Human CO2 Emissions Are a GOOD THING - The Climate Realism Show #139

It’s a fact that humans are increasing the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. But does it follow, as we’re constantly told, that this increasing of CO2 is poisoning the planet? What if the opposite is actually the case? This week’s guest, CO2 Coalition Executive Director Gregory Wrightstone, is going to explain why it’s not true that more CO2=Bad.

On Episode #139 of The Climate Realism Show, The Heartland Institute’s H. Sterling Burnett, Jim Lakely, and Wrightstone will also cover some of the “Crazy Climate News of the Week.” An op-ed in The New York Times says climate change should make you rethink home ownership. Remember when an iceberg off Antarctica in 2017 was supposed to freak you out? Well, never mind. And the World Economic Forum says you should wash your clothes less to save the planet. They suggest washing jeans once a month and pajamas just once a week. Is there any aspect of our lives that the climate scolds will ignore? Apparently not.

LINKS

The European Conservative: Are Net Zero’s Days Numbered?
https://europeanconservative.com/articles/commentary/are-net-zeros-days-numbered/

CO2 Coalition
https://co2coalition.org/

VISIT THESE GREAT CLIMATE REALISM SITES

SUBSCRIBE to Heartland's Climate Change Weekly
https://heartland.org/subscribe/

ClimateRealism
https://climaterealism.com/

Climate at a Glance
https://climateataglance.com/

Energy at a Glance
https://energyataglance.com/

The Heartland Institute's Climate Page
https://heartland.org/topics/environment-energy/

Heartland's Climate Conferences
https://climateconferences.heartland.org/

OUR STREAMING PARTNERS

Watts Up With That
https://wattsupwiththat.com/

CFACT
https://www.cfact.org/

ClimateDepot
https://www.climatedepot.com/

JunkScience
https://junkscience.com/

Creators & Guests

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.

Guest

Jim Lakely

VP @HeartlandInst, EP @InTheTankPod. GET GOV'T OFF OUR BACK! Love liberty, Pens, Steelers, & #H2P. Ex-DC Journo. Amateur baker, garage tinkerer.

What is Heartland Daily Podcast?

The “fire hose” of all podcasts produced by The Heartland Institute, a national free-market think tank.

Joe Biden: 00:00

Not figuratively a clear and present danger.

Greta Thunberg: 00:02

We are in the beginning of a mass extinction.

Jim Lakely: 00:06

The ability of c 02 to do the heavy work of creating a climate catastrophe is almost nil at this point.

Anthony Watts: 00:12

The price of oil has been artificially elevated to the point of insanity.

Sterling Burnett: 00:13

That's not how you power. Exact same point that we're at now. You know who's trying that? Germany. 7 straight days of no wind for Germany.

Sterling Burnett: 00:34

Their factories are shutting down.

Linnea Lueken: 00:36

They really do act like weather didn't happen prior to, like, 1910. Today is Friday. That's right, Greta. It is Friday. It is the best day of the week because it is the day the Heartland Institute broadcast the Climate Realism Show.

Jim Lakely: 00:56

I am Jim Lakeley. I'm the vice president of the Heartland Institute. You know, there is nothing else quite like the Climate Realism Show streaming anywhere. So I hope you will like, share, and subscribe to this channel, and also leave your comments below the video. All those actions, which are completely free, help convince the YouTube algorithm to smile upon this program and to get it in front of even more people.

Jim Lakely: 01:20

And a reminder, because Big Tech and the Legacy Media do not approve of the way the Heartland Institute covers climate and energy on this program, our YouTube channel has been demonetized. So if you wanna support this program, and I really hope you do, please visit heartland.org/ tcrs. That's heartland.org/tcrs, which stands for the Climate Realism Show. And you can help us make sure that this show happens every single Friday. Any support you can give us is greatly appreciated and warmly welcome.

Jim Lakely: 01:51

We also wanna thank our streaming partners, that being junk science.com, CFACT, Climate Depot, and what's up with that. So for today's program, we have with us a bit of a reduced crew. It is the holidays after all. But we do have a lot of our at least one of our of our regular people. That person is h Sterling Burnett.

Jim Lakely: 02:13

He is the director of the Arthur b Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy at the Heartland Institute. And joining us, a very special guest and friend, Gregory Wrightstone. He's the executive director of the c o two coalition, which is, like the Heartland Institute, a nonprofit organization that looks to promote climate realism. And, as you might expect, they focus on debunking myths and telling the truth about the effect of natural and human emitted carbon dioxide on our planet. Welcome, Gregory.

Jim Lakely: 02:43

So glad to have you back on the program.

Gregory Wrightstone: 02:45

Oh, really good. Thanks for having me on, Jim and Sterling. Hey. Before we get into anything else, it's the Christmas season. I bring you great tidings of glad joy.

Gregory Wrightstone: 02:56

There is no climate crisis. Not only that, Earth's ecosystems are thriving and prospering, and humanity's benefiting. So there's my glad tidings of great joy.

Jim Lakely: 03:07

Yeah. That's kind of like a, a lump of coal in my stocking, which is what I actually want this year.

Gregory Wrightstone: 03:13

Oh, that

Sterling Burnett: 03:13

would be good. Living the high carbon lifestyle.

Jim Lakely: 03:16

That's right. Like our friend, Jason Isaac, the carbon king. Yes. That's his slogan, which is really great. Sterling, thanks for being on the show.

Jim Lakely: 03:23

I I know that you are feeling under the weather. You've been battling a pretty tough cold all week, and so, I just wanna tell our listeners and viewers if you he may have to cough and miss the cough button, so, watch your ears there. But, Sterling, you're a real trooper for, for joining us for the last show of this of 2024.

Sterling Burnett: 03:40

My my glad tidings of good joy is, not to infect anyone else with what I have. So, may you all have a blessed Christmas.

Jim Lakely: 03:52

Thank you very much, and you as well. I hope you get well enough, to enjoy the holiday, as you should, as we all should. And we wanna say, you know, happy holidays, happy Hanukkah, merry Christmas, and it will, I guess, be a happy New Year since this is the last, program that we will have of the Climate Realism Show for 2024. Before we get into our, regular feature that we start we do in the early in the show, which is the crazy climate news of the week, which you can see on that nice little sidebar on the side there. There's a there's actually an item that we wanted to highlight, that it was was pretty pretty big news.

Jim Lakely: 04:29

So if you listen to yesterday's In the Tank podcast, which is also on this channel, Thursdays at 1 PM Eastern. The show is Fridays at 1 PM Eastern. We had mentioned that one of the big accomplishments of the Heartland Institute this year was opening a new endeavor called Heartland UK slash Europe. And we hosted this on Tuesday. In Central London, we host hosted a launch party to officially announce to the world, the solidification of the partnership between the Heartland Institute and our and our allies in the freedom movement in, Great Britain and on the continent of Europe.

Jim Lakely: 05:07

And so from the, the European conservative, the by the way, if you're in Europe and you, a New York conservative and you're a journalist, it's a growth industry. There's gonna be plenty of room for that. European Conservative is a fantastic publication, but there's plenty of room, for even more. But here, they had a story reporting on our launch party on Tuesday, And the headline is, are net zeros days numbered with a picture there of Nigel Farage. He is the, the leader of the Reform UK Party, which did very well in the last parliamentary elections, in Britain.

Jim Lakely: 05:41

And you may be looking on the screen there at the the next non labor prime minister of Great Britain. Who knows? We may see that. The subhead here, is maybe the the best subhead we've ever seen in the story about the Heartland Institute, especially since the media in the United States is largely, hostile to the Heartland Institute. But it says, Farage now has the firepower of the Heartland Institute, a climate realist US think tank with offices in Britain squarely behind him, and that's to try to get rid of net zero, that is.

Jim Lakely: 06:12

Let me just read a little bit about this and maybe get some reaction from Sterling and Greg. Says here, there's a great deal of talk on the British right about how best to capitalize on Donald Trump's historic victory. Some have suggested that the mere presence of a pro free speech anglophile in the White House will limit Piers Starmer's room or maneuver. Continuing to lock in intemperate old ladies for their Facebook posts will generate more of a PR headache under an anti woke Elon Musk supported Trump administration than was the case with a dodie Joe Biden at the helm. Others have speculated that the real advantage of having a fearless, patriotic government across the Atlantic can only serve to stiffen the spines of British right wingers, otherwise prone to doomerism or overcaution.

Jim Lakely: 06:58

While this is all very plausible, the most immediate benefit will likely be a financial one. Everyone should by now be familiar with the reports that Musk is on the verge of turbocharging Nigel Farage's efforts to break the frame of British politics with an appropriately large injection of cash to reform UK. Just days ago, Farage met the tech titan for as long as an hour to quote discuss money, among other things, at Trump's famed Mar a Lago residence in Florida. Less well known is the fact that, fresh off the plane after jetting back to Britain, Faraj swiftly joined a local, London social gathering with many other high flyers in attendance to celebrate the UK launch of another heavy hitter from the United States, the Heartland Institute. That'd be us.

Jim Lakely: 07:45

Held at the Brooks Clubs, the Brooks' Club and organized by Touchpoint Politics, the event marked the start of a new endeavor. The Heartland Institute is the world's leading think tank promoting climate realism. And it says here the expansion as the, institute's president James Taylor told the audience, he was there this week, marks an important moment in the organization's mission to fostering transatlantic cooperation, advancing individual liberty and economic freedom. And the executive director of this new Heartland UK Europe, which, again, is officially up and running now, is broadcaster and activist, Lois, Perry. Sterling, I know that, this is oh, he's coughing.

Jim Lakely: 08:25

I know this is, this is actually a pretty banner week for Heartland. Yep. In that regard, it's, it's pretty it's pretty exciting. You and I were not able to go to this this party, but, this launch party. But, you know, the Heartland studio has worked with scientists and policy leaders and politicians in Europe, in South America, in Australia, all over the world.

Jim Lakely: 08:49

And now, as the story as the story uses the phrase, actually, it was in my press release, Heartland has now established a beachhead in Europe to bring climate realism, to people who really need it.

Sterling Burnett: 09:01

Climate climate Normandy. You know, there there's one more bit of the story I'd like to read because I think it's important.

Jim Lakely: 09:15

Oh, he just froze when he said the important part. Oh, goodness gracious, Sterling. Okay. I'm back.

Gregory Wrightstone: 09:22

Oh, okay.

Jim Lakely: 09:23

Back. Okay.

Sterling Burnett: 09:24

The resources that Heartland UK Europe can provide both intellectual and financial are bound to be invaluable. In truth, this kind of American presence in Britain could neither be better timed nor more sorely needed. To be fair, you know, this guy, it's a complimentary write up, but I think he he has accurately, captured what's going on. We we caught a wave here. We're working with people in in in England that, in Britain that have been wanting to push realism more, but we're working with a broader coalition of groups.

Sterling Burnett: 10:04

You know, earlier in the year, James was over there, and we helped block net zero legislation in the EU parliament. We have been asked by others in in Austria and and Poland and other countries in Europe to bring Heartland or Heartland's message to them. Poland Poland is translating it's gonna publish a version of our climate at glance booklet. So I I really think that we we we're on the cutting edge of something, we've sparked something. And the truth is, it's important that, Europe becomes realist because their policies, EU policies can affect the US.

Sterling Burnett: 10:48

Their policies which limit commercial, you know, activity that impose ESG will redound or limit our activities. So I think this is pretty important.

Jim Lakely: 11:04

Yeah. Yeah. I I obviously, I agree. Gregory, I just wanna read one last bit and we'll get on with the with the show after maybe a comment from you because I think it's relevant to the CO 2 Coalition. But, you know, this this cheeky story says that evidence suggests that the UK is currently engaged in a mortifying contest with Justin Trudeau's Canada to see who could claim the ultimate nagging rights as the most poorly governed declining nation in the Anglosphere, and they tie that directly to this, this obsession with net 0, net 0 meaning net 0, human carbon dioxide emissions, which, I don't know, seems right up the alley of something called the c o two coalition to to debunk.

Jim Lakely: 11:48

Nope. You're on mute, Greg.

Sterling Burnett: 11:49

You are muted. Nope.

Gregory Wrightstone: 11:52

Just okay. You

Jim Lakely: 11:53

get one of the you get one

Sterling Burnett: 11:53

of those a show, Greg. You get one of those a show.

Jim Lakely: 11:55

Yeah. It's it's called pulling a gym. That's what that's called. Yeah. That's right.

Gregory Wrightstone: 11:59

But kudos to Heartland. It's great for you and great for the, the Europe and the UK. And, yeah, when we talk about net 0 and the c o two coalition, I've I've started embracing what Chris Wright proposed, the proposed Department of Energy Secretary, where he's he's he's opposed to net 0, but he wants to embrace net zero energy poverty. So I I think that's a thing we we should all get behind is is embracing a target of net zero energy poverty.

Sterling Burnett: 12:29

Net zero loss of fossil fuels.

Gregory Wrightstone: 12:31

Yeah.

Jim Lakely: 12:33

Yeah. You can have a lot of fun with that net zero. Maybe that's not such a bad, phrasing after all. Depends on how you apply it. So alright.

Jim Lakely: 12:41

Well, thanks for that. I appreciate the congratulations, Greg. And and, as Sterling said, this we've had a presence kind of unofficial. We've we've been supporting climate realism as as Gregor, as the this whole movement. You know, I mentioned on the on the, In the Tank podcast yesterday, how without, you know, to put all modesty aside, without the work of the Heartland Institute, way back in, like, 2008, at least, building, helping to build a social and intellectual network of climate scientists and policy, experts who were skeptical of the the idea that human activity is causing the planet to boil and that we're ruining the the planet and we will be unlivable and all that kind of stuff.

Jim Lakely: 13:23

There were scientists from all over the world, New Zealand, Australia, Chile, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Canada, and, of course, the United States who didn't necessarily know each other, were maybe familiar with each other's work, but had never really gotten together to discuss things together, you know, and the and to go against the grain together and to pursue real science together. And our first international conference on climate change was in New York City in 2008, and we've held 14 more of them since then to this present day. And and we will continue to do that, and that's how and where I met Greg. That's probably where Sterling and Greg met. And so there is now this global social and intellectual network of climate realists all around the world that get together and now work together, and I think that is what has really been has gained momentum.

Jim Lakely: 14:15

It's taken 2 decades. But, we are Greg, before we came on the air, on this stream, you said it feels like the wind's at our backs now. And I said it sure sure feels that way because we've been hitting headwinds and pretty strong ones for most of the last 2 decades when it comes to climate realism.

Gregory Wrightstone: 14:33

Yeah. Yeah. And, obviously, Heartland led the way here. You're, we we're a pretty young group. Just formed in 2015.

Gregory Wrightstone: 14:41

Will Happard was one of the founders, and so we'll be celebrating our 10th anniversary in 2025 next year. Plan to have a conference in DC, to celebrate that. Can't we can't hope to approach what you guys have done in the past. But, no, it it's great. It's great working together for the same goals.

Gregory Wrightstone: 15:01

And, again, we're we're we stick try and stick as much to the science as we can and stay out of politics. And I think that served us well because it allows us to at the c o two coalition, we're now being sought out for by by people in various states and at the federal level to to get our advice, because we aren't highly political.

Jim Lakely: 15:25

Yeah. Yeah. Yep. Well, okay. And and we just have before we move on, we have a couple of comments here in the, or couple comments here in the chat saying, you know, hey.

Jim Lakely: 15:34

Stop crowing and tell us about Heartland UK, what it is about or promote it. Okay. Fine. I don't know. Put it up on screen.

Sterling Burnett: 15:41

They wanna get involved. Yeah. There's several people that have asked to get involved. Let's tell them how.

Jim Lakely: 15:45

That's right. So, to be honest, we just started. Lois' job Lois Perry's job at Heartland UK is going to be to be the conduit. She has connections. She has context.

Jim Lakely: 15:56

She is known. She's gonna be promoting climate realism with the support of the Heartland Institute and our intellectual firepower. She'll be making connections with legislators and other allied groups in the UK. So she's kinda the point person for the messaging of climate realism in the UK. I know that they are making a website and you probably can search Heartland UK.

Jim Lakely: 16:15

I don't know if it was ready yet because this all came together, rather quickly. So, we will, we will have more information. We'll certainly be talking about this, and I am certain we will be having Lois Perry on this program, in the very soon in the new year to talk even more about it. So thank you all for your support and your interest in this and you'll be hearing a lot more about it, very soon. Alright.

Jim Lakely: 16:39

Let's see. I think we can get on with one of our favorite features on this show, which is the crazy climate news of the week. Let's see. Let me see if I can hit it. We're we're we're a little shut up.

Jim Lakely: 17:07

Yes. Alright. So, actually, that reminds me, people in the chat have always also been asking, where's Linnea? Linnea is so popular on this show. She is actually not on vacation.

Jim Lakely: 17:17

She is at the Heartland Institute's offices today recording 10 new climate at a glance videos, in the very successful series of, I think, Sterling, it was 31 or 32 videos of climate at a glance that we released in 2024. It's close to, I think, 800 1,000 views on all of those videos. And so a new round of those is coming in 2025, and she's in the office today, at this very moment, recording more of those videos. And, Anthony is on vacation. He thought he was off, but the rest of us are working.

Jim Lakely: 17:48

Alright. So our first our first item is from The New York Times, and it is, a story actually, this the story the where the story came from is is a little interesting because, it was from back in October, but the hold on. I'm saying, let me put it on screen. Alright. So so this story is called is titled Climate Change Should Make You Rethink Home Ownership.

Jim Lakely: 18:18

Now, the story itself was from October. It's by Benjamin Keys, who is an economist and professor at Penn's Wharton School of Business. But it got into the news this week because he testified in a senate hearing on climate recently. And so, this story actually came up during the testimony. And he writes here, and I'd like to get you guys' reaction to it.

Jim Lakely: 18:40

He writes, homeownership is not simply a financial decision, but also a deeply emotional one. It's core to the American dream, representing financial permanence and a sense of stability for young and old families alike. But climate change is most likely making homeownership more expensive and less predictable in large areas of the country. It's only getting worse. As insurance premiums and property taxes rise and future home values grow more uncertain, it's time for some prospective buyers set on living in areas with high risk of hurricanes, floods, wildfires, and tornadoes to reconsider homeownership as a financial goal.

Jim Lakely: 19:18

Renting is quickly becoming a better way for many people to enjoy these places with much less financial baggage. Now, again, this guy is an economist, and so his point here is he's saying that people won't be able to afford to live in places certain places because of a changing climate, hurricane zones, for instance. But he also adds in property taxes claiming in part that, quote, towns and cities must pay for resiliency and repair efforts related to climate change. So his overall thesis, and, I'll quote this last little bit from the story, is, quote, we've seen little evidence that house prices truly capture the cost of climate change, but the prices of houses in places with growing climate risk should reflect that risk and eventually decline. That means some homes won't end up being the good investments that they now appear to be.

Jim Lakely: 20:10

So, Gregory, I'm going to start with you. You live in Florida. You lived, actually, in the last big hurricane strike, just south of Tampa. Are you moving anytime soon? Do you regret owning a home?

Jim Lakely: 20:24

And do you think, your property is gonna be worth a lot less because the climate change is gonna make it uninhabitable or uninsurable?

Gregory Wrightstone: 20:32

Not not at all. We, we just purchased a new home here in Florida and sold our old home to my my daughter and her husband, and there are families living in it. And, it's not not only has it not been devalued, it's worth twice what we paid for it 4 years ago. So they're number 1, debunked. Number 2, hurricanes are not I when we just, when I moved here south of Tampa, though, they everybody I talked to is, don't worry about hurricanes.

Gregory Wrightstone: 21:00

Tampa never gets hit by hurricanes. You know, we haven't had a hurricane here in a 100 years. I guess I'm a hurricane magnet, And Helene came up with a lot of water. Actually, our bookkeeper had, her own was devastated. We did a a a fundraising campaign.

Gregory Wrightstone: 21:16

We raised, over $30,000 for her. Just all of our our members and and and subscribers chipped in. And then Milton came, not long, 3 weeks later. It was making a beeline for my front door, and so we said we're gonna bail out of there. And, we actually traveled across the state to Vero Beach to a friend's condo.

Gregory Wrightstone: 21:40

We couldn't have picked a worst place to go. That's where that swarm of tornadoes came through. We actually got hit by our condo got hit. Like, a tornado came right up highway a one a. But the fact of the matter is landfalling hurricanes in the United States and in Florida have been in decline.

Gregory Wrightstone: 21:58

It's contrary to what they're saying. We can pick apart piece by piece of everything they have in that story.

Sterling Burnett: 22:08

Yeah. They look. I've been before we were talking about climate change's impact on coastal communities, I I've been looking at property rights issues, and I was looking at insurance issues and subsidized flood and hurricane insurance that the government does in in writing about, how it encourages moving to the nuisance. It encourages poor decisions, because people wanna live in the coast, and then when the government subsidizing you live in the coast, I will rebuild if you get destroyed, then the cost of doing it, it's it's moral hazard. So I was looking at this before there was climate change, and, I have looked at the data from before.

Sterling Burnett: 22:57

I looked at the day now. There's no question that some people have moved away from from coastal areas. You know, some people didn't go back to New Orleans. But all of the population centers on the coast that everyone's talking about, they need to get out of there. They'll they'll oh, climate change will travel away.

Sterling Burnett: 23:13

Climate change there's no evidence of it yet. They keep growing. People are willing to put up with the occasional disaster. Look. You know, it's been going on earthquakes have been a problem for California for years.

Sterling Burnett: 23:28

People are leaving California now, but it's not because of earthquakes, it's because of policy. Same you know? So people wanna live where it's nice, where the weather's good most of the time, where they have nice views. They move into forest despite forest fires. And so you're gonna see this it's not gonna change.

Sterling Burnett: 23:48

The interesting thing about this story, and I think one of the people said this is, this is one of those, you will own nothing and be happy about it. Right? This is what the UN is. We gotta get rid of property. Right?

Sterling Burnett: 23:58

It they say rent. Okay. Rent. Do you think that those people who own the properties that rent the properties, they pay taxes?

Jim Lakely: 24:13

Yes. They do pay taxes. Sterling's having connection problems today along with the It's crazy. Having a cold. Greg Gregor, let me ask you a question and

Sterling Burnett: 24:21

we'll see. Mortgages are filled, you know, figured into the rent. So it's not like you're saving money by renting.

Jim Lakely: 24:27

Right. Well, Sterling, you're having some connection problems. You fell out there a little bit. But, actually, I wanna ask an exit question, and this is I think a lot of our guys and gals in the chat have alluded to it. And that's this.

Jim Lakely: 24:39

Is is it legitimately more expensive to insure homes? I mean, legitimately more expensive to insure homes in hurricane areas or floodplains? Or is part of this the industry taking advantage of the kind of hype you see constantly in The New York Times and other major media outlets that hike up those prices? You know, is is in other words, is reality affecting insurance rates for homes like yours, Greg, or is or is the media hype that never and the reality never really lives up to the hype having a a big factor on that?

Gregory Wrightstone: 25:12

I don't have any data one way or the other, but you would have to think, if you are living in a where we are, you we expected to pay a little bit more for insurance. But I think, you know, that's that's legitimate. You can look at the tables and figure out what the but I think they they've probably used that to to greatly accelerate. But a lot of times I hear people talking that that we it's been stated many places. You can't get insurance anymore in these areas.

Gregory Wrightstone: 25:38

Well, I live in a in a in a flooding zone a. I'm 10 and a half feet above sea level. So, you know, our flood our insurance is a little bit higher. It's it's not cheap, but it's not, you know, crazy, man. You gotta remember, one of the

Sterling Burnett: 25:56

reasons insurance is going up is people are putting more and more property, more and more valuable property in places where disasters are you know, natural disasters occur. So, you know, it's called like expanding bull's eye effect. When you've got more people and more property and more valuable property, you you replace a bait shack or a couple of boat rental places with a luxury condo. It's more expensive to insure because they have to pay out more, and they do when, natural disasters

Jim Lakely: 26:33

yep. 100%. Alright. We can move on to our second item here, and that is, well, it concerns a pretty special iceberg. And this is from, the climate realism.comentry by, Anthony Watts, who is who is off today, but, he lives on through this contribution to the show.

Jim Lakely: 26:56

And this was from this week at, climaterealism.com. I definitely recommend y'all check out that site. We have at least 3 new debunkings of media alarmism every single week. But he writes that in July 2017, CNN and a number of other media outlets posted stories about iceberg a 68 calving off of Antarctica's Larsen C ice shelf, with CNN suggesting that we should be freaked out, unquote, about it because of climate change. CNN was wrong, writes Anthony.

Jim Lakely: 27:28

It was based on an incomplete understanding of iceberg formation and calving driven by a rush to judgment to further the false climate disaster narrative. And then see Anthony cites another CNN story that stated, quote, there is no disagreement among climate scientists about whether humans are warming the earth by burning fossil fuels and polluting the atmosphere with greenhouse gases. We are, and we see the consequences. And by that, he meant the trillion tongue iceberg A68 that broke off Antarctica in 2017. Now, the surface area of, iceberg A68 in 2017 when it calved was 2,200 square miles, which is close to the size of the state of Delaware or, for our international audience, about twice the size of Luxembourg.

Jim Lakely: 28:17

Now, I think we shouldn't have named it something boring like a 68. I mean, it's it's aimless and it's adrift and it portends doom and reminds people of Delaware, so it obviously should have been named Joe Biden. So, anyway, let's have a picture of that. So this is, this is iceberg. This is a picture from space.

Jim Lakely: 28:36

I mean, gosh. It's so big. You can see it from space, obviously. Iceberg a 68 approaching South Georgia Island, which is, famous, I believe, from the Shackleton expedition. And then we have another picture here.

Jim Lakely: 28:48

Is that the first one? The second one. Yeah. There's another picture. There it is again, a clear shot.

Jim Lakely: 28:53

And there were some GIFs that showed its motion, but they were mostly covered in clouds and it gave me vertigo. So I didn't include this in the show today, but you can see how massive and, actually kind of beautiful that, iceberg was. So, anyway, continuing on, Anthony is, highlights that a new study published in Geophysical Research Letters tosses, quote, ice cold water on those overhyped media claims. The study, McKee et al from 2024 analyzed 47 years of observational satellite data from Antarctica and found that there has been no trend in annual Antarctic maximum calving size between 1976 and 2023. The key findings of this study are, 1, there has been no detectable upward trend in the annual maximum iceberg area in Antarctica since 1973 based on satellite measurements.

Jim Lakely: 29:43

2, the break off of iceberg a 68, little Joe Biden, from the Larsen c ice shelf was not statistically notable. Three, calving events several times larger than anything observed in the modern record could occur and still it would not necessarily be due to climate change. Now the papers authors are clear that the calving of a 68 was, quote, statistically unexceptional in the historic satellite record. So let that sit in, writes Anthony Watts. The author's paper the authors of the paper write, quote, this finding suggests that extreme calving events such as the recent 2017 Larsen C iceberg, a 68, are statistically unexceptional and that extreme calving events are not necessarily a consequence of climate change.

Jim Lakely: 30:31

So, Sterling, we will start with you. This is seems to be yet another panic that turned out to be perfectly normal and within the statistical range of normalcy. But even I'm surprised by this one because, gosh, that iceberg is pretty damn big. I mean, if you can see it from space, that's a big that's a big item.

Sterling Burnett: 30:51

It's a big item, and we've we've got a big planet, and it's a small item in relation to the entirety of the planet. The water that it stores is small in relation to the, water in the ocean. In the end, you know, this report said, what we've written about, you know, there's a debate as to whether Antarctica is losing or gaining, ice. In in the east and central, it seems to be gaining on the west and the and our peninsula is losing. That's largely due to subsurface volcanic activity, warming it from below, increasing the ice flow.

Sterling Burnett: 31:27

Ice has always flowed though. It it it, pushes out. And, the the importance of this report is that it it shows it's not increasing. It's not getting worse. They're not bigger icebergs than we've ever seen before.

Sterling Burnett: 31:46

And of course, remember, we've only been in our arctic for a very very short period of time. We've got no idea what the size of icebergs might have broken off 70 years ago, much less a 100 years ago, and even even further back. They cover the satellite record. Remember part of the satellite record they're covering was when the earth was cooler. So during this period of warming, starting from when the earth was cooler and and people were warning of the next ice age through the period that they say, the hottest on record, ice calving hasn't gotten worse despite the claims.

Jim Lakely: 32:28

Yep. Greg?

Gregory Wrightstone: 32:29

Yes. Well, I think the key point here is they talked about the ice shelf breaking off. Now bear in mind, ice shelves are floating on water just like the northern polar ice cap. And the fact of the matter is, if we melted the entire northern polar ice cap or that particular shelf melted, it would do nothing to raise sea level. Because as you think about the Titanic and the icebergs, that 90% of that iceberg is is underwater.

Gregory Wrightstone: 33:01

So as it melts, it dis it's it's displacing the water that have been there. You get and and so you can melt. You you can do this experiment at home in a with a large jar. Just fill it up, mark the line of water, put some ice cubes in it, and the ice cubes, when you put them in, will raise the water up. But as they melt, the the water level stays the same.

Gregory Wrightstone: 33:21

So ice floating on water, even if it's a huge amount like this, iceberg, won't do anything to rise to raise sea level.

Jim Lakely: 33:32

Yeah. Yeah. Well, that's all true, and, you can go to climate realism.com to, to read that story in full and, lots of other stories that debunk mainstream media, lies. Let's just say it. Lies about the climate.

Jim Lakely: 33:49

You wanna be generous, they are ill informed, and they are most journalists are not very scientifically literate, and you can tell by reading by reading their stories.

Sterling Burnett: 33:58

Oh, but they're lazy too. An environmental group puts out a a press release, and they take it as gospel. They don't research it. They assume that because they're an environmental group, they're already working in the the public's interest, because, god, they want a good environment for people, which isn't necessarily true. They they they want what they consider a good environment, but it may not be the best for people.

Sterling Burnett: 34:22

In fact, they may want fewer people. A lot of these environmental groups are like that. So but they take it as gospel. They don't research it. They're just lazy.

Jim Lakely: 34:32

Yep. Alright. Well, our last item here is is going to be, a really, maybe the funniest one we've had in a while. And these this is this comes from our friends at the World Economic Forum, who people have mentioned earlier. They said you will own nothing and like it.

Jim Lakely: 34:49

I guess you're still gonna be able to own your own clothes, although we'll see that might be an open question. But the, the World Economic Forum in a post on their website and a video that circulated on social media this week says that scientists are urging us to wash our clothes less to help save the planet. And, they put up a little one minute video that we will show you all now. And so scientists are urging us, yes, because laundry has a huge environmental impact. It says 70% of the c o two emissions generated by a cotton t shirt come from washing and drying it.

Jim Lakely: 35:24

Laundry also puts detergents and microfibers into waterways, which is damaging to ecosystems. Too much washing also wears out clothes faster, meaning more are sent to the landfill. The EU alone produces 2,200,000 tons of textile waste a year, and experts at the Society of Chemical Industry say we shouldn't wash our clothes after every wear. They say jeans shouldn't be washed more than once a month. And jumpers or sweaters once a fortnight.

Jim Lakely: 35:51

Pajamas once a week. And the exceptions, of course, are underwear. Yay. And gym clothes, which should be washed after every single wearing. If using a machine, try the lower temperatures and shorter cycles.

Jim Lakely: 36:03

And they ask, how often do you wash your clothes? And so there you have it. There is so there doesn't seem to be a single aspect of modern life, guys, that the environmental wackos do not feel the need to lecture you about or perhaps if they had the power to, obviously, ban and regulate it so that you can only do things that they like as often as they like and to hell with what you think. So, how often do you wash your jeans, Greg Wrightstone?

Gregory Wrightstone: 36:34

My jeans can go for 2 months. I'm not worried about that. But I was way ahead of the curve on this. I haven't done laundry in probably 15 years. In fact, I'm not sure where the where the washer or dryer is located because I have the there's apparently, the the laundry genie that when I'm out, takes the laundry and it shows back up.

Gregory Wrightstone: 36:55

I I don't know how it works, but, so I'm way ahead of the curve on that.

Sterling Burnett: 37:00

You said that openly. You have a wife, and you probably have, you know, maybe a housekeeper. I would be very, very concerned. I'd be very concerned that, you said that openly. They they may they may not be happy about that.

Gregory Wrightstone: 37:17

My my wife would laugh at it. Yep.

Jim Lakely: 37:21

You know,

Sterling Burnett: 37:24

who would have thought homeless people are the true environmentalist, you know, because they they, you know, their clothes never get washed. We should all live like that. Evidently, we don't own homes and we don't wash our clothes. So, that's that's the that's the move that they want us to make.

Jim Lakely: 37:42

Yeah. Well, I mean

Sterling Burnett: 37:43

My, you know, my look. My clothes get washed, once a week. Sometimes I'm the one doing the washing. Sometimes my wife is the one doing the washing, but we put we put them in our hamper after we use them, and they're washed once a week. That's how often it is, and that so my jeans may not get washed.

Sterling Burnett: 38:01

They certainly don't get washed after one one wear. My shirts typically get washed after 2 because, you know, I'm sitting in front of a computer all day. It's not like I'm sweating them up. When I go outside and do more, you know, look, my hunting clothes get washed after every hunt. I go out hunt, they come back, they get washed.

Sterling Burnett: 38:25

And if I'm spending time outdoors, or if I'm doing a lot of work in the house. But regardless of what I do or how Greg handles it or how Jim handles it, it's none of their effing business.

Gregory Wrightstone: 38:41

As long

Sterling Burnett: 38:41

as I'm willing to pay for the water and I'm willing to pay for the energy, I don't believe in the social cost of carbon, and, they have no right to tell me what to do. Now they're trying to. They're doing it through the DOE, making my washing machine less efficient, less effective. So they may get their wish. Right?

Sterling Burnett: 39:01

Because if washing machines don't work, I'll I'll I guarantee you, I'm not going out to the stream with a stone and washing my clothes there.

Jim Lakely: 39:09

Disconnected. Yeah. You just stole it right out of my mouth because, you know, I was gonna ask you guys, do you are you guys curious about how often I wash my, my pajamas or my t shirts? And my answer is Not

Gregory Wrightstone: 39:20

at all.

Jim Lakely: 39:21

It's none of your damn business how often, and it's my business. And if I feel like washing it by accident, even if I didn't, you know maybe I put it on and decided to change my mind and threw it on the bed. And then I come in there the next day, and there it is. And I can't remember if I wore it or not. Guess where it's going?

Jim Lakely: 39:36

It's going in the hamper. But, you know, but this it's just this insidious idea from our media and from our, you know, these global organizations, like the World Economic Forum, that think that they have the right, frankly, to tell everybody how to live their lives. I know they they try to get and this is where this starts. I mean, it is funny. And we we cover this kind of stuff a lot on this show.

Jim Lakely: 39:56

It is funny that they have a whole video. I wonder how much c o two, was was used, how much how much was emitted making that video because, you know, servers take up a lot of energy, actually. But that that they feel like they have the right, frankly, to tell you how often you should wash your clothes. And, you know, it reminds me of, like, what JD Vance in, in an interview he did with, with somebody on one of those Sunday shows. Like, do you even hear yourself?

Jim Lakely: 40:22

I mean, how are you supposed to be appealing to people and and to their better natures when you never have a limit? You never know when to stop, and it just seems like this is a great example of that. Anyway, there's my gym rant for the day. Somebody in the chat was asking for one. I probably could have yelled a little louder, but that'll have to do.

Jim Lakely: 40:41

Okay. Alright. So we have a actually, we like to share a meme, every every week, and we have one. I think, Sterling, you may have found this for us, or maybe it was maybe it was Anthony. This is a meme.

Jim Lakely: 40:53

Greta in 2065 looking quite wrinkly. And she says, we only have one month to save the world because the message never changes no matter what.

Sterling Burnett: 41:03

Is it just me, or does she look amazingly like Hillary Clinton?

Jim Lakely: 41:07

She does she does seem to be on a Hillary track in the future, I have to say. That's unfortunate, but alright. Great. So our last, we can get into our main topic now, which is which is why we're so happy to have, to have Gregory on this program today, and that is a new paper that is out by, the CO 2 Coalition. Nobody well, we have our international conferences on climate change.

Jim Lakely: 41:38

Of course, we have many different panels on a lot of different subjects, and one of them is always kind of, like, keeping track and explaining carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, how much is human, how much how much is humans putting up there, how much is is trivial to nature, what does it look like in historical record going back tens of 1000 of years or even from the industrial revolution and all of that. And Gregory is usually headlining one of those panels or at least or several of them when it comes to c o two. And so they have a new paper out today, this week, and we'll put it here on the screen. Human contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide, how human emissions are restoring vital atmospheric, CO2. So again, Gregory, maybe you can kind of take us through this paper's findings, its main points, and conclusion.

Jim Lakely: 42:28

And I would ask our audience if you have questions, any questions at all relating to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, this is the chance to ask them.

Gregory Wrightstone: 42:36

Yeah. We there are a couple of pretty important matters when it comes to carbon dioxide and then also climate, how it might affect the warming effect of the earth. In this one, we we stuck we didn't address anything on the warming effect of carbon of carbon dioxide, but rather stuck with why have we had a 50% increase, of carbon dioxide for about 280 at the end at the beginning of the industrial revolution to 420 today. That's a 50% increase. And there were some reports out recently, that claimed quite categorically that it it's not due to our emissions, it's all due to nature.

Gregory Wrightstone: 43:15

Well, think about that. My colleagues at the c o two coalition, I couldn't find one. I did recently have someone contact me, that was he he needed to learn more, but of all the scientists, they were shaking their heads going, no. And so when this was very much needed to to look at the science and document, you know, what is the source of that 50% increase? And we use 7 different lines of evidence, to to to confirm that the majority, probably 90% plus of of the 50% increase is from our human emissions.

Gregory Wrightstone: 43:55

And what these people are saying think about it. What they're saying is if you add huge amounts of a gas to the atmosphere, it will not increase the levels of that gas in the atmosphere. Just looking at it simply like that, you go, well well, no. It's gotta increase it. And so we've we've been adding this, and I think that one of the big things we look at here one of the first things as geologists, as I look at, is we're in an interglacial period.

Gregory Wrightstone: 44:26

We know over the last 800000 years based on, Antarctic ice core data that during each interglacial period, sea level or c o two levels increased from 200 or so parts per million, maybe 185, during the interglacials, up to up to 285, rarely above 300. But this this interglacial is completely different. We're we're at 420 today. Huge increase from the previous ones. And what we looked at here was that that something's different during this interglacial demand, and that thing that's different is the emissions of of fossil fuels.

Gregory Wrightstone: 45:04

There's a brand new source of c o two that never on earth's history has ever been introduced. We're we're liberating, the carbon that was locked up and burning it and emitting carbon dioxide from coal, oil, and gas source rocks. And, and so we we look at that. There were claims that, there were very high levels of c l two as recently as 19 forties that had gone up over 500. But those are most of those are based on the late Ernst Becks, measurements using chemical methodology, and we look at that, in this paper.

Gregory Wrightstone: 45:40

I'm not gonna go into detail about that, but that the chemical methods and and also the paleosol or not paleosols, but the stomatal measures are are really not very good measurements. And I'm not gonna go into the details why they're not, but using the ICE core data, which, Renee Hannon, our expert, calls the gold standard, There's something else going on here. Well, also, we can look at, the mass balance. We and when that by that, I mean, we know pretty clearly how much gas c o two is being emitted by us, pretty accurately, not not as act not pretty accurately what that is. We also know very accurately, how much of that gas is showing up in the atmosphere by the atmospheric levels.

Gregory Wrightstone: 46:28

And we only find that, there's only half of the gas that are being admitted that actually shows up in the atmosphere as increases. And so what's what's that mean? That means it's going somewhere, and that somewhere is nature. Nature is a has to be a net sink, not a net sink, not a net source. And that's pretty pretty clearly dominated.

Gregory Wrightstone: 46:51

If only half of the of our emissions are showing up in the atmosphere, it's going somewhere. Where is it? Nature. And so we look at this. We also look at it was a fascinating it's a it's pretty high level science here that we look at.

Gregory Wrightstone: 47:05

Yeah. I I learned a lot going through this. For example, we looked at carbon 14 isotope data, and I'm a geologist, and I've learned a lot about this. Carbon 14 is radioactive isotope of carbon that breaks down. It's got about a 52100 year half life.

Gregory Wrightstone: 47:25

And so that means you've got by the time you're about 60,000 years out, there's no carbon 14 left in the rocks if it was deposited. And so these source rocks for oil, the coal, there's no c 14 when you burn them. There's 0 that comes out, and we see that there's a decline of c 14 in the atmosphere, which is another confirmation that that there's a lot of carbon dioxide being part of the atmosphere. Part of the others is it was coming from the oceans because we know that the a warming ocean in the other glacials actually, was a was a net source. But here we find that, we can document pretty clearly a number of different ways the c o two is increasing in the oceans.

Gregory Wrightstone: 48:12

The p c o two, is increasing, which means that the pH has been slightly declining, and it looks like it's declined over, the last 60 or 80 years about 1 tenth of of of a pH level. So we're right about, I think, around 7.9 right now. Remember, 7.0 is is is a neutral pH, and anything above that is is alkaline. So the alkalinity of the ocean has has declined, which confirms it's absorbing more c o two into the ocean. It's not getting rid of it.

Gregory Wrightstone: 48:49

It's actually adding. There were other lines of evidence here, that we used that, we're not gonna go into all of these,

Jim Lakely: 48:58

but

Gregory Wrightstone: 48:58

it was just one line at line of evidence after another. Just really, I think we put a stake in the heart of this nature as the source of these emissions. And bear in mind though, that you you'll be told that, a very small percentage of that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is fossil is coming from fossils or fossil fuels. And and that might be true because, you remember, c o two's gonna be recycled, over time in a pretty short basis. So maybe you've got a maple tree in your front yard that use, let's just say, 100 molecules of fossil c 02, and then it brings in in the spring and summer.

Gregory Wrightstone: 49:36

And then in the fall and winter, it sheds its sleeves, and that 90 of the 100 molecules for fossil are are remitted through, decomposition and now become c o two from nature. So there's a lot of recycling going on. But but there's there's there's pretty categorical evidence that, that we are the reason. And we like c o two. We don't think it's it's something to be embraced.

Gregory Wrightstone: 50:03

Here at the c o two coalition, our unofficial motto is, we love c o two and so should you. And from that, we see, that, you know, just by almost every metric we look at, our ecosystems are thriving and prospering, and humanity's benefiting from modest warming. So it's warmed about 1.2 degrees Celsius over since 18 50, and that warming means we have longer growing seasons. It's huge for crops. That's it's a really good thing, and we're seeing most a lot of that warming count comes in, not in the heat waves or the hot temperatures, but rather an increase in nighttime coldest temperatures that's driving up some of this warming.

Gregory Wrightstone: 50:48

And then the c o two is just turbocharging plant growth and crop growth. But but, again, I I learned so much, through the creation of this, and we're diving and delving. Right now, we're we're researching more on c three, c four plants, and it's it's fascinating what I'm what we're learning there. We'll be coming out with a report on that pretty soon.

Jim Lakely: 51:12

Yep. Okay. Yeah. We can we can, we can go back through a little bit of the paper. I think I had I put some charts up there.

Jim Lakely: 51:18

Greg, if you have your, I'm gonna throw I'm throwing something to Sterling here in the questions even though we're not officially at the q and a section. But Sterling is chomping at the bit while his voice holds out to address the question. But, Greg, if you if there are a couple charts that you think are are good to point out in the thing, you can, you can tell me about them, in a moment, and we can bring them up on the screen. But, Sterling wanted to address, a specific question here in the chat.

Sterling Burnett: 51:39

It wasn't a question. It was a comment. It was

Jim Lakely: 51:40

a comment. It was a comment. Yeah. Here it is.

Sterling Burnett: 51:42

And, is that the one? Yeah. That's the one.

Jim Lakely: 51:46

So the let me just read it out for for people just listening to the podcast today. So the question is this is from Luke Starkenberg. So the question is, can nature keep up with human caused emissions? Sounds like it can't keep up because the c o two levels keep going up. So go ahead go ahead, Sterling, and maybe Gregory can also hit on this as well.

Sterling Burnett: 52:04

And the answer is, no. Nature's not taking all the c o two out of the atmosphere that we're adding to the atmosphere. It adds it takes about half of it out. And then the question is, so what? You know, unless you think c o two is dangerous, it doesn't matter if c o two goes up.

Sterling Burnett: 52:23

In fact, as Greg and his group point out regularly, it's good. At one time, c o two levels, you know, not at one time, over the history of the over the years geological history, which is a lot longer than 1,000, 2,000, 10000 years, which we're always obsessing over, c o two level has been much higher. And in fact, c o two is largely drawn down over time, gotten compact into carbonaceous rocks, some of which we have opened up when we when we grind them up for concrete, limestone, and things like that. And, we've released it back into the atmosphere. Most plants evolved at times when c o two was much higher.

Sterling Burnett: 53:06

If we don't capture all the c o two, that's okay because in part well, the new c o two is good for plants, but also because c o two only captures certain radiation bands in the atmosphere, and they're already covered largely by water vapor. So more c02 doesn't necessarily lead to more warming.

Gregory Wrightstone: 53:30

Yeah. That's Greg, guys, Sterling hits

Jim Lakely: 53:32

add to that.

Gregory Wrightstone: 53:33

Well, Sterling's right. Yeah. We're not nature's not keeping up with the amount of c o two coming into the atmosphere, and I I'm okay with that. If we're looking again, we're looking at corn, which is c 4 crop. Now c 4 crops evolved in a low c o two environment, and they don't need as much c o two for optimum growth.

Gregory Wrightstone: 53:51

So it might be that, perhaps and I don't know. I'm not gonna state this as a fact, but looks like for corn and c fours, maybe 3.50 or 400 parts per million are optimal for plant growth. But put a c o two meter in a cornfield. Let's just say, okay, we're 420. Put a c o two meter in a in the middle of a cornfield on a a windless day in August, and you'll find that c o two levels instead of 420, they're down at 320, 300, really, really low levels, and that's because the c o two the corn is just sucking c o two out of the atmosphere.

Gregory Wrightstone: 54:28

It's fascinating. But if you get on a tall step ladder and get up out of the corn, it'll be back up to around the ambient 4 20 levels. So if we have even higher levels for corn, then the corn would would actually grow much better even if their optimal levels levels were at 400 or 350. The c threes are much more or or most of the crops that are being grown and or known nowhere near optimal carbon dioxide levels for those. They'll they'll continue being, turbocharged for, you know, it's it's gonna be what are we gonna be, 200 years till we double or more than that before we double c o two.

Gregory Wrightstone: 55:09

And so that's a good thing. What we're seeing year after year, we're seeing crops. And in my book, I captured the top 8 crops in the world, and they're tons per acre that are produced, and they're just breaking records year after year after year. And it's from the coldest countries to the hottest countries like India. India's crop growth, and and they used to have terrible famines and, crop failure.

Gregory Wrightstone: 55:32

They don't have it anymore. They haven't had it in in decades. It's because of a number of different things. GMO crops are are now being used that, handle drought better, but it's also c o two fertilization means that they handle plants handle drought much better. They don't need as much water, And so we're that's why we're seeing part of the reason we're seeing that the the Sahel there was a new UN report claiming that the the sec there's desertification in the Sahel.

Gregory Wrightstone: 56:01

Heck no. Just the opposite. 200,000 square kilometers of the Southern Sahara, the Sahel, are now the lush grassland and farmland. They were desert 68 years ago. Yep.

Gregory Wrightstone: 56:13

And so they lie about these things. Flat out lie, and it's disinformation campaign for people we should trust. And, you know, we've got we we saw this. I think people had their eyes opened in the COVID era that, you know, we found out that there was straight out disinformation and misinformation, and people lying about things that they knew were were incorrect. And I I think with the at the end of this, we'll look back.

Gregory Wrightstone: 56:40

And maybe maybe it might just pretty coming pretty soon, but they'll be exposed that it's what's going on in climate change, science, what passes at science, it it will make the COVID misinformation look it will pale in comparison, because we see it. I know Sterling shaking his head. Yes. We see it every single day. It's just not

Sterling Burnett: 56:59

you know, I wish it I wish it work so rife in climate science. But, you know, it seems that the the the more government gets into funding science, the more fraud there is in science to gather big money in it because it's it's not just climate science. I think I saw, research that showed about half of the studies published in medical journals, have been shown to be false. They went through peer review. They got a lot of headlines, and now they've had to withdraw them or issue, you know, what is on the view they ask you legal notes.

Sterling Burnett: 57:37

Well, you know, they they issue science and say, no. Well, no. This it turns out this isn't right. And that's because there's lots of big money in this, and so it's corrupted science. It's not the pursuit of knowledge.

Sterling Burnett: 57:51

It's the pursuit of funding.

Gregory Wrightstone: 57:54

And it turns out

Sterling Burnett: 57:55

disaster and disaster garners funding.

Gregory Wrightstone: 57:58

And it turns out, if you're a scientist in academia, and you propose or find they have a finding that disagrees with the with the 97% con consensus, you're probably probably gonna be lucky if only you get is losing your funding. You might be fired. And there are very few or you're at the least, you're at the most you're gonna, rich risk being disgraced and held in contempt by your peers and contemporaries. There aren't many brave scientists as it turns out out there. There are few, but but not many.

Gregory Wrightstone: 58:34

We have one with the c o two coalition that was doctor Byron Sapoia. He worked he was doing writing papers on sequestration, carbon removal and sequestration. He he read articles on are are challenging that 0. It opened his eyes. He learned more, and he contacted us and said, I'm I'm working for the wrong guys.

Gregory Wrightstone: 58:56

You know, I'm working for the Empire. I wanna go work for Luke Skywalker and Will Happe. And, and so he actually he quit his job, and I said, man, I gotta hire this guy. So he's working. He's a science and research associate, doctor Byron Sapoian, and he's doing great work for us.

Gregory Wrightstone: 59:12

And so but look think about that. He he walked away from a job. How many people would do that? So he used to be congratulated. We need more Byron Sapoians, if you were, doctor Michael Manns.

Jim Lakely: 59:26

Yeah. We got, you

Sterling Burnett: 59:26

know, Matt Matt Wilicki is another example of that. Right? Yeah.

Jim Lakely: 59:29

That's right. That's right.

Sterling Burnett: 59:30

But the sad the sad thing is, I understand that it's brave to walk away and stand up for your principal, but we need guys like that sticking in the university and turning it around because most people are educated there. You know, it's sad that Willicki and and Sepoyan had to leave academia, to be honest. We need academics, honest academics, and the university setting.

Gregory Wrightstone: 59:57

Yeah. Yeah. We see that, we've got a really neat book. We've I've just I I I authored my first comic book. It's a new series of books we came out.

Gregory Wrightstone: 01:00:08

I I worked with doctor Peter Ridd, who's a prime example of this. It was, you know, the book is Chloe the clownfish sleeps well. It's about a clownfish that lives on the Great Barrier Reef, and and she's been told in school school that, you know, that her the reef was being destroyed and she was in great danger. So I I worked with Peter Ridd. He and I collaborated, on this.

Gregory Wrightstone: 01:00:30

But, you know, Peter Ridd was he was fired from I think it was James Cook University, because he he told the truth about what about the good news of the Great Barrier Reef, that it's it's very, very healthy, and maybe as healthy as it's been in 30 years. And he's I believe he settled recently with with the university. Mhmm. But, he you know, we get we don't have many Peter Ridds, and we we need more Peter Ridds and fewer Michael Manns.

Jim Lakely: 01:00:57

Yeah. Well, hey, Greg. So we're gonna get we have some q and a here, that I wanna get some definitely some questions that we start over here in the chat. I think there are a lot of really good ones, but I wanna ask you, Let's just say you and I got into an elevator, and I'm getting off on the 10th floor. You have 10 floors or about maybe a minute and a half to tell me why this podcast, the title of, this edition of the Climb Realism Show is human c o two emissions are a good thing.

Jim Lakely: 01:01:23

What do you tell somebody who asks you a question about that, when you only got 10 floors to tell them?

Gregory Wrightstone: 01:01:28

Oh, just crop growth is the is clearly a huge example because you can incorporate both warming and and admit that it's warming, and it is. But but in the continental United States, our growing seasons lengthened by more than 2 weeks since 1900. That's great for crops, and, crops are fueled by more carbon dioxide. And just about every crop you look at is breaking growth records year after year after year, and it's mainly attributed to carbon dioxide fertilization. I think that's the big one.

Gregory Wrightstone: 01:02:03

Or they or to tell them that our levels today are at near historically low levels, that we we don't have too much c o two. We don't have enough. We're actually in c o two starvation.

Jim Lakely: 01:02:12

Yeah. And one of your one of the founding scientists at the CO 2 Coalition, Professor Emeritus of Physics at Princeton University, doctor Will Happer, when he is invited on occasion on cable news networks and other places, he will make the point that, historically, we are, as a planet or this planet is, I should say, historically, in a long term view, c o two deficient, compared to where it should be.

Gregory Wrightstone: 01:02:40

Yeah. And, yeah, Will HappeR is a force of nature. He's so well respected. I've, you know, I've I I learned so much every time I talk to him. And, I'm like it was it was just one Will HappeR story quickly.

Gregory Wrightstone: 01:02:58

We it was maybe a year and a half ago. I was or no. It was right at the beginning of the Biden administration. I said, I'm rereading Atlas Shrugged. And he says, that's a coincidence.

Gregory Wrightstone: 01:03:07

So am I. I'm reading. But he said, I'm reading it in the original Russian. Who does that? Who reads Atlas it's tough enough in English.

Gregory Wrightstone: 01:03:15

Who reads Atlas shrugged in Russian? Will Haber does. And so, no. He he's an American treasure.

Jim Lakely: 01:03:22

No no doubt. No doubt. Alright. Let let's get to some of the questions here, while we can. Here's one from from Jay Bledsoe.

Jim Lakely: 01:03:31

He asked, how much confidence do you have in the proposition that humans are causing all or most of the atmospheric c 02 increase? What about natural warming causing c 02 to come out of solution in the oceans?

Gregory Wrightstone: 01:03:44

Well, we attribute, we we in our paper, we we we looked at the warming, and, we attribute about 10% of the, additional c o twos from the warming in the atmosphere. So that is but we know but we know the ocean is a net sink. It just is. And we we would use that we we look at carbon you can look at that confirm it with carbon 13 versus carbon, ice carbon 13. And I'm not an expert on that, but that's one method.

Gregory Wrightstone: 01:04:15

We also know that the pH of the ocean is slightly being reduced, which indicates that c o two's increasing in the ocean. It's not being reduced. They're they're it's pretty pretty categorical. If you if you look at our paper, and it's it's a deep dive, and some it's not it's not difficult science, but there's a lot there to back it up. We wanted to make this, this paper ironclad, peer reviewed.

Gregory Wrightstone: 01:04:44

And I think we've we've pretty much fully documented. And I do realize, people say, well, no. No. It's well documented. The temperature precedes c o two changes.

Gregory Wrightstone: 01:04:54

That's correct. That's what it's been for the last several 1000000 years until we started burning lots of of fossil fuels. That it all changed when we started liberating lots of the carbon and carbon dioxide that was locked up in the in the coal swamps. Look at back in the Carboniferous period. It was at 26 100 parts per million until the coal swamps started forming, And it fell to under 400 parts per million in in a geologically short period of time.

Gregory Wrightstone: 01:05:23

If if our carbon dioxide levels in the in the atmosphere could be reduced by putting creating lots of coal, we can increase it by liberating lots of, by by burning lots of coal.

Jim Lakely: 01:05:37

Yep. Yep. Yes. Yes. Yes.

Jim Lakely: 01:05:40

Yes. Okay. We have some more. We have a lot of questions, actually. Maybe this is a let me see.

Jim Lakely: 01:05:46

This is a good one here. From a regular viewer, Chris Nisbett. He says, please explain how the first 100 parts per million of c o two has a greater warming effect than the second 100 parts per million.

Gregory Wrightstone: 01:06:00

Yeah. The the, that's that's been captured laboratory as a laboratory. Doctor Appler uses paint on a barn. I like mine a little bit better. Let's just say, if you got a front window and you put a a coat of white paint on your front window, and that'll knock out what?

Gregory Wrightstone: 01:06:22

A lot of the light, and then you put another coat of white paint on it, and that knocks out a little bit more of it of the light, but not as much as that first coat, and so on and so on and so on. And so what we do is, the c o two in the atmosphere, there's only there's only there are only so many infrared rays that it's called saturation. It's it's actually it's c o two's is not saturated, but it's nearly saturated in the atmosphere. It's it's a logarithmic decline in its warming potential. And, I know we'll I'll get an email from, Will Haber saying, you didn't say that quite correctly.

Gregory Wrightstone: 01:07:02

That's where I he he he keeps me from going too far astray. But but again, yes. It's it's the first 100 parts per million has more of a warming effect than the next 100 and so on and so on and so.

Jim Lakely: 01:07:14

A logarithmic relationship to it.

Gregory Wrightstone: 01:07:16

Logarithmic. Right.

Jim Lakely: 01:07:17

Right. So so, actually, so Bill, Pekney has a related question. Maybe maybe it's worth addressing here. He says, I understand that c o two is saturated in the air today. So how do I address biologists that insist there's an upper limit on c o two that helps crop growth?

Gregory Wrightstone: 01:07:33

Well, the saturation has only to do with the warming effect of it. Crop growth has come something completely different. And, I will tell you that I I, Bill Pekney and I worked together. He's he lives in, Utah. I hope I'm not telling any stories.

Gregory Wrightstone: 01:07:48

He loved our billboard, and he said that we put up. So, at his suggestion and his a little bit of help, he had us put up a billboard last year that says, sleep well, there is no climate crisis, and that rotated around Salt Lake City for, I think, 6 months, And people were driving by, and heads were exploding. But, Bill, there's, 2 different things. The saturation has to do with warming and the, c o two benefiting crops. It just has to be with the crop fertilization effect.

Jim Lakely: 01:08:22

We have another, Abel Windsor, a a regular on both, viewer of both this program and the In the Tank podcast on Thursdays. He's citing, I suppose, a, academic paper, Shane et al from 1991. Water vapor is 98% to 70% of the greenhouse effect based on atmospheric conditions. Maybe you can talk a little bit about water vapor versus c o 2?

Gregory Wrightstone: 01:08:45

Oh, water vapor is the is the largest greenhouse effect we have. But I've I I'm not familiar with that paper, but, the physicists that I talked to, Linz and Happer, Steve Coon, and, the other physicists that we have at the coalition, especially Will Happer, you know, they think that it's around it can vary, but it's probably around 70%, and that c o two might be another who knows,

Sterling Burnett: 01:09:12

you

Gregory Wrightstone: 01:09:12

know, what the percentage is. But it's it's certainly a a minority of the warming effect, and water vapor's predominant one. I don't think it's it's 98%. Particularly, we see that, and it it varies because water vapor water in the atmosphere can vary greatly. And and diff you know, where depending where you are in the desert, so Antarctica is very low on water vapor.

Gregory Wrightstone: 01:09:36

But I I think the 98% is, you know, 70, 80%, I think, is is more in line with what we'll see with, the amount of warming from from water vapor.

Jim Lakely: 01:09:47

Okay. Let me, let me get this, Doug Troyer, another regular to the program. Thank you for being here with us again, Doug. He says they still have no idea what is human and natural. It's just not determinable.

Jim Lakely: 01:09:59

And I guess and I suppose he means the the level of c o two in the atmosphere. How much is it attributed to nature? How much is attributed attributable to human activity? Can you address that? How how close are we, or do we know the answer to that?

Jim Lakely: 01:10:12

How much is human? How much is nature?

Gregory Wrightstone: 01:10:16

I think I think we can get close, and I think we have in this paper. We know we know what it should have been based on the other interglacial periods. Other interglacial periods were around 300 parts per million. Or at 420 today. And just looking, comparing today versus where we should have been without our emissions, which a little over a 100 parts per million is but again, that's not the c o two from fossil fuels is being recycled all the time, and, you know, it it's taken up by plants and then readmitted.

Gregory Wrightstone: 01:10:53

But but it's a 120 parts per million, I think, is is attributable. We would be at 300 parts per million if we weren't. Another way to say it is we would be around 300 parts per million if we weren't liberating the carbon that was locked up 1000000 of years ago.

Jim Lakely: 01:11:13

And extending the the length of making life better for every human being on earth in exponential ways since the industrial revolution. No.

Gregory Wrightstone: 01:11:20

No. Sorry. Go ahead, Sterling.

Sterling Burnett: 01:11:23

Yeah. So you say about 300 parts per million, and I'm not gonna dispute that. But I'd like to point out to our audience that during the last ice age, carbon dioxide levels dipped to about a 180 parts per million. And in a 150 parts per million, photosynthesis stops. Plants die, and when plants die, we all die.

Sterling Burnett: 01:11:51

So what happened after we came out of the last ice age? Well, it added about a 120 parts per million to the atmosphere, a 140. Right? It went from, it went from a 180 to 270, 280 to 300 in the early part of the century before we started pumping out the CO 2. So nature did have a role in current CO 2.

Sterling Burnett: 01:12:21

It's just that where it stands now, most of it is, human's contribution.

Gregory Wrightstone: 01:12:26

Yeah. There it again, it's that this this paper was very much needed, because there's some incorrect science out there. There's some others that we'll be attacking here. There've been recent papers claiming that, the green there is no greenhouse effect and and c o two has no warming effect. Well, that's just and and they're they're using strange ideas to back this up, and hopefully, I've I've got it in front of me today.

Gregory Wrightstone: 01:12:56

It's, we'll be putting something out by one of our our our members, Kevin Kilty, on this. And Yeah. I'm I'm in front of I'm I'm I'm hopefully may have that out this weekend. But but again again, there's you know, we're as scientists, we have to stand for scientific rigor, and we have to show what the true science is. Whether it comes from our erstwhile allies, and if they get it wrong, we we need and and we need we need to point out what's right and what's wrong.

Gregory Wrightstone: 01:13:27

Yeah. And we see a lot of bad, bad, bad science coming from the climate alarmists. But but again, we we need to stand as scientists for scientific rigor.

Jim Lakely: 01:13:38

Yeah. I mean, one of the things one of the things that is a hallmark of all 15 of the Heartland Institute's International Conferences on Climate Change when scientists from all around the world get together is that something that will probably shock a lot of alarmists or critics of Heartland is that there's a lot of there's quite a bit of disagreement from a lot of the scientists on, on on the science, on on or their conclusions of what the data tells them. You know, you're a geologist, Greg. We have Will Happers, a physicist. We have atmospheric scientist, Willie Soon, a very good friend of the Heartland Institute, and we'll have to have him on this program again very soon.

Jim Lakely: 01:14:11

His specialty is the sun. And so, you know, you bring scientists together and it's a multidisciplinary field where you you to understand the climate, you need you need experts from all sorts of different disciplines in order to get a a good grasp on the bigger picture. But, so in that spirit, one of the things that we also address on this show, the Climate Realism Show, and people come on this show to get some answers. And here, Thomas Schule is, watching today and, we hear this from time to time. And he he says that c o two has no effect on the climate.

Jim Lakely: 01:14:43

The greenhouse effect is a mathematical artifact of the so called equilibrium climate models, with a flat earth in constant in constant insulation, no night. Not quite sure about the rest of that. But maybe, Greg and and Sterling, you can address the idea that, carbon dioxide, isn't really a greenhouse gas or maybe one that we shouldn't really worry about that it's not, it's not having the effect that the media and, you know, mainstream science seems to play.

Sterling Burnett: 01:15:12

2 things. The latter part of what you said is right. We don't need to worry about it. The former part, I will defer to Greg. My suspicion is he will disagree with this statement.

Jim Lakely: 01:15:25

I'm I'm thinking he might.

Gregory Wrightstone: 01:15:27

You think? Yeah. It's just not right. It's and I I'm a geologist, but I work with some of the top physicists. This we're talking about physics here and atmospheric physics, and there's no better atmospheric physicist in the world, perhaps, than Will Happer.

Gregory Wrightstone: 01:15:42

I work with work with Dick Blins and Will Happer. Again, top physicists in the world. We've we've published many papers. William Windingarten at the University of Toronto of of Toronto. These we've documented and go in great detail the science behind this.

Gregory Wrightstone: 01:16:01

It's, again, it's no. C o 2 the greenhouse effect is real. It's and, thankfully, it's real. C o two has provided warming of the atmosphere, thankfully, but it's not anything alarming. And, it's oh, I I would I would steer, mister Shula towards the many papers that we've written and coauthored, about this that support

Sterling Burnett: 01:16:29

It's warming, but it's also a diminishing impact.

Gregory Wrightstone: 01:16:32

Correct. That's why there was never runaway heat. There was never runaway warming when when c o two levels got to 6 8000 parts per million. Right. And we we should I it's I'm okay with that.

Gregory Wrightstone: 01:16:44

Good. I like it warm. That's why I'm living here in Florida.

Jim Lakely: 01:16:48

Yeah. Alright. And we have to we have to go. Sterling, despite his, his weary condition, does have a radio appointment here pretty soon, so I just wanna put one more. What a trooper.

Jim Lakely: 01:16:58

I'm gonna put one more question up here, and I think we can maybe address it. This is from an account called Ocean Weather Services. He or she says we are adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere at double the rate that the Earth system can absorb them. I think we touched on this a little bit in a previous comment, so I thought maybe we could hit it again here at the end of the q and a.

Gregory Wrightstone: 01:17:19

Yeah. Thankfully, we're we are emitting twice as much, c o twos that are showing up in the atmosphere. That's a good thing. I mean, a lot of that's taken up by photosynthesis, and that's what's driving the greening of the earth, the greening of the Sahara. And and we should celebrate, not demonize increasing c o two.

Gregory Wrightstone: 01:17:39

And so, you know, when you get in your internal combustion engine vehicle, which I hope you're driving and not an EV, you can be thankful that your emissions coming out that tail pipe are actually helping to feed the world, and the and the world's hungry. So that's a good thing you're doing right there.

Sterling Burnett: 01:17:56

And and some of it's being absorbed in the by the phytoplankton and plankton in the oceans, which is good for sea life. Right? We haven't we have entire areas of the oceans they're called dead spots because it doesn't have a lot of nutrients. And we can put nutrients in there and it will create life. It will attract fish life because it creates plankton and phytoplankton and part of that's being absorbed.

Sterling Burnett: 01:18:19

And most of it is not acidifying the ocean. It's sinking down when they when those things die, they're sinking down to the bottom and get locked in just like it has done, by the way, throughout the history of the Earth.

Gregory Wrightstone: 01:18:30

Right. As as petroleum geologist, I did a lot of we we looked at the at this at these organic rich shales and mudstones that are the now the source rocks we're we're targeting. And a lot the organic component there was algal algalable. There were algal blooms that bloomed and died and sunk to the bottom, bloomed and died and sunk to the bottom. And it was certain geologic conditions, allow these to accumulate over many thousands or 100 of 1000 of years into these thick organic rich rocks, like the Marcellus Shale, the Utica, and others, Barnett Shale in Texas, and the Permian Basin.

Gregory Wrightstone: 01:19:05

They're tapping these organic rich they're mostly algal blooms. They're they're in they were unfortunately called fossil fuels. And I guess if if algae is a fossil, they're right. But, but now we should celebrate them. We're liberating all of this.

Gregory Wrightstone: 01:19:22

It was it's been entrapped for 1000000 of years and wanting to get to the surface.

Jim Lakely: 01:19:26

Doing our part for the carbon cycle. You know, we don't get enough credit for it, I guess. There you go. But, I wanna thank our, our guest today, his very special guest and friend, Gregory Ridestone. He's executive director of the CO 2 Coalition.

Jim Lakely: 01:19:39

You should visit CO2 Coalition dotorg, where you can read the the new paper that they just put out, this week, I think, or last, about carbon dioxide. It's a great resource for learning more about the planet and c o two's effect on it. I also wanna thank our, you know, men and women here in the chat. Greg, you you had, Thomas, Schule had had, put up a question I thought was a good challenging question, and now we have people in the chat. He's he's a physicist, and we have other scientists going at each other in the chat in in live time, which my eyes keep looking toward, which, again, is part of the point of this program and the and the kind of debate that we want to, foster, not just here and in the scientific community, but in the popular community as well.

Jim Lakely: 01:20:24

I want you I want to, urge all of our our listeners and viewers to check out our streaming partners, that being junk science.com, CFACT, Climate Depot, and what's up with that. Always, every day, visit climate realism dot com, visit climate ataglance.com, and also, of course, visit heartland.org, where you can subscribe for free to Sterling Burnett's Climate Change Weekly newsletter. I wanna say, again, thank you to Greg. Thank you to Sterling hanging in there like a trooper in your sick condition. I wanna say Merry Christmas, happy holidays, happy Hanukkah, and happy New Year to you all, and we will talk to you next year.

Jim Lakely: 01:21:07

Bye bye.