military informing three different places
that the Pakistani military says has been hit. One it's
(27:38):
the Sakabad which is the capital of Pakistan controlled Kashmir,
one that is counting, and the other one is about
Haa Wilpoor, which is in the main part of Pakistan,
that being not inside Pakistan administered Kashmir. And the reason
that I make that distinction is because, as I say,
(27:58):
Pakistan was expected, I think India to strike back. There
were levels strike back that they were worried about, and
their maximum main concern was if India hit inside Pakistan proper,
which appears to have happened, that for the Pakistani side
would be a massive exhalation. They said that if it
(28:20):
happened inside Pakistan Administered Kashmir, then they would be a
lower level respond But a strike in Pakistan proper, as
appears to have happened. I've been found by several senior
security officials inside Pakistan beyond shadow of a doubt, they
said that if there was an Indian strike in Pakistan proper,
(28:41):
they would respond in a similar way back in part.
Speaker 1 (28:46):
Of them that they would respond back in a similar way. Well,
Pakistan's National Security Council said they authorized their countries are
enforced us to avenge the strikes by India. Hmmm, So,
India launched air strikes on Wednesday, something called Operation Sindhoor.
They targeted terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan and in the Pakistani
(29:10):
controlled Jamma and Kashmir region, where they said it was
the launch pad for the attack on tourists near the
town a Palagrim on the twice. Back on April twenty second,
Pakistan said the strikes had killed and injured civilians, including
a woman and childhood a mosque. Their National Security Council
called the strikes acts of war. And then they said
(29:33):
in a statement today this morning, in constance with Article
fifty one of the u in Charter, Pakistan reserves the
right to respond in self defense at a time, place
and manner of its choosing. They just copied it from
us to avenge the loss of innocent Pakistani lives and
blatant violations of our sovereignty. Oh, the Armed Forces of
(29:55):
Pakistan have been duly authorized to undertake corresponding actions in
this regard so they started shelling into Kashmir. India said
they killed several civilians. Pakistan also claimed that it shot
down several Indian military jets. So calling Margo Rubio, calling Rubio,
(30:20):
here we go. I always said there'd be some tipping point.
This may or may not be it. I have no
idea whether it is or not. But this is a
this is kind of the equivalent of And you could
read it either way. It's either the equivalent of North Korea,
(30:40):
because this is Kashmir of North Korea crossing into Pakistan,
just to put it geographically kind of that way, or
you could say it's the equivalent of South Korea deciding
to move in through the DMZ from the south. Although
Pakistan and India are really kind of east west, it's
also kind of a little south, a little north, so
(31:00):
it's somewhat analogous. But are these tensions are long standing
and there have been skirmishes in the Kashmir for decades
and now there's actually incursions terrorist attacks.
Speaker 2 (31:18):
Hmm.
Speaker 1 (31:20):
I'd like to know the who won't, where, when and why,
because that's going to tell us a lot about what's
going to happen next. And we could have a broader conflict,
Before we know
Popular Podcasts
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show. Clay Travis and Buck Sexton tackle the biggest stories in news, politics and current events with intelligence and humor. From the border crisis, to the madness of cancel culture and far-left missteps, Clay and Buck guide listeners through the latest headlines and hot topics with fun and entertaining conversations and opinions.