Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
The signs are all around us. The climate cult is losing its grip on our politics and culture. The UN’s climate conference, COP30 in Brazil, was a flop that even the alarmist cheerleaders in the legacy media could not ignore. A major paper justifying radical climate action was just retracted. The Sierra Club is shedding a shocking number of members. And when was the last time you saw climate alarmist propaganda shoved annoyingly into your favorite TV show or movie – which was very common not so long ago?
The Heartland Institute's Jim Lakely, Anthony Watts, Sterling Burnett, and Linnea Lueken will be joined by special guest and fan favorite Steve Milloy of Junkscience.com. We will also cover some of the Crazy Climate News of the Week, including an exodus from EPA, what climate policy failure looks like in graph form, perhaps the cringiest moment in COP history, and Donald Trump’s call to have those who have pushed climate alarmism investigated.
Join us LIVE at 1 p.m. ET on YouTube, Rumble, X, and Facebook.
Visit our sponsor, Advisor Metals: https://climaterealismshow.com/metals
In The Tank broadcasts LIVE every Thursday at 12pm CT on on The Heartland Institute YouTube channel. Tune in to have your comments addressed live by the In The Tank Crew. Be sure to subscribe and never miss an episode. See you there!
Climate Change Roundtable is LIVE every Friday at 12pm CT on The Heartland Institute YouTube channel. Have a topic you want addressed? Join the live show and leave a comment for our panelists and we'll cover it during the live show!
Climate Change Roundtable is LIVE every Friday at 12pm CT on The Heartland Institute YouTube channel. Have a topic you want addressed? Join the live show and leave a comment for our panelists and we'll cover it during the live show!
Creators and Guests
Host
Host
H. Sterling Burnett
H. Sterling Burnett, Ph.D., hosts The Heartland Institute’s Environment and Climate News podcast. Burnett also is the director of Heartland’s Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy, is the editor of Heartland's Climate Change Weekly email, and oversees the production of the monthly newspaper Environment & Climate News. Prior to joining The Heartland Institute in 2014, Burnett worked at the National Center for Policy Analysis for 18 years, ending his tenure there as senior fellow in charge of environmental policy. He has held various positions in professional and public policy organizations within the field. Burnett is a member of the Environment and Natural Resources Task Force in the Texas Comptroller’s e-Texas commission, served as chairman of the board for the Dallas Woods and Water Conservation Club, is a senior fellow at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, works as an academic advisor for Collegians for a Constructive Tomorrow, is an advisory board member to the Cornwall Alliance, and is an advisor for the Energy, Natural Resources and Agricultural Task Force at the American Legislative Exchange Council.
Host
What is Environment and Climate News Podcast ?
The Heartland Institute podcast featuring scientists, authors, and policy experts who take the non-alarmist, climate-realist position on environment and energy policy.
Country is to decisively defeat the climate hysteria hoax.
Greta Thunberg:We are in the beginning of a mass extinction.
Anthony Watts:The ability of c o two to do
Anthony Watts:the heavy work of creating a climate catastrophe is almost nil at this point.
Sterling Burnett:The price of oil has been artificially elevated to the point of insanity.
Sterling Burnett:That's not how you power a modern industrial system.
Andy Singer:The ultimate goal of this renewable energy, you know, plan is to reach the exact same point that we're at now.
Sterling Burnett:You know who's tried that? Germany. Seven straight days of no wind for Germany. Their factories are shutting down.
Linnea Lueken:They really do act like weather didn't happen prior to, like, 1910. Today is Friday.
Jim Lakely:That's right, Greta. It is Friday, and this is the best day of the week. Not just because the weekend is almost here in a holiday month, but because this is the day the Heartland Institute broadcasts the climate realism show. My name is Jim Lakeley. I'm executive vice president of the Heartland Institute.
Jim Lakely:We are an organization that has been around for forty one years. We are known as the leading global think tank pushing back on climate alarmism. The Heartland Institute and this show bring you the data, the science, the truth that counters the climate alarmist narrative you've been fed every single day of your life. There is nothing else quite like the climate realism show streaming anywhere. So I hope you will do us a big favor and bring friends to view this livestream every Friday at 1PM eastern time.
Jim Lakely:Oh, and also like, share, and subscribe, and be sure to leave your comments underneath this video. All of these very easy tasks help convince YouTube's mysterious algorithm to smile upon this program, and that gets the show in front of even more people. Oh, and as a reminder, because big tech and the legacy media do not really approve of the way we cover climate and energy policy on this program, Heartland's YouTube channel has been demonetized. So if you wanna support the program, and I hope you do, please visit heartland.org/tcrs. That's heartland.org/tcrs, and you can join other friends of the program who help bring this to the world every single week.
Jim Lakely:Oh, and we also wanna thank our streaming partners. That being z o two coalition, CFACT, junkscience.com, What's Up With That, and our friends at Heartland UK Europe. Alright. Let's get going. We have with us, as usual, Anthony Watts.
Jim Lakely:He is senior fellow at the Heartland Institute and publisher of the world's most viewed website on climate change. What's up with that? We have Sterling Burnett, the archbishop of Rancherbury, and his day job is being the director of the Arthur b Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy at the Heartland Institute. And we have Lanea Lukin, research fellow for energy and environment policy at Heartland, and we are very happy to welcome back to the show our friend and fan favorite, Steve Molloy. Steve is the founder of junkscience.com, a fellow at the Energy and Environment Legal Institute, a member of EPA transition team in the first Trump term, a board member at the Heartland Institute.
Jim Lakely:That's a lot to go over, so you can just call him the climate hoax slayer. Welcome, Steve. Thanks for having me. Yes. Good to have you.
Jim Lakely:I don't wanna apologize already to our audience. If if there are any production screw ups, it's all gonna be my fault, unfortunately. Well, fortunately for them, Andy Singer, our producer, is on PTO enjoying a little bit of time off today. So we will do our best to keep the show flowing as well as we can. So without further ado, because we have so much to cover today, let's start off as we like to every week with the crazy climate news of the week.
Jim Lakely:Thank you very much, Bill Nye. And I was gonna say hit it, Lynea, but I forgot to ask you to hit the button. So I
Linnea Lueken:Oh, yeah. I'm sorry. Well, you got it. I'm yeah. And, guys, if I'm slow on getting comments up or if I miss some questions and stuff today, sorry about that.
Linnea Lueken:I'm also helping to produce. So I'm not gonna be able to have my eye on the comments quite as much as I normally do.
Jim Lakely:We will do our best. Alright. This first item for today comes from Hot Air and I have oops. I should switch the what do we got here? Oh, yeah.
Jim Lakely:Switch our switch our thing. I can't find it. So we'll do it later. Oh, there it is. My apologies.
Jim Lakely:Zillow mellows out. This comes from our friends at Hot Air. Jeez. Now everything's messing up on my computer. Alright.
Jim Lakely:But this comes from, Zillow, as everybody knows, is the world's most used real estate listing site. They partnered last year with a company called First Street to provide climate risk assessments for each individual property. And those scores were aimed to quantify each home's risk of floods, wildfires, wind, extreme heat, and poor air quality. Those climate risk assessments, as you might expect, affected the price of homes, and people weren't too happy about it. Well, now Zillow is going to pull the plug, writes John Sexton over at Hot Air.
Jim Lakely:But what prompted this appears to be complaints from the California Regional Multiple Listing Service, which complained about the accuracy of the models by First Street. And here's a quote from a story about it in The New York Times. Displaying the profitability of a specific home flooding this year or within the next five years could have a significant impact on the perceived desirability of that property. No kidding. When we saw entire neighborhoods with a 50% probability of the home flooding this year and a 99% probability of the home flooding in the next five years, especially in areas that haven't flooded in the last forty or fifty years, we grew very suspicious.
Jim Lakely:Philip Zariello, a retired hydrologist previously with the US Geological Survey, first began questioning the first street flood risk scores when he was browsing properties on real estate listing websites and, on a whim, decided to check his own home located on the top of a hill. Quote, my house that I still own was rated a seven out of 10 risk, Zariela said, what 1st Street describes as a severe risk of flooding. I've been here twenty five years and never even had something that came close to a flood risk. Well, you know, what do you know, Philip Zarielo, whoever you are? You're just a hydrologist, but you're at a flood risk because the, experts in the climate cult said so.
Jim Lakely:By the way, just to put a wrap on this story, Zillow does not allow sellers to remove the climate risk data on their properties at their own request. So it's kinda like Wikipedia. It's your property. It's your life. It's your story, but you have no control over it.
Jim Lakely:Redfin and realtor.com actually allow you to do that. So let's get into this a little bit. Lanea, you shared this story with the group this week and on our, you know, messaging to each other. And Anthony said this is huge. Do you think this represents a significant move away from junk science?
Jim Lakely:Yet another instance in which keeping up with the narrative of climate disaster crumbles when it hits the reality of economics and people wanting to have the truth and not having any control.
Linnea Lueken:Yeah. I mean, how frustrating. You live at the top of a literal hill and and some random model that obviously can't take into account even topography apparently is telling you that your house is in a major flood zone risk. Yeah. I mean, a lot of the stuff that's run by what is it?
Linnea Lueken:1st Street? I think 1st Street is there's some kind of a, like, a finance company, aren't they?
Sterling Burnett:They're, yeah, financial adviser firm. They they
Jim Lakely:Yeah.
Sterling Burnett:They're like a little bit like BlackRock in them.
Linnea Lueken:Yeah. So why would Zillow even care what their opinion on who is in a flood zone is? Like, what what makes them an expert on that? They're not. They might they're we've cut those comments in front of Sterling.
Linnea Lueken:Can we drop the comment?
Sterling Burnett:Drop that then, please.
Linnea Lueken:We've got an echo. We've got an echo here.
Jim Lakely:Oh, it's probably it's probably an echo here. My fault? Maybe. Maybe. We'll stop.
Jim Lakely:Okay. Go ahead, Lanay.
Linnea Lueken:We are just all kinds of trouble today. Anyway, no. I it's it's frustrating for everyone. It's frustrating for realtors. The the idea that, you know, like, a professional photographer is gonna tell State Street that that or or Street that they are, you know, completely and utterly wrong with their analysis.
Linnea Lueken:And then to have Zillow still not remove the thing, but just or, like, still getting advice from these guys even if they're, like, provably wrong is ridiculous. Yeah. There really isn't much to say about it other than that it's dumb and and Zillow is dumb. So
Steve Milloy:Well, yeah. Plus that, you know, it's like it's like a pox on your house, you know. And it basically means somebody else's opinion and that's really all these climate ratings are. Somebody else's opinion basically devalues your house house, you know? You know?
Steve Milloy:That kind of a thing. You just can't even think about it being something you can sell. You know? Hold
Jim Lakely:on. So just one second. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I keep muting you.
Jim Lakely:You need to stay muted. I'm sorry.
Sterling Burnett:Oh, okay.
Jim Lakely:And maybe come back come back. Maybe dump out and come back again. There you go. Alright. Apologies, everyone.
Jim Lakely:Go ahead, Anthony. I'm sorry.
Steve Milloy:So, yeah, as I was saying, it's just like having a pox on your house. And, you know, why should you let someone else's opinion devalue your home? Particularly since there may be no other correlation to anything else other than this rating by, you know, Front Street. And we have debunked Front Street time and time again for their wildly inaccurate press releases that they put out to the media. We've done that time and time again on climaterealism.com.
Steve Milloy:And it it you know, I'm glad that Zillow finally saw the light. They must have had so much complaining from customers and from realtors that this just simply doesn't work and it hurt sales more than it helps them. I would think that they finally saw the light and said, enough of this. We're getting rid of it.
Jim Lakely:Alright, Steve. You can speak.
Speaker 1:Yeah. Okay. So, like, I don't really understand who believes, you know, these climate hoaxers in the first place. They've never been right about anything. Why would anyone think that, you know, they know what the risk of whatever, you know, catastrophe is to your house?
Speaker 1:So it's just ridiculous. And this is this is just more proof of that. They've never been right. They're never gonna be right because their fundamental assumptions are wrong. And, you you know, this is I guess if the all this is imploding at once, and we'll I guess we'll talk about that a little later.
Linnea Lueken:Well, what's crazy too is there's entire industry, you know, that's devoted to determining flood risk and flood zones and stuff. There are all sorts of people who are devoted to that science. So why would anyone lean on First Street's opinion on that over, you know, the official, like, state geologists and stuff?
Sterling Burnett:Is it First Street or State Street?
Linnea Lueken:It's 1st Street.
Jim Lakely:1st Street.
Speaker 1:Yeah. It could also be that First Street is running out of money, and Zillow was requiring money for the I don't know. We we we we don't know what the backstory is, but it probably involved money.
Jim Lakely:Well, I it seems to me that the the proper entity to determine flood risk is an insurance company, not some sort of third party, you know, climate alarmist outfit that is trying to grift off, you know, these sorts of determinations. And the the the thing that I that struck out at me, and I mentioned it in the setup, was how, you know, it it apparently worked like Wikipedia. I mean, don't do not look at the Heartland Stews Wikipedia entry. It's complete garbage. I've done I've talked about this on this podcast a few times.
Jim Lakely:Unless you want
Sterling Burnett:a laugh.
Jim Lakely:Yeah. It's unless you want a nice laugh. But, you know, the only thing it gets right, I think, is her address, but it might have the wrong address on there at this point. Who knows? But, you know, the people that are actually the subject of entries in Wikipedia are a 100% completely powerless to correct falsehoods, and it's that way by design.
Jim Lakely:So all of these third party, outfits makes me think maybe I'll trust AI more than I will trust biased people when it comes to this kind of garbage.
Sterling Burnett:Well, 1st Street has to be profiting from this in some way. My suspicion is they put out reports, and, they're paid for these reports. And regardless of where the reports turn to be right, they're paid for the information. You would think that, someone like Zillow or real estate, you know, real estate agents themselves would say, look. We we won't rely on someone who keeps putting out this kind of bad, faulty information.
Sterling Burnett:And, hopefully, this is a you know, this would be a shot across the 1st Street now.
Speaker 1:Yeah. Look. The bottom line is this kind of information does not help homeowners sell houses. It does not help real estate agents. And no doubt real estate agents said, what are you doing?
Speaker 1:Right? Right.
Jim Lakely:They're big clout. They're big Yep. If you if
Speaker 1:I live in the Gulf Coast, I'm never gonna I'm never gonna sell a house again.
Sterling Burnett:To be fair, though, I mean, I wanna say this. Look. Their job is not to sell houses. Their job is to, analyze risk to real estate, and market conditions. And why they bought the the climate Kool Aid, I can't explain that.
Sterling Burnett:Why Zillow relied on them on the climate Kool Aid, I can't explain that. But, you know, that's what they they claim they're doing is this, oh, the climate risk. Well, they're looking at bad data. First First Street? Yeah.
Speaker 1:First Street is just an alarmist outfit. I mean, they're it's just like an activist group. It's not a legitimate, you know, risk assessment type group. It's just it's an activist group pretending to be some sort of risk assessment operation.
Jim Lakely:Yeah. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
Sterling Burnett:I was thinking of First Street Capital. My mistake. Ellen did tell him I say never mind.
Jim Lakely:Never mind. Alright. Well, let's let's move on then to our next, oops, to our next item, which is oops. That's the wrong one. So there.
Jim Lakely:Here we go. It is a huge alarmist retraction, and this comes from the New York Times. This is pretty big, pretty big story. The headline is top journal retracts study predicting catastrophic climate toll. In April 2024, the prestigious journal Nature released a study finding that climate change would cause far more economic damage by the end of the century than previous estimates had suggested.
Jim Lakely:The conclusion grabbed headlines and citations around the world and was incorporated in risk management scenarios used by central banks. On Wednesday, Nature retracted it, adding to the debate on the extent of climate change's toll on society. So you hear that, guys? By the way, they bury the lead. There's a debate on climate change.
Jim Lakely:It's now been stated in the New York Times, so it actually exists. That's great. The decision came after a team of economists noticed problems with the data for one country, Uzbekistan, that significantly skewed the results. If Uzbekistan were excluded, they found, the damages would look similar to earlier research. Instead of a 62% decline in economic output by 2,100 in a world where carbon emissions continue unabated, global output would be reduced by only 23%.
Jim Lakely:Of course, erasing more than 20 this is from the New York Times. Of course, erasing more than 20% of the world's economic economic activity would still be a devastating blow to human welfare. The paper's detractors emphasize that climate change is a major threat, of course, they do, as read them recent meta analyses have found, and that more should be done to address it, but they say unusual results should be treated skeptically. Reactions have become more retractions have become more common in recent years according to Retraction Watch, an organization that tracks corrections in scientific journals. But they are still rare amounting to about one in 500 articles published.
Jim Lakely:Economists have long struggled to incorporate granular, sometimes subtle impacts of climate change into models that forecast far into the future, especially when combining them with something as complex as the global economy. You know, that's enough. The New York Times goes on to, you know, make pains to say this is really no big deal, this correction, but it's it is a fact that this paper that was retracted was the second most cited climate paper in media and social media since its release. Thousands and thousands of times, about at least 5,000. But I guess oh, well, never mind.
Jim Lakely:Steve, I'd love to start with you since you're the junk science You know? This is junk science.
Speaker 1:You know, why was this study ever even published? You know, since climate idiocy began circa 1990, global GDP is up almost 400%. The the note and the notion that someone can predict what global GDP is gonna be in 2100, you know, plus or minus a couple percent because of plant food emissions is just is just absurd. And if we're gonna start, you know, retracting climate studies, there's there are probably hundreds of thousands of climate studies that have all been wrong that all need to be retracted. That's my my my sort of general comments.
Speaker 1:Now yesterday, so and and this study that's being retracted came from the Potsdam Institute in Germany. So yesterday, I posted something about, weather in Washington DC and how it you know, you know, global warming's got nothing to do with anything. And and this morning, I opened up my Twitter, I see that Stefan Ramsdorf from Potsdam decided to reply to that. He goes, no wonder they call you Junk Science. Well, I named myself Junk Science my website Junk Science, and so it's my handle on Twitter.
Speaker 1:It's not you know, nobody calls me that. But but, you know, the irony, is that here, the day after this study from the Potsdam Institute, this highly cited study is retracted, I hear from Stefan Romsdorf of the Potsdam Institute criticizing me when he really should be, you know, asking his institution, what the hell are you guys doing?
Sterling Burnett:A little self reflection would have been warranted there. Yeah. You know, when that study first came out, guys like myself, I think you, Steve, some others, immediately jumped on it. We saw it. How can tiny Uzbekistan their economy is is nothing in the global GDP.
Sterling Burnett:How could the impact on them drive, the huge losses these guys predicted? We knew that was wrong. We knew that they had used false alarming scenarios. What they called business as usual emissions is nowhere near business as usual. They made so many errors, but it got through peer review.
Sterling Burnett:It got through peer review. It did its damage. It's been cited everywhere. We criticized it at the time. They're now having to come back and basically confirm every one of our complaints.
Sterling Burnett:But as you said, Jim, The New York Times and all the others covering it say, still still lend support to the study of its findings. First, they say, well, now its findings are in line with what others have said. That's not true. It's still higher than almost everybody else has ever projected for losses. But it's not losses.
Sterling Burnett:It's reduced economic growth in the future. And, if you can't if if they get if they're so grossly wrong, and it's gross, you know, a 40 something percent drop in their estimates, but you can trust their new estimates. Now that they stripped out Uzbekistan, that's the only problem. Strip that out and it turns out, oh, well. It's okay.
Sterling Burnett:They're still at 23% losses. No. It's BS, folks. If if they make that one mistake and it's had to be withdrawn, don't trust that, well, what still remains, they must be right about that.
Speaker 1:So so, Sterling, you're you're a lot more curate you were a lot more curious about this study than I was. I mean, the notion that people are, you know, plus minus few percent GDP seventy five years from now is just absurd, number one. Number two, let's say it was a legitimate estimate. None of us are gonna be alive to see whether it was true. So what's the point?
Speaker 1:It's just propaganda. Right? It's not it's not science. It's not analysis. It's garbage.
Speaker 1:It always was all all of it. Anything anytime you see somebody making a projection, a hundred year seventy five, a hundred years, even twenty, you know, if it can't be there verified with you know, in some reasonable way within a reasonable time frame, it's just junk science to coin a phrase.
Jim Lakely:Yeah. Well, Anthony, I mean, I wanna get you in here too. You know, in the show notes here, I mentioned maybe Lania can bring it up on the screen, but, you know, you had shared this with us as well. Remembering when they said that climate change was gonna cause a mass extinction. And in fact, Greta's quote of that is actually in our opening, our opening, theme song there.
Jim Lakely:But it shows that, let me just read a bit because you posted about this on What's Up With That. And you meant it mentions here that prominent research studies have suggested that our planet is currently experiencing another mass extinction based on extrapolating extinctions from the past five hundred years into the future and the idea that extinction rates are rapidly accelerating. But a new study by Christian Sabin and John Weins at the University of Arizona Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology revealed that over the last five hundred years, extinctions in plants, arthropods, and land vertebrates peaked about a hundred years ago and have declined since then. So, more shaky science and more, Emily Litella. Never mind.
Jim Lakely:You're on mute, Anthony.
Steve Milloy:Hold a Jim. Yeah. These people you know, I was having a conversation with Charles Roder, my editor in chief over at WhatsUp this morning. We were talking about the fact that these people that write these things seem to be completely blind to everything except what their tunnel visioned on. You know, their tunnel visioned on completing this paper, They're tunnel visioned on the result and the claim and the headline.
Steve Milloy:But when the the reality around them, they don't pay attention to that. I mean, Willis Etchenbach published an essay on Whatsapp with that over ten years ago, basically saying, so if all of these animals are going extinct, where are the bodies? We're not seeing you know? Imagine, if you will. Let's say, so we have the an oil spill happens around Florida.
Steve Milloy:And, of course, the media runs down there, and all the waterfowl and so forth that gets oil on them. That's front page news. Oh. Oh. Oh.
Steve Milloy:So where's the body's front page news about, you know, some rare, whatchamacallit, bird going extinct? You know? And we're finding more and more stories lately in the media of stuff they thought went extinct now being, oh, there it is. Gosh. We didn't realize it was still alive.
Steve Milloy:That's I I can think of at least three or four instances in the last five years where that's happened. They claim extinction. It doesn't happen. Nature finds a way. End of story.
Steve Milloy:It's just junk science.
Sterling Burnett:I I I wrote about this
Jim Lakely:Good term.
Sterling Burnett:I wrote about this more than 30 ago in my dissertation. All these claims of mass extinction going back to the Ehrlichs. They wrote a whole book. The book is called extinction. Hundreds of millions of animals are gonna go away.
Sterling Burnett:It's the fastest rate of extinction is since the dinosaurs died, when when the comet struck the earth. You know, it's like, they've been saying this for years. It's all based on island biogeography, which is, by the way, discussed in this paper. It was never a good fit for any land based, you know, something that's not isolated somewhere where animals can't leave the area when you destroy habitat. What they confirmed is that habitat destruction is still the biggest cause of extinction, some invasive species.
Sterling Burnett:But the bottom line is extinction rates are lower now than they have been in five hundred years. Climate change is going on all around us, I'm told. It's very alarming, and yet extinction rates are low. We've been told that, as Greta says, we're experiencing mass extinctions. The only mass extinction we're experiencing is the extinction of climate alarm.
Sterling Burnett:All the studies that are having to be retracted, all the falsehoods that are being debunked daily at climate realism, for instance. I I, you know, I wrote about this in climate change weekly this week. This is just more evidence. But like I said, I was writing about this thirty years ago in my dissertation. We knew that the mass extinction things I went through all the litany of the different studies that said, this is the right.
Sterling Burnett:This is the right. This is the right. None of them confirmed. None of them could be confirmed. You know, we we discover new species every year.
Sterling Burnett:We discover species that are extinct, as Anthony said, that aren't extinct after all. And we have to guess. Pure
Linnea Lueken:How dare you?
Sterling Burnett:Yeah. It's pure speculation. Pure speculation as to how many species exist on Earth, and it's pure speculation as to how many or the rate of extinction of those species. Yeah. So it's, and yet when they talk about species extinction, you know what they don't ever show?
Sterling Burnett:The pictures are never a snail or a small crustacean in a muddy pond, which are where they said most of the extinctions have come is ant you know? Negafauna. Sea life. Yeah. They show polar bears, which are, increasing in number or, you know, other things that people care about.
Sterling Burnett:The beautiful big eyed seals. They show a seal. They say extinction. The or they show, you know,
Jim Lakely:something that
Sterling Burnett:yeah. Shows Well, there you go. Well, I I I get a lot of those.
Speaker 1:You you know, the the irony of the whole extinction thing is that, you know, the Earth is greener now than it has been in the past thanks to warming and more c o two. And it's so green, even the oceans are turning green because there's more, you know, plankton life going on. So there's more more fish and other marine life. And there's just no basis to any of this ex I mean, I am waiting for someone, and I've been asking this for more than a decade now. Please show me some species that carbon dioxide has made extinct.
Linnea Lueken:Steve, what are you talking about? If if forests expand and the deserts shrink, then where are the Sidewinders going to live? It's going to be a terrible viper apocalypse for those poor little critters.
Jim Lakely:Save the side wide side wide Maybe they'll adapt. Yeah. That feels like a T shirt in the making. Alright. Makes sense.
Speaker 1:But that's another look. That's another point. You know, like, so all these people, you know, they they love to bring up Darwin and how conservative is, not really on board with Darwin, etcetera. So if you believe in adaptation, then things can adapt. Right?
Speaker 1:Sidewinders aren't gonna go and it's a good everyone's gonna adapt.
Jim Lakely:Right.
Sterling Burnett:Yeah. But they they have a view of the world that the world should stay as it is at some point in time that they pick.
Jim Lakely:Sterling, for
Sterling Burnett:for the spotted owl for the spotted owl, they want it to be like the nineteen seventies. And so no barred owls are going into spotted owl territory territory Yeah. And interbreeding. So we gotta start shooting a lot of barred owls.
Jim Lakely:Look. Look. The the the human species adapted to ice ages and coming out of ice ages. Other animals can do it too, and we didn't have any technology then. So I think everyone can calm down.
Jim Lakely:Alright. Let let let's move on. Here's a let's get to a little bit of data. We'd like to have a little data.
Steve Milloy:That was our red meat episode, by the way.
Jim Lakely:Yeah. Alright. This is, this is called chilling out in November. It is, only December 5. So this is from the Electroverse Substack.
Jim Lakely:Global temps cooled in November. So let's do a quick check of this data. Global temperatures cooled again according to the latest University of Alabama at Huntsville update. The month came in at 0.43 c versus the nineteen ninety one to twenty twenty mean down from 0.53 Celsius in October. The steepest cool downs were noted across, one, Australia, which saw a drop from 1.67 c to 0.37 c, the Arctic, which fell from 1.42 c to 0.78 c, and the Southern Hemisphere overall, which pulled from 0.55 c to 0.27 c.
Jim Lakely:Overall, the 2023 twenty twenty four Hunga Tonga eruption warming spike continues to unwind with global temperatures now having fallen roughly half a degree Celsius from the recent peak. Australia now looks and we have a lot of viewers in Australia. Hello over there. Now looks to be continuing its cool down into December at least across the East. A win a wintry like blast gripped Victoria, New South Wales, and parts of Queensland on Monday delivering among the coldest summer temperatures ever logged.
Jim Lakely:Sterling, no other man than this brick climate expert Al Roker on the Today Show assures me that even colder temperatures are the fault of global warming.
Sterling Burnett:Well, everything is the fault of global warming, Jim. That's why they call it global warming and not climate change or I mean, that's that that's why they shifted to climate change rather than global warming. It's hard to say colder temperatures are the fault of global warming. The I I wanna I wanna endorse, by the way, the sub the substack channel Electroverse. They do if you wanna know about what's going on around the world, cold temperature wise, that's the place to go daily.
Sterling Burnett:They highlight all the records that are falling, you know, whether it's in Canada, whether it's in Europe, the early snows in the Alps, wherever. Great stuff. And he highlights all these places. You know, you never hear about it. New York Times doesn't report on it.
Sterling Burnett:The Financial Post in Canada doesn't report on it. When records are falling now I saw I think the Washington Post, published a story this week. It was the Post or maybe New York where you'll see records fall, in the in the next week, cold weather records. Those cold weather records were set more than a 100 years ago. All the c o two emitted into the atmosphere, all the rising concentrations, and they're setting new records for cold?
Sterling Burnett:I'm sorry. That's not what they said would happen in 1988 when James Hansen, which first testified before congress. In fact, they're saying, we're gonna see the end of snow. Our children won't know what snow looks like. Instead, snow's breaking out all over.
Sterling Burnett:Cold weather's breaking out all over, and so they just have to change their tune. It's one more, it's more one more claim in the extinction hit list of climate alarmist. Anthony?
Steve Milloy:Well, you know, I'm gonna use a commonly used phrase to describe what's going on here. It's not the heat. It's the humidity. And the the they're exactly right, about Hunga Tonga. You know, Hunga Tonga threw all of this water vapor into the atmosphere in twenty twenty one, twenty twenty two.
Steve Milloy:And as we all know, water vapor is the most potent greenhouse gas. Without water vapor, we'd all be in the frozen zone. And so water vapor keeps the earth comfortable. It also exchanges heat, you know, and all sorts of other things through convection and everything else. So it's super important.
Steve Milloy:But the fact is is that that big injection of water vapor is now slowly coming out. And if we go back to look at the graph briefly, you can see that, just a couple of years ago in the UAH graph, it peaked. And now we're on our way down. Can we bring the graph back up somebody?
Jim Lakely:Yep. Linea is on it. Linea is on it. Right.
Steve Milloy:There we go. Thank you. So look. We have that peak that happened in 2024. Big peak.
Steve Milloy:Biggest peak of the whole, you know, period of measurement or back to 1979. So now we're on this slow slide downward, and it mirrors what happened in 1998. Look at that one. That's when we had the monster El Nino. And that monster El Nino warmed the planet up.
Steve Milloy:It was the basis for everyone freaking out and saying climate change is real. It's happening. Oh, no. Look at the temperature. But look.
Steve Milloy:It came down. It came down and went below the normal. So the same thing's gonna happen here with the water injection from Hunga Tonga that we saw in 2024 peaking out. It's going to dry out. The atmosphere is gonna dry out.
Steve Milloy:The temperature's slowly gonna come down. Whether it'll come down to previous levels, you know, like what we saw in 2019 or or maybe a little further back in in 2011 or 2012, I don't know. But the bottom line is is that that peak, neither of those big peaks on that graph were caused by climate change. And anyone who tells you they were is full of carp.
Sterling Burnett:It's full of carbon emissions.
Linnea Lueken:Full of carp.
Sterling Burnett:Yeah.
Linnea Lueken:Or is it perhaps bull shark?
Jim Lakely:It's full it's full
Sterling Burnett:of methane is what they're full of.
Speaker 1:So let let me explain to you how cold it is outside. Now I don't live wherever the average global temperature is. I live in Washington DC. And to Washington DC today, the high will be 34 degrees, which is pretty cold. And that 34 degrees is colder than every daily high except for one for this calendar date between 1872 to 1899.
Speaker 1:Today's 34 degrees will be, what is it, five degrees lower than well, I'm sorry, one degree lower than the minimum for a hundred hundred and fifty years ago today. Today's temperature will be 18 degrees below the calendar day average, 41 degrees below the calendar day high. That's how cold it is, and that is despite a hundred and fifty years of urban heat on effect and emissions and manipulated temperatures and all that. I wonder how cold is it really outside?
Jim Lakely:Yeah. Well, I'll tell you it's cold in the Northwest Suburbs of Chicago. It was 14 degrees below normal yesterday. It was four degrees at 06:00 at night on December 4. I mean, this is it's you know, it's just but, hey, that's cold weather.
Jim Lakely:We're having a little cold. The the weather We must get
Speaker 1:to net zero because every emission matters. That's what they think.
Linnea Lueken:It's pretty funny too. I was reading an article this morning working on a post for climate realism. It'll probably go up next week about a World Meteorological Organization report on, like, the Arab region talking about how, you know, it's so hot there. Everyone's burning up and stuff. And this Financial Times article reporting on it is talking about how all of this these heat waves and stuff are due to climate change.
Linnea Lueken:And 2024 is because, you know, climate you know, human driven climate warming has caused, you know, deadly heat and flooding and also everything else you can imagine across the Arab Peninsula and North Africa and stuff. So they they they're going on at length. And then towards the end of the article, they say, though this year is probably gonna be quite a bit colder because of the natural phenomena of La Nina driving temperatures lower. There is I I word searched on this article. They don't, like, mention El Nino once in the article.
Linnea Lueken:So El Nino isn't natural, and that can't be the reason why the spike was was high last year. But La Nina is driving temperatures down, you know, extra, and it's natural. What? I just I hate this stuff. It drives me up a freaking wall.
Linnea Lueken:The the the media is a scourge, honestly.
Sterling Burnett:You know, here in Dallas, we had a a warm October for the most part. We we had a a warm October. We had a few days that are cold. But, you know, it's just December. We haven't entered winter yet.
Sterling Burnett:Now in Dallas, we are ten and fifteen degrees below the average temperature. The average temperature right now you know, Steve Steve brought this up. The average temperature for Dallas at this time is where is it? The highs are are can be in the seventies or the sixties. The lows rarely below, the fifties.
Sterling Burnett:We went we were in the thirties last night. We were in the thirties. Two we were in 20 high 22 twenties two nights ago. We were in the thirties now. It's not Chicago cold.
Sterling Burnett:I know that. It's not South Dakota cold where I've lived or Ohio cold where I've lived. But for Dallas, it's pretty cold. It's, it's not average or typical weather, and you'd wonder why that is because, you know, Dallas is not a small city. Like you said, Steve talked about, we have an urban heat island effect here.
Sterling Burnett:I'm living in it. Yeah. But still, we're well, well below average temperatures. This proves once again, it's not emissions. It's weather.
Jim Lakely:Well, if it gets to 34 degrees here in Northern Illinois again, I'll be out there in my flip flop and shorts finishing the shoveling job in my driveway. Alright.
Sterling Burnett:I I don't need to you've now imprinted that image on my mind.
Jim Lakely:Gary, you need to do that. I I didn't say the only things I'd be wearing would be shorts and flip flops. No. Yeah. Alright.
Jim Lakely:Moving on. Let's see. Yeah. This is you can put this in the good news from our perspective departments, and that is kind of the theme of today's show. This comes from our friend Joe Nova, and this is the Sierra Club is shedding members.
Jim Lakely:Joe writes the phrase the the phase change continues. The Sierra Club loses 60% of members, and 350.org is suspended. She writes already some US grassroots organizations are having an existential crisis. Actually, the Sierra Club has been struggling for three years, but no one wanted to mention that. Francis Menton at the Manhattan Contrarian points out the extraordinary collapse of the largest US environmental group, the Sierra Club.
Jim Lakely:The Sierra Club is in the middle of what would might be called an implosion. The New York Times reported on the story on November 7, and here's an excerpt. The Sierra Club calls itself, quote, the largest and most influential grassroots environmental organization in the country, but it is in the middle of an implosion left weakened, distracted, and divided just as environmental protections are under assault by the Trump administration. The group has lost 60% of the 4,000,000 members and supporters it counted in 2019. It has held three rounds of employee layoffs since 2022, trying to out of a $40,000,000 projected budget deficit.
Jim Lakely:Must be nice. This year, the Trump administration returned better organized and better prepared than its first term. The Sierra Club was the opposite. While mister Trump boosted coal power, canceled wind farms, and rolled back pollution limits, the club was consumed by internal chaos culminating when the board fired its executive director, Ben Jealous, former president of the NAACP.
Steve Milloy:Ben Jealous? Is that a real name?
Jim Lakely:That is a real name. I remember him being president of the NAACP when I was in the news business. Alright. Anyway, Joe goes a note what we had mentioned couple years ago, and that's that, 350.org, Bill McKibben's lucrative climate cult project is, lucrative no more. It suspended operations, and surely, that suspension, would think, is gonna be permanent.
Jim Lakely:Joe also mentions a piece by our friend Steven Hayward, who wrote for, Civitas the Civitas Institute titled the death rattle of apocalyptic environmentalism. Steve writes, quote, none of the American TV news networks sent reporters to this year's COP down in Brazil, and major print media are rapidly cutting back on climate coverage. A few reporters at the COP down in Brazil filed stories wondering wondering whether this would be the very last COP meeting. I will start with you, Anthony, after that setup. The Sierra Club losing 60% of its members and running a $40,000,000 deficit.
Jim Lakely:By the way, put this up on the screen in a minute, but the Sierra Club reported a 173,000,000 of revenue in 2023 and a $169,000,000 of revenue in 2024. So don't cry too much of a river for those guys.
Steve Milloy:I have one comment. All I need to say, really.
Jim Lakely:Lene is killing us with these drops. It's great.
Linnea Lueken:Oh, I didn't do that.
Steve Milloy:Oh, that was a That's me.
Jim Lakely:Oh, boy. Yeah. We shouldn't give everybody the keys to the back end producer.
Steve Milloy:I'm not on the back end. I got it right here linked into my microphone.
Jim Lakely:Oh, great. Anyway, let me just show you. There's there's something here. Let's remove that. Add this to the stage.
Jim Lakely:Yeah. I just wanted to put up here. So Sierra Club, yeah, if they've shed 60% of their members, maybe those members are tired of the Sierra Club focusing on climate alarmism when they thought they were donating to an ecological organization. But you see there that Megan, Steve can Steven and Anthony probably are good people to weigh in on this. This idea that the that our side, that people skeptical of climate alarmism are the ones who are just swimming in in big oil money and all this other stuff.
Jim Lakely:This is one organization. This is just a Sierra Club. A $169,000,000, which was down from the previous year. The heartless juice barometer forty one years. I'd have to do the math.
Jim Lakely:I don't think we've raised that much money in forty one years.
Speaker 1:Yeah. You know, you you could add up all the money that deserving groups get for climate, and it doesn't even come close to just one year for the Sierra Club.
Jim Lakely:Yeah. They
Sterling Burnett:as I mentioned earlier, Sierra Club's not the only one, you know, 350.org, multimillion dollar lost in a year to shut down. Greenpeace USA may be shut down soon due to a a lawsuit that they lost.
Jim Lakely:Natural Resources Defense Council is another one, big one. Yeah.
Sterling Burnett:Yeah. Six Greenpeace was levied an initial fine of $600,000,000 for their losses. Greenpeace International said we can't pay that. We're gonna fight. They, on appeal, it was cut back to, I think, $400,000,000.
Sterling Burnett:Greenpeace USA may not survive. Now it's indicative. I think the dollars people are waking up, but, also, I think some people who really like these organizations in general think they've left their core missions. You know, Great Peace used to defend whales. Now they want offshore wind farms that kill whales.
Sterling Burnett:Sierra Club used to be about protecting wild lands. Now they're about erecting wind farms and solar panels, solar facilities, which destroy wild lands. The Audubon Society is supporting wind and solar. I bet they're shedding members and and and money because they're supporting technologies that are killing birds. When when environmental groups with a long history of certain kinds of beliefs start getting into social engineering and social topics that's not really in their wheelhouse, people who've always supported them start to pull away.
Sterling Burnett:Look. About a decade, decade and a half ago, Sierra Club got into the immigration debate, and there was a huge split. Directors had to leave because they wanted they joined with conservatives, wanted to stop immigration because all these immigrants were coming in and taking up our land, and we gotta preserve this land. So it's, it does not hurt my soul to see the decline of all these organizations. I only wish that that decline in membership would be matched by a big drop in funding like it has with 350.org.
Jim Lakely:Yeah. I mean, I I used to joke that, they spend more on catering than the entire, you know, their events than we do, as entire organization. It's pretty it's pretty outrageous. Alright. So let's get to our what I would call our our main topic today, and that is the end of the climate cult.
Jim Lakely:You know, on this show, a lot of a lot of our fans come into the chat as much as an hour early to start exchanging their their thoughts and and saying hi to each other. And I saw early on in the chat that some were talking about, that they don't think that this is the end of the climate cult, but, that has been making the news today. And and the prompting for this was a piece in the spectator by Matt Ridley that's gotten a lot of attention, and it was titled the end of the climate cult. Again, we've been using that theme on this show for quite a while, especially in the last year since the twenty twenty four election. And you're gonna I'm gonna read from this, and you're gonna hear a lot of what if you're a regular listener or viewer of this program, a lot of this is gonna sound very, very familiar, but it's a very good piece.
Jim Lakely:I will after the show, I'll put the links to all of this in the show in the description so you can read these things for yourself. It's definitely worth doing it. But this is pretty fun. Let me read from it for you. Finally, thankfully, the global warming craze is dying out.
Jim Lakely:To paraphrase Monty Python, the climate parrot may still be nailed to its perch at the recent COP summit in Berlin, Brazil or at Harvard or on CNN, but elsewhere, it's dead. It's gone to meet its maker. Kick the bucket. Shuffled off this mortal coil. Run down the curtain and join the choir invisible.
Jim Lakely:By failing to pledge a cut in fossil fuels, Kop achieved less than nothing. The venue caught fire. The air conditioning malfunctioned, and delegates were told on arrival not to flush toilet paper. Bill Gates' recent apologia in which he conceded that global warming, quote, will not lead to humanity's demise after he closed the policy and advocacy office of his climate philanthropy group is just the latest nail in the coffin. In October, the net zero banking alliance shut down after JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley, Wells Fargo, and Goldman Sachs led a stampede of other banks out the door.
Jim Lakely:Shell and BP have returned to being oil companies to the delight of their shareholders. Ford is about to cease production of electric pickups that nobody wants. Hundreds of other companies are dropping their climate targets. Australia has backed out of hosting next year's climate conference. According to an analysis by the Washington Post, it's not just Republicans who have given up on climate change.
Jim Lakely:The Democratic Party has stopped talking about it, hardly mentioning it during Kamala Harris's campaign for president last year. The topic has been dropped to the bottom half of a table of 23 concerns among Swedish youths, Greta's home country. Even the European parliament has voted to exempt many companies from reporting rules that require them to state how they are helping to fight climate change. It has been a long, lucrative ride predicting the eco apocalypse has always been a profitable business, spawning subsidies, salaries, consulting fees, air miles, bestsellers, and research grants. Different themes took turns as the scare du jour.
Jim Lakely:Overpopulation, oil spills, pollution, desertification, mass extinction, acid rain, the ozone layer, nuclear winter, falling sperm counts. Each faded as the evidence became more equivocal, the public grew bored, and in some cases, the problem was resolved by a change in the law or practice. But no scare grew as big or lasted as long as global warming. The activists who took over the climate debate, often with minimal understanding of climate science, competed for attention by painting ever more catastrophic pictures of future global warming. Quote, I'm talking about the slaughter, death, and starvation of 6,000,000,000 people this century.
Jim Lakely:That's what the science predicts, said Roger Hallum, founder of Extinction Rebellion in 2019, though the science says no such thing. Scientists knew that pronouncements like this were nonsense, but they turned a blind eye because the alarm kept the grant money coming. Now the alarmist scare is fading. A scramble for the exits is beginning among the big environmental groups, and donations are drying up. And this I just wanna read the concluding paragraph by the great Matt Ridley.
Jim Lakely:The climate catastrophe has been a terrible mistake. It diverted attention from real environmental problems, cost of fortune, impoverished consumers, perpetuated poverty, frightened young people into infertility, wasted years of our time, undermined democracy and corrupted science. It's time to bury the parrot. Now as I said, thank you for your indulgence and your attention to this matter. I really enjoyed reading that, and I hope you enjoyed listening to it.
Jim Lakely:Steve well, all of us on this podcast well, most of us, three of the five have been in the climate policy game for a very long time. Steve, there was nothing in that story that you have not heard before, but it must have been nice to see it.
Speaker 1:Yeah. I mean, I have mixed feelings about it. I don't I don't really think they're going away. I mean, I they are having difficulty. They've been having difficulty for the last couple years, and and we've all talked about that a lot.
Speaker 1:They have a but they have a lot invested in this. Right? They still have there's still $500,000,000,000 worth of green new scam money. You know, China has got a dog in this fight. We were just laughing about the Sierra Club.
Speaker 1:You know, their donations going from, like, what, a 173,000,000 down to a 169,000,000. They still have a lot of money. You know, they they have taken big hits, big losses, but they got plenty of resources. And I think it's just a matter of time before they come back. If we get a democrat president, in 2028, then, you know, all this stuff is gonna come rushing back.
Speaker 1:So, you know, I'm not I'm not counting my chickens yet. I know that we've got a long fight ahead of us. It it you know, maybe it's in a bit of a swoon right now, but they'll come roaring back.
Jim Lakely:Yep. Sterling, you wanted to get in here?
Sterling Burnett:Yeah. Well, you know, it's not just, the story you quoted by Matt Ridley that's meant that doing this, but the Los Angeles Times posted a story today. It was also published in Newsweek. I don't know where it appeared first. Now you gotta remember, Los Angeles Time, more than a decade ago, said they would never ever allow a climate skeptic to publish in their paper again.
Sterling Burnett:They know there was no question about climate alarm. There was no question that humans were destroying the environment. They would never take letters to the editor. They wouldn't take editorials. That was their stance.
Sterling Burnett:And now we see this, the welcome demise of climate change, climate catastrophism. And it goes through this litany of horribles that that, that really went through. Looks at some different ones. Now I I share Steve's concern that this made might not be the permanent demise, but no environmentalism, as far as I can tell, has ever been the permanent demise. He and I both been around long enough to see lots of different things, be hyped as the next big scare.
Sterling Burnett:Climate change is, a good one for them because, well, climate's always changing. So so it it's a control knob for everything. Not everything, not all the other causes. But if they move off of you know, if if if climate change if a stake is finally driven through its heart, and and we won't know that for a few years. We we may not know it until after the next presidential election.
Sterling Burnett:And they but they start moving they're gonna start shifting to another cause of climate change. They can't resurrect it. And and the public poll shows there's very little appetite for resurrecting it. They've hardly moved the needle with thirty years propaganda for the public's concern. The public doesn't wanna pay for it.
Sterling Burnett:The same peep the same people that believed it before believe it now, though a few less of them. And so the question is someone raised, well, if climate change goes array over in the comment section, what's next? Well, we're already seeing some of it. Microplastics. They're killing us.
Sterling Burnett:Chemicals. Some of the stuff that's coming out of the NIH scares me when it comes to chemicals. We can't have colored cereals anymore because, evidently, they've been killing our children for seventy years, and we just didn't know it. You know, my my, the the Froot Loops I ate, when I was a kid. I guess I'm I'm due for cancer anytime.
Sterling Burnett:But the the point is they'll always have something. There'll always be some disaster for these people to grab onto and take your money. The question is whether climate change will make the comeback and be the big thing it was. And the one reason for thinking it might is because, you know, you can get rid of the color in cereals. You can, fix plastics, solve that, clean it up.
Sterling Burnett:You can't control the climate, and that's what they say they need to do. So they can always come back to it. So, anyway but like I said, that story that that Jim read, Matt Ridley, it's not the only one that's recognizing this. Right?
Jim Lakely:Oh, no.
Sterling Burnett:It's skepticism. What we've been championing for decades, it's breaking out all
Steve Milloy:over. Anthony? You know, it's it's it's it's the nature of humanity to fear something unknown in the future. I've seen this happen time and time again. You'll you you can go back and look, you know, to premodern times, and people feared all sorts of catastrophes, you know, happening to them.
Steve Milloy:Actually, some of them are real, you know. But the point is is that there always seems to be this fear of catastrophe in the future. It seems to be ingrained into us as if it's some sort of a defense mechanism that's built into our, you know, our genes, our makeup. But the bottom line is is that almost every kind of future catastrophe imaginable that we've seen come into the media and into the scientific literature over the past century has not occurred. I mean, you go look at what happened with, you know, the the fear of extinction and the food crisis back in the seventies.
Steve Milloy:You know? That never happened. And yet the guy who who published on this, Ehrlich, he won't even admit that he was wrong even though it never materialized because guess what? It was peer reviewed.
Sterling Burnett:Yeah. I like to point out, Anthony is a 100% right. They've always done this.
Steve Milloy:People have never had that happen. Thank you. Thank you.
Sterling Burnett:A hundred and fifty years ago, people stood on the street corners with placards saying, repent. The end is near. And sane people crossed the streets to avoid them. The it was it was always the same problem. Human sin, in this case, it it modern times, it's the sin of using fossil fuels of of development.
Sterling Burnett:In the old times, it was different kinds of sin, but it was the same. Repent. The end is near. Humans are at fault, and there's a path forward. And now we invite these same peep these same placard wielding people, these same screamers to testify in the halls of congress rather than avoiding them or at the UN if they want to if they're a 16 year old, then 16 or 15 year old youth because we all know youths know more about everything than anybody else.
Sterling Burnett:Just ask my
Speaker 1:When when Ehrlich wrote population bomb, do you do you know what his specialty is it academic specialty was?
Steve Milloy:I don't know.
Speaker 1:It was butterflies. He's a butterfly. And then he, you know, he got the chance to write this book, and and he you know, no one no one pointed that out at the time. He is a he was always a fool. He was always stupid.
Speaker 1:And, I mean, you're right. People will always you know, there are there's just this permanent cat catastrophist element to society. But what was what was different about climate is it developed this political agenda. You know, the environment used to just be, you know, like Sterling was said, people cared about the environment, but then it became politicized. And and politicization is what made it this huge force.
Speaker 1:It got at the trillion dollars, you know, out of the inflation reduction act and got it to the UN and, you know, all the different agendas just sort of melded together to push the politics up.
Jim Lakely:Yeah. I mean, Steve, I know you're you're more skeptical than I am about, you know, the the end is near for the climate cult or the climate cult's in decline. I I get that.
Speaker 1:Well, they're not gonna go the left is not going away. K? The I mean, the left is there to implement the left's agenda. They you know, this has been tremendously successful. So it's had a burp for, you know, the past year or so, but it will come back.
Speaker 1:I I I've seen it right now. In the Washington Post, this week, there's big article about phthalates. Phthalates are chemicals used in plastics. And, you know, we debunked this twenty five years ago, but they just recycle this stuff because Gen Zers have never heard of any of this stuff.
Jim Lakely:Well, that's my point. It's like you don't have to reorganize all of society because of microplastics. You have to reorganize all of society because carbon dioxide emissions by humans are causing a climate catastrophe from which we'll never recover. That theory is being fully debunked. And when you see mainstream or legacy media outlets finally allowing other people to say so publicly, that has an effect.
Jim Lakely:I mean, climate catastrophism has had such a firm grip on our politics and our pop culture, on our societies, and I see that grip loosening. If not you know, they're not gonna drop it all at once. But when you see European with that story I mentioned how, like, Europe is now realizing Net Zero is a we're never gonna get there. It's gonna we're gonna be run out of here with pitchforks and torches if if we keep this up. It's it's not a winning political message anymore.
Jim Lakely:It's gonna be abandoned. It's starting to happen now. I think that's worth celebrating.
Speaker 1:Yeah. Well, I don't you know, look. The European leadership has not given up on climate. All those guys that were part of the net zero banking alliance, they have not given up on climate. The car companies have not go to their websites.
Speaker 1:They have not given up on the hoax. And they're gonna wait till, you know, there's a December day in Chicago when it's 90 degrees or whatever the, you know, the maximum is for Chicago. You know, that will happen, and they're they're gonna see see, we were right.
Jim Lakely:Yep. No offense, but it sounds like that's some commie gobbledygook. I think
Sterling Burnett:you that's I think that's, to some extent, right, that he what he just said, commie. So people when I first started doing this, they were talking about watermelons. Right? Green on the outside, red on the inside. It's really about power.
Sterling Burnett:I always defended the communist against this claim because I had red marks as part of my dissertation, and I knew that he wouldn't have been an environmentalist at all. For Marx, there were two things, people and resources. And if you weren't a people, you were a resource for use by people. So it's a weird kind of communism. It's it's one that takes the environment as more important, but, really, it's just the elites.
Sterling Burnett:It's it's people see this as a way of torquing power. And if they can no longer if they can no longer gain power on the back of climate fears, they will find another cause.
Linnea Lueken:What I find frustrating what I've always found frustrating about this particular worldwide grift is I mean, there are environmental issues that are real and that aren't just real, but have a immediate physical solution that could be implemented. Like, the, like, Asian trash problem and stuff. If they if they devoted a quarter of the money that they, you know, swallowed up for the green blob towards solving those types of problems, just like get a whole bunch of sieves. I don't know. I don't know what the solution is, but you can clean it up.
Linnea Lueken:They could have had some of these real issues solved. But then, of course, once it's solved, there's no further funding. Right? So the the best scam in the world is the climate scam because there is no solution, actually. There is no end to it.
Sterling Burnett:Well, you know, Reagan recognized this way back when is is, you know, that you create an agency to solve a problem, and it never ends. The problem is never solved. It just grows and grows and grows and often with mission creep. Right? HUD was supposed to solve the housing crisis.
Sterling Burnett:Anyone think the housing crisis has been solved after sixty years? You know? Worse. All the all the different all the different agencies, the alphabet agencies, you pick one, not one that was formed to solve a particular problem has ever solved that problem. In fact, since the time they were formed, the problem has only grown worse.
Speaker 1:Yeah. I just wanna underscore what what Linea said. You know, we do have real environmental problems in this country. You know, in in Southern California, they've got Mexico dumping 50,000,000 gallons of raw sewage into Southern California every day. That would seem to be a pretty easy fix.
Speaker 1:Virtually every city in this country has Yeah.
Steve Milloy:We just get Trump to bomb Mexico. There you go.
Jim Lakely:Yeah. There you go. We we
Sterling Burnett:There goes there goes our chances of of remonetizing.
Speaker 1:Yeah. A lot of cities in this country have serious storm water, wastewater problems. We have groundwater we have all sorts of real problems. None of it gets addressed because there's no money or attention. All the money attention goes to the climate hoax.
Jim Lakely:Yeah. I mean yeah. We'll we'll wrap this up. We'll get to q and a. But, you know, it wasn't that long ago that we had John Kerry worrying about the war in in Ukraine, not about people dying, but about its carbon footprint and and and floating out ideas that we're gonna have electric tanks and and troop carriers and stuff like that.
Jim Lakely:I mean, so that kind of madness is now falling away, and I think a lot of other madness is gonna start falling away as well.
Steve Milloy:Yeah. You can't have electric tanks without having an ever ready charger truck coming up behind the tanks. You know?
Jim Lakely:Yeah. Right. Alright. Great great conversation, and and thank everybody in the chat. We have tons of questions to get to.
Jim Lakely:But before we do that, I want to tell you about the sponsor of this year program, and that is our friends at Advisor Metals. If you listen to a lot of conservative shows on YouTube like I do, you hear tons of pitches for buying gold and silver and other precious metals, and there are so many companies out there where you can purchase those things. But I wanna tell you why you should trust our sponsor, Advisor Metals, and that's the man who runs the company, Ira Brashatsky. Ira is the managing member of Advisor Metals. He does not employ those high pressure tactics or deceptive marketing ploys like many of them in big gold.
Jim Lakely:He also doesn't deal in so called rare coins. When you buy gold and other precious metals from Advisor Metals, you are dealing in quality bullion, and that is so much better when the time comes to liquidate this valuable physical asset. And when you buy from Advisor Metals, you will have your investment sent discreetly to your very home. And also, good to point out that Ira is advertising on this program because he is an America first patriot. He does not donate to Democrats.
Jim Lakely:He refuses to work with the proxies of the communist, Chinese party. And he, like us, abhors the machinations and schemes of the World Economic Forum United Nations. That is why we are so proud to have him as a sponsor. So if you wanna diversify your investment portfolio or if you wanna back up your IRA with real physical bullion of precious metals, go to climaterealismshow.com/metals. You can leave your information there, and Ira or someone on his team will be in contact to make the process very easy for you.
Jim Lakely:Again, that's climaterealismshow.com/metals, and be sure to tell them who sent you because that helps us while you are helping yourself. Thank you for your attention to this very important matter. Alright. It is time for q and a. Take it away, Lynea.
Linnea Lueken:Andy is not here and you still managed to hit the drop. Alright.
Jim Lakely:I did manage to hit the drop even with Andy not here. Just for you.
Linnea Lueken:Okay. Lovey. Let me grab a couple more here. We didn't have a whole lot of questions, but we did have a whole lot of funny comments, which I definitely want to highlight because our audience is hilarious. So one of but one of the questions that we did get was from Darren t who said, will the retracted stuff make the mainstream?
Linnea Lueken:What I think they mean by that is will all the retracted articles and whatnot actually hit mainstream media the way that they hit mainstream media when they were released in the first place.
Sterling Burnett:Well, some of them already have. Right? The New York Times did have to cover the retraction that they had touted.
Speaker 1:Yeah. But it's not much of a retraction, Sterling. I mean, it's right. I mean, it's I mean, no. They have they have to retract everything.
Speaker 1:And it's you know, there's not enough there's not enough ink or or or bites to do that.
Sterling Burnett:Yeah. And and I've yet to see anybody. I could be wrong, because I haven't tracked every mainstream media outlet, but I've yet to see any mainstream media outlet cover the study that shows extinctions are not going on.
Jim Lakely:Yeah. Or the
Sterling Burnett:or the study that I covered this week that Greenland, temperatures were warmer in the in the past than they are at present, that they warmed up in the nineteen twenties and thirties faster, than they warmed up in the latter half of the century. I haven't seen any coverage of that.
Speaker 1:The the climate realism show will have to go on indefinitely.
Linnea Lueken:Yes. You're welcome. Okay. We're gonna start funneling money to the Sierra Club just so we have something to talk about into the future. Curious KL, who I don't think I've seen in our chat before, so welcome, said, what about winters caused by massive volcano eruptions?
Linnea Lueken:Is that something that we should be worried about? Or is that something that
Jim Lakely:the climate cold would ever
Sterling Burnett:even cry winter, but
Steve Milloy:an extended global winter.
Speaker 1:Yeah. They they can make it cooler. Yeah. We Mount Pinatubo in 1991 caused some global cooling. I guess the big one was was Krakatoa in 1815, 1816.
Speaker 1:Mass global cooling. If we get if we got a couple of those, we would be a serious problem serious trouble.
Sterling Burnett:But it would be temporary. But it would be temporary. It would be for a couple of years.
Speaker 1:Always know people would die.
Linnea Lueken:Yeah. Those those cooling events because of volcanic in part because of volcanic eruptions, in part because of, like, the little ice age and stuff kind of doubling down on it, you know, are major causes of Famine. Plague and famine and all sorts of awful stuff. So that's definitely I would much rather some warming. So is the consensus gone based on that article that said that things are up for debate?
Speaker 1:Yeah. Well, there never was a consensus. Right? I mean, we there's no there's no consensus in science. But the consensus she's talking about, yeah, those people are still they're hardcore.
Speaker 1:They're still there. Bill Gates still believes that climate is a thing. Bjorn Lomborg still believes climate is a thing. All these peoples, Al Gore, they all still believe climate's a thing. The consensus is real.
Sterling Burnett:And this is I mean, Bill Gates Bill Gates, he he came out with his article and said, oh, it's not the biggest disaster. But I just saw headlines today that, you know, he's he's one of the guys pushing well, it's not a disaster, but what we need to do is to put a lot of pollution into the air to block the sun. He's one of the big backers of that crap. Right. And his big what what what's this article?
Sterling Burnett:It just popped up while I was online. Oh, yeah. He backs modern hydrogen. Despite climate change, you gotta have hydrogen energy. His company just went bankrupt.
Sterling Burnett:They're laying off people. So
Linnea Lueken:I I wanna highlight this very important comment from Chris Nesbett, is a very frequent viewer and commenter of ours. He says, Lanea needs to give Jim a lesson or two on how to do the perfect segue. So true. I'm really good at my segues into the ad read
Jim Lakely:on
Steve Milloy:the I do have to how we can teach him how to do that if he can't remember to unmute his microphone.
Jim Lakely:Well yeah. Yeah. I'm sorry. I'm not capable. I'm not capable of that.
Linnea Lueken:Alright. This is a this is a rhetorical question I thought you guys would get a kick out of. CHBE says, oh, come on. Don't you know climate change caused November's cooling? Yep.
Linnea Lueken:Sure did. Alright. DJ Bow, another frequent viewer, says November was cool. Anybody wanna bet bet me that the usual suspects will be out by Christmas saying it was one of the hottest Novembers ever? They already are.
Jim Lakely:Yeah.
Linnea Lueken:Yeah. They say it's, the third hottest since the nineteen eighties or something.
Jim Lakely:How yeah. Serious question. How how do they get those numbers? I mean, how do how what is the justification for saying that? Because they have said it and it hasn't been true.
Jim Lakely:I mean
Speaker 1:Well, you can you can look at Roy Spencer's his his satellites, and it it you know, as far as how he calculates it, it was a warm November. But, you know, of course, it's been warming for the last twenty thousand years.
Linnea Lueken:Alright. Got a couple of good science questions that some of which I'm gonna pitch to you, Anthony. Joe Tripp, who I don't think I've seen in our chat before, said, will the Earth's weakening magnetic field have an effect on climate?
Steve Milloy:No.
Linnea Lueken:Okay.
Steve Milloy:I'm sorry. It just doesn't. A weakening magnetic field has been something that's happened, you know, all throughout Earth's entire history. It's just not something that affects our weather or our climate in an in the short term in any significant way. So what does it do?
Steve Milloy:Well, it does provide less, when we have a weaker magnetic field, we have more cosmic rays that come in. And there's a theory that says, well, we might get more cloud cover, low level cloud cover because of that. But that hasn't actually been proven. There's been people that have been looking for that for about a decade or so now and still haven't completely found it. But there's no direct correlation between weather and Earth's magnetic field or a thirty year climate period in Earth's magnetic field.
Steve Milloy:And the magnetic field has flipped before during Earth's history and everything survived.
Sterling Burnett:If if sometime in the future, the magnetic field completely goes away, we'll be in trouble because we'll be bombarded by deadly cosmic rays. It'll look like Mars. Our atmosphere the magnetic field keeps our atmosphere in place. So but that's not happening now. It's nowhere near happening now.
Linnea Lueken:Alright. This question from David, who I also don't think I've seen. We have a lot of new people today. So welcome all the new people. Was the water vapor of Hunga Tonga more to blame for the affecting the climate than carbon dioxide emitted?
Steve Milloy:Absolutely. Absolutely. Because water vapor has an immediate effect on temperature. The more water vapor you have, the more heat is retained in Earth's atmosphere. And anyone can prove this to themselves simply by spending a day, you know, in Atlanta in the summer, in the evening versus in Tucson.
Steve Milloy:The the drier atmosphere in Tucson allows temperatures to plummet at night, much cooler at night in Tucson than it is in Atlanta. You know, you might have a high in Atlanta of 92 and a low of 77. Whereas in Tucson, you might have the same high of 92, but a low of 45. And so, you know, water vapor immediately affects things. And, yeah, it was the reason for the spike.
Jim Lakely:Alright.
Linnea Lueken:Oh, that's David again. Let me try to get someone else. Already got that one. Okay. Kurtz says, what are you going to do with all of the scrapped wind turbine blades after failure or their lifespan?
Linnea Lueken:Guess throw it in a volcano or what? Hey. That'd be a pretty good idea.
Sterling Burnett:It it might
Jim Lakely:be a better solution.
Sterling Burnett:It might be a better solution than what they have now, which is stacking them up on fields in West Texas and just having blotting the earth, letting them rot, soak their, over time, their wear, soaks the trash into the soil and the chemicals into the soil. Maybe the volcano idea is not
Jim Lakely:a bad bad plan. It's a perfect plan. I mean, it gets rid of them, and it also it gives you a sacrifice to their climate god, the Earth. Right? It's absolutely perfect.
Jim Lakely:I am for that a 100%.
Linnea Lueken:And I kinda just wanna see what happens if you throw one in.
Jim Lakely:Yeah. That's cool. Get a grown up here.
Linnea Lueken:That you don't actually and I should have known this with my geology background, but I just never thought about it. You don't sink in lava if you jump in lava, which is kind of sad. You just catch on fire and die. But
Jim Lakely:Which is also sad.
Linnea Lueken:Which is also sad. Okay. Jerry Palmer says, rule number one, everything is due to carbon dioxide. Rule number two, if not, rule number one applies.
Jim Lakely:Yeah. That is how science seems to work now. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
Jim Lakely:Absolutely.
Speaker 1:We're use that.
Linnea Lueken:Lake lady says, so as climate change slowly walks off into the sunset, what money making grifting scheme is next on the horizon? Steve, if you're wrong and if the climate thing does fade, what what's their what are they gonna use as the next thing to continue their nonsense?
Speaker 1:It's simple. I mean, they're just gonna go back to the scares they had before. You know, they used used to be water pollution, air pollution, chemicals. Now you even have the Trump administration trying to scare people about chemicals. You know, Robert f Kennedy and the whole mahis, you know, against pesticides.
Speaker 1:I think they have to restrain him physically restrain him on that. But, you know, you hear this from Trump administration officials, that agent, Marty Makary, all those guys. They're they're constantly talking about chemicals. The the the crazy woman that they want to make a surgeon general. She's all freaked out about chemicals and pesticides.
Speaker 1:So they'll just go back to their old playbook, and then climate will come back in some time. That's a point.
Sterling Burnett:They'll they'll they'll go back to fears of radiation as as new nuclear plants are built. Right. Well, yeah. The chemo folks will come out of the woodwork again or gain prominence, you know, into these. And they already have the stuff with microplastics.
Sterling Burnett:Right? That's the the plastic stuff. Yeah. You remember when when the movie, the graduate
Steve Milloy:When you say the chemo folks, are you talking about the chemtrail people?
Sterling Burnett:Not just. No. No. We're not we're
Linnea Lueken:not gonna trigger you trigger you with that one today, Andy.
Jim Lakely:You know,
Steve Milloy:well, I will tell you this.
Sterling Burnett:Back late back in the late sixties, there was a movie called the graduate, and the the father of, the woman said, remember this, plastics is the future. You know? Plastics. Well, now they're trying to take away the future. Right?
Sterling Burnett:The future became present, and it's been successful. It's made our lives so much better, and now they're trying to rob us of that. Mhmm.
Steve Milloy:Yep.
Linnea Lueken:Alright.
Steve Milloy:Always a scare in the future.
Linnea Lueken:Yeah. Question from Steven who says, are any of you familiar with Woodbury's book, The Great White Mantle? Not I. Sorry.
Steve Milloy:Nope.
Linnea Lueken:C l Palmer asks, I saw a video recently that carbon dioxide at current levels still impacts temperature due to its existence at various levels in the atmosphere. Thoughts?
Steve Milloy:Well, yes, carbon dioxide does affect our temperature, but in a minimal way. I mean, it's very clear. We've we've got a graph, in fact. If you go to climate@aglance.com or buy our book, Climate at a Glance, it talks all about that. It tells you why carbon dioxide does in fact affect the temperature, but why it's minimal and why increases in carbon dioxide will have less and less effect as you go on and on.
Steve Milloy:It's all covered in our book, Climate at a Glance, which you can get on Amazon for the incredibly high price of $14.95. And, I challenge you to find a book packed with so much information for that price. I mean, you look at some of Michael Mann's books and some of these other books, and they're, you know, in the $40.50 dollar range. Ours is a bargain. And once you get the book, you can download a digital copy of it.
Steve Milloy:There's a a QR code on the inside inside where you can download a digital copy, and you can share it with your friends. This makes a great stocking stuffer to put in the stockings of your liberal friends, and it will drive them batshit crazy.
Sterling Burnett:Yeah. It's concise it's concise and accurate, so you can read it in a a single sitting. But
Speaker 1:Yeah. I just wasn't you know, I we all agree. I mean, carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. It does have a warming effect. The controversy the global warming controversy, though, is what is the effect of emissions?
Speaker 1:And there is a theoretical, you know, impact of emissions, and there's what we can actually observe, measure, discern, which is zero. And and that's really the controversy. It's not about whether carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. It is. But what what do the emissions, you know, add to the equation?
Sterling Burnett:And I'm not sure. The question said something about, where it lies in the atmosphere making a difference. I'm not sure of that. You know? Earlier, when they were talking about I saw in the comment section, someone talked about the hole in the ozone that disappeared.
Sterling Burnett:Let's be clear. There was never a hole in the ozone. There was a thinning of the ozone layer, in certain areas of the earth. That thinning has slackened, but there was never a hole in the ozone. And ozone ground level ozone, different in a in a sense than upper level ozone, has has gone down in recent decades.
Sterling Burnett:Should we be concerned about that? Probably not. Uh-huh. No one seems to like ground level ozone. But why that didn't drift to the upper atmosphere, no one's ever successfully explained to me, know, why it doesn't break why it breaks up or doesn't get to the upper atmosphere and then fill our hole.
Sterling Burnett:But there was never a hole.
Jim Lakely:There was a thinning.
Linnea Lueken:This is a good joke from Redneck Screw Loose who said, do y'all hear the news? The library burned down. They lost lost both coloring books. That's pretty good. Mars Rock, who I've not seen in a while.
Linnea Lueken:Hello, Mars Rock. Asked on Rumble, is climate catastrophism declining at the United Nations?
Steve Milloy:Nope. It's on its way up. I mean, remember last year, the oceans were boiling.
Linnea Lueken:How much worse could
Jim Lakely:it get? They'll find a way.
Sterling Burnett:The the less climate catastrophism is feared and believed in outside the UN, the harder they fight for it within the UN. They they they cling I think it was Hillary that talked about or or or Obama that talked about stubbornly clinging to their god and their guns. Well, this is the UN's god and guns. They stubbornly claim the climate change regardless of the evidence.
Speaker 1:Yeah. You know, it would have been great if they had had a camera on Antonio Guterres' face as Trump was ripping climate, a new one in September at the UN. That would have been awesome to watch.
Linnea Lueken:And did you see that United Nations Geneva post on Twitter? I retweeted it, but it was it said it was a quote from Gutierrez where he was saying, the United Nations is a moral compass for the world. And my mind's just flashing back to dudes with guns and blue helmets and
Steve Milloy:I'm looking for a a vomit drop here, but I don't have one.
Jim Lakely:What? What?
Sterling Burnett:Of Syria and and Iran on their human rights commission, something like that. It's like, that's the moral compass? In Iran, they had a a a small child lop off a head in public yesterday or the day before. Jeez. That's the moral compass?
Linnea Lueken:JPS says greetings from Belgium. Hasn't it been proven that first temperatures go up and c o two follows centuries later?
Steve Milloy:Yes.
Sterling Burnett:That's what the proxy data shows historically. If you look at the if you look at the historical record, that great graphic that Al Gore likes to use, hundreds of thousands of years. If you if you parse it out, every one of those increases in temperature precedes the increase in c o two.
Linnea Lueken:Yeah. And I think I think part of the explanation for that is off gassing from oceans.
Jim Lakely:But Yep. Yep. Well And there was
Linnea Lueken:never any positive feedback loop from that, so go figure.
Jim Lakely:Yeah. If you splice in some tree some tree ring data in there, you'll make it work.
Sterling Burnett:Select selected tree ring data, Jim. Selected tree ring data.
Jim Lakely:Selected, That is a next I didn't think from Grifbo. That's a joke our audience definitely gets.
Linnea Lueken:Yeah. Most of our audience. Okay. Ian McMillan says, yet they write off water vapor as merely a feedback, and I wanted to comment on that. And that's because water vapor in lower levels of the atmosphere, like closer to the ground level, falls out as precipitation eventually.
Linnea Lueken:But the reason why Hongatonga has such a big effect is because it blasted that stuff up into upper levels of the atmosphere. So it's a little bit of a different condition. It takes a little bit longer for it to fall out. Let's see. Walter says, have you ever thought to invite Lee Zeldin on the Climate Realism Show?
Linnea Lueken:Would love to invite Lee Zeldin on the Climate Realism Show if he'd have us. That would be fun.
Jim Lakely:Or Chris Wright.
Sterling Burnett:Reach out. Or Chris Wright.
Jim Lakely:Yeah. I mean, we a great pitch for us is that we did warmer. Yeah. Well, we did cover his, his confirmation hearing live. You you were on that, Steve.
Jim Lakely:You know? We said,
Speaker 1:yeah. He's a little warmer.
Jim Lakely:Oh, jeez. Alright. You won't be on that day with him.
Linnea Lueken:Jeez. Let we let lukewarmers on this show too. Let's go. Oh, how about this one? David says, why is everything existential to these people?
Steve Milloy:Doom, man. Doom.
Sterling Burnett:But because because because they don't understand what the term existential means.
Jim Lakely:No. They no. They do. They They think it scares the most people.
Sterling Burnett:Kant Kant was one of the first people to start talking about existential, and it doesn't mean what they think it means. You read Khan.
Linnea Lueken:Well, it's kind of annoying to hear them use the word unprecedented for every single thing that ever happens too. So
Sterling Burnett:Which which I mean? All of them all of them being preceded.
Jim Lakely:Yeah. Yeah. And it all goes unprecedented. You you have to be apocalyptic in order to get your way with these people. I mean, you can't just because they're gonna lose the argument if they say, you know, it would be better.
Jim Lakely:You can't make the green energy transition argument because nobody will accept that because nuclear and fossil fuels are necessary and better and more efficient and cheaper. All the things, every plus is on the traditional energy generation side. Unless you get catastrophic about everything and the reasons for going to green, you would never win an argument. And that's why they're actually ultimately losing, I think, right
Steve Milloy:now. Yep.
Linnea Lueken:Here's a good question, I think, for Steve probably. Where can one learn more this is from Terry, by the way. Where can one learn more about phthalates, if that's right?
Jim Lakely:You know,
Linnea Lueken:fact based, unsensational and sensationalized manner.
Speaker 1:So, Terry, I just tweeted about this the other day because there was a Washington Post article. So if you search for phthalates from my x account at Junk Science, you'll get some links, and you can start there. The chemical industry stopped defending all this stuff, more than a generation ago, so, you know, I'm gonna be the source on that.
Linnea Lueken:Chris says, I came late. Did you cover the study that reckon sea level rise was not accelerating? If true, wouldn't that mean sea isn't warming and ice is not melting at the claim rates either? And I think we covered that a couple weeks ago.
Steve Milloy:Yeah. We did. And you can find out about that in my book.
Jim Lakely:I'm gonna have to make Anthony, you're gonna have to do the ad reads from now on because your ability to segue right into it is much better than me.
Steve Milloy:Thank you.
Jim Lakely:Here's You
Speaker 1:should get one of those miracle cleaners. Get a you know, an ad contract for that. Anthony, Anthony.
Steve Milloy:Know, I'm I'm coming up with climate ShamWow next.
Jim Lakely:Hey. Anthony, I'm a ShamWow guy. Yeah.
Linnea Lueken:Joester asks, Denmark is still killing cows and attacking farmers using Bovar. How to convince the government to back out of Bovar usage? I would say just if the climate scam ends, then there's no reason for them to be pushing a methane reducer in cow feed.
Sterling Burnett:I think I think riots in the streets, manure being dumped out in front of their personal houses and people being, replaced with different, politicians that understand that you're killing an entire industry in that country.
Jim Lakely:Isn't Beauver isn't that Bill Gates' thing?
Linnea Lueken:I don't know if it's Bill Gates' one. He has a different I think he's still in development with one. This might be a different one.
Sterling Burnett:I think Beauver is. It's one of his Oh,
Jim Lakely:is it?
Sterling Burnett:I believe so. Yeah.
Linnea Lueken:I don't know. They're all
Speaker 1:the scam is gonna last in Europe. The last place it's gonna go away is in Europe because in Europe, I they're not allowed to think. They just follow the leader.
Linnea Lueken:Very sad. My dog is making her presence known as usual at this time of day. This is from Steven Lindsay who says, anyone aware of the creeping up of total solar irradiance now going above or close to thirteen sixty three watts per square meter? Anthony?
Steve Milloy:Well, yeah, it happens. The solar cycle changes the solar irradiance on average of anywhere from one watt per square meter to as much as two and a half over its period. And so there's nothing surprising here or dangerous about it. It summing it up, the sun happens.
Linnea Lueken:Our good friend, engineer guy
Steve Milloy:find out about it in my book.
Linnea Lueken:Our good friend, engineer guy, wants to know and Steve, I don't know if you know of anything about this, but he asks,
Sterling Burnett:what about
Linnea Lueken:Styrofoam? Thirty years ago, I heard a lecture on the benefits of Styrofoam. I'm not sure in what in what use. You'd never know it as media does not cover this message.
Speaker 1:Well, so conveniently, I have this red solo cup here, which apparently contains Styrofoam, and it's why where I live in Montgomery County, Maryland, stores are not allowed to sell these because they're not recyclable because they have Styrofoam. So there you go.
Sterling Burnett:I Except for one I wanna say first, Lanea, you were right. I looked. I was interested. I thought Gates, it was involved with Beauvaire, but he's not. He's developing his other thing.
Sterling Burnett:He's promoter, but he's not, an investor. But Styrofoam is recyclable. Decades ago, about three decades ago, McDonald's came up with Styrofoam cartons, and they talked about the hot side hot, the cold side cold. Styrofoam was a great insulator. Hey.
Sterling Burnett:It's lot of people wait. Wait. Because they were complaining, they came up with a way to recycle it. And as they came up with that way, the pressure on them got so great, they shelved their invention. Nobody recycles Styrofoam now, but it is recyclable.
Sterling Burnett:But the the people who invented it can't sell it anywhere.
Steve Milloy:I love that burger, by the way. You have the hot burger and the hot cheese on one side. On the other side, you have the other top part of the bun and the lettuce and tomato and the pickle, you know, which remain cool so that you didn't end it up with with this this mishmash of melted and stuffed that had been sitting around.
Sterling Burnett:No. They they decided not to fight it. It was easier for them not to fight it, and they shelved the technology.
Jim Lakely:Yeah. The McDLT. That was awesome.
Sterling Burnett:They're like,
Jim Lakely:I like to recycle I like
Speaker 1:to recycle Styrofoam in in my outdoor fire pit. Works real well back in the atmosphere.
Sterling Burnett:That that's breaking
Steve Milloy:I love the smell of burning Styrofoam in the evening.
Sterling Burnett:That that's breaking clean air rolls.
Linnea Lueken:I found out the hard way that outside, like, rug that I had that I thought was actual, like, thistle or whatever it is, thistle, whatever it is that they make those scratchy terrible rugs. I thought that it was real, and I threw it in my fire pit because it was getting raggedy and old. Wrong. I had black smoke.
Jim Lakely:If you do it one at a time, though My
Sterling Burnett:my my my grandfather used to have a trailer at at a lake near here that that I loved. It's my favorite place to go. And he had a burn barrel. Right? He had a burn barrel that we throw all the trash in the burn barrel because there was no sanitation out
Jim Lakely:there.
Steve Milloy:Wait a minute. Is that Jason Alexander?
Jim Lakely:That is us. Yeah. Jason Alexander with the McDLT, baby.
Sterling Burnett:Hot, the cold side. So we used to burn all sorts of plastics in those thing and and stand around it and watch it. We we'd watch straws melt very slowly. We thought the curling was really cool, me and my brother. So only to find out later that we were killing ourselves because the chemicals that
Steve Milloy:Damn. I'm hungry now.
Linnea Lueken:I know. Look at what they took from us, you
Steve Milloy:guys.
Sterling Burnett:But I don't wanna dance.
Jim Lakely:That is a lot of that is a lot of fuss for a hamburger, I gotta say.
Sterling Burnett:No. But it's a container that's important. Right. Yeah. They weren't selling the hamburger.
Sterling Burnett:They were selling the hamburger sold in that container.
Linnea Lueken:Amazing. Alrighty. Let's go to we'll we'll hit another science question here, and we'll probably wrap it up, guys. We're going a little over our overtime. Paul says, is the cloud cover included in any of the climate models?
Steve Milloy:Yes. But it's not included well. The problem is you can't predict clouds. Clouds are one of the most dynamic and random things that occurs on the planet. And the models are particularly bad at simulating how cloud cover will change.
Steve Milloy:And so, yes, it's there, but it's it's not there in a significant way that is accurate.
Sterling Burnett:And even the IPCC says, it's one of the factors, the vast majority of those factors that it says they don't understand it very well. Poorly understood is how they rate it.
Steve Milloy:Right.
Linnea Lueken:Yep. And then finally, we will end with CHB's question. I sense a lack of taxpayer money heading these grifters way. Am I right?
Speaker 1:Hopefully There's still $500,000,000,000 to spend the green new scam money. And then China's got plenty of money to spend on this because it's a great way, to, you know, checkmate our economy. So I'm telling you, these people are not going away.
Steve Milloy:Well I look forward to the day then we could all sing ding dong. The grift is dead.
Jim Lakely:Very good. Very good.
Sterling Burnett:Even even the, the big beautiful bill. Right? You know, it cut a lot of that money. Yeah. There there's less money going to it now than there was before, but it increased funding for carbon capture and storage.
Jim Lakely:Yep.
Sterling Burnett:And and which is interesting because the increased money that they increased it for wasn't for storage. It's for oil companies that were already making money from carbon capture because it helps them pump out more oil Well use that technology more. So they increased that. Billions of taxpayer dollars go into a technology that would have been being used for decades already at a profit for them. But now they make more money on tax credits.
Speaker 1:Not not not to drag this out, but I gotta add on to that. Just real quick, I was on the radio in, Louisiana yesterday. Apparently, Doug Burgum is coming to Louisiana to sell carbon capture.
Sterling Burnett:Oh, Doug surprised me. He loved it when he was in North Dakota.
Jim Lakely:Yeah. Well, we'll put a stop to that. So, anyway, that will wrap it up for our show today. I want to thank our special guest today, Steve Molloy from junkscience.com. I know everybody loves it when you're on the program, Steve, mostly.
Jim Lakely:And I wanna thank our steering partners, which includes junkscience.com, CFAC, The c o two Coalition, and Climate Depot, what's up with that, and Heartland, UK, Europe. Always visit climaterealism.com, or you can get the counter spin to the climate alarmist narrative that we even read a little bit on the program today. Go to climate@aglance.com for the latest updates on climate data. But even better than that, go to amazon.com and search for Climate at a Glance and get the latest fourth edition, I believe it is. But Check it.
Jim Lakely:You'll get that latest one. Go to Energy at a Glance, and, of course, always go to heartland.org where you can support this program and heartland.org/tcrs. Thank you everybody in the chat for being here today. Thanks for everybody who watches and listen listens and appreciates the show every week, and we will talk to you again next week. Bye bye.