Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
The investigative journalists at Project Veritas have a new scoop. President Biden’s Environmental Protection Agency is reacting to soon losing power by shoveling tens of billions of your tax dollars out the door to left-wing “green” nonprofits. “”We’re throwing gold bars off the Titanic,” said Brent Efron, Special Advisor for Implementation, EPA. “We’re getting the money out.” Again, that’s your money.
On Episode #137 of The Climate Realism Show, The Heartland Institute’s H. Sterling Burnett, Anthony Watts, Linnea Lueken, and Jim Lakely cover this outrageous story. They also cover the “Crazy Climate News of the Week,” including how gamers are “fighting climate change,” how the BRICS countries are thumbing their noses at the climate cult at the United Nations, and more.
Join us LIVE every Friday at 1 p.m. ET for The Climate Realism Show so you can join the chat and be part of the show.
Creators & 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.
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.
And that's what climate change is about. It is literally not figuratively a clear and present danger.
Greta Thunberg:We are the beginning of a mass extinction.
Jim Lakely:The ability of c 02 to do the heavy work of creating a climate catastrophe is almost nil at this point.
Anthony Watts: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. 7 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. It is the most important and fun day of the week because it is the day that the Heartland Institute broadcast the Climate Realism Show. I'm Jim Lakely, vice president of the Heartland Institute, and your host for today. You know, there is nothing else like the Climate Realism Show streaming anywhere, so I do hope that you will like, share, and subscribe, and leave comments underneath this video that helps convince YouTube's, discriminatory algorithm to nonetheless smile upon this here program and get the show in front of more people.
Jim Lakely:And as a reminder, because Big Tech and the legacy media do not approve of the way that we cover climate and energy policy on this program, the Heartland Institute's YouTube channel has been demonetized. Now we did apply to get that reinstated, and, I think we were shot down in less than 1 minute. So we will keep trying, but as for now, we are still demonetized. And so if you wanna support this program and the Heartland Institute, and I hope you really, really, really hope you do, Please visit heartland.org/tcrs. That's heartland.org/tcrs.
Jim Lakely:That stands for the Climate Realism Show, and you can help us make sure that this program keeps getting broadcast every single Friday. Any support you can give is, warmly appreciated and, very welcome as as well. We also wanna thank today, before we get rolling, our streaming partners. Those, people are junkscience.com, Cfact, Climate Depot, and what's up with that. If you follow them on X, you should be, be able to watch this show with them right there on their on their networks, or on their channels, I should say, on X.
Jim Lakely:So let's get rolling here. Today, we have with us our usual panel. Starting off with Anthony Watts, he's a senior fellow at the Heartland Institute and the publisher of the most influential climate website in the world, what's up with that? H Sterling Burnett, he is the director of the Arthur b Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy at the Heartland Institute, and, also, of course, Linnea Lukin, research fellow for energy and environmental policy at Heartland. Greetings all.
Jim Lakely:This is gonna be another fun show.
Linnea Lueken:Thank you very much. Sorry. My dog is, like, losing her mind in the background. So I'm sorry if you can hear her. I'll try to stay muted.
Sterling Burnett:Yes. We should introduce our dogs.
Jim Lakely:Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. We all have we all have pets. I have cats.
Jim Lakely:Cat has not yet appeared on the show, but it'll be any day now. I'm sure. Linea, I know that it's, it's cold here. Actually, you know, we talk about weather a lot and climate a lot because the mainstream media likes to conflate the 2. But, yeah, is everybody pretty much in the United States listening to this, show today or watching the show today, it's cold out there.
Jim Lakely:A lot colder than it normally is, in a December for most of the, lower 48 continental United States. And, Linea, I think you were just talking to him before he came on the air, that your chickens are not adjusting to this instant climate change very well down there where you live.
Linnea Lueken:No. One of my chickens just has her molting pattern a little bit off kilter, and so she is blowing out all of her feathers right before we got a serious cold snap. And so she is a little bit cold. But the rest of them are okay, but she's just kind of stupid. I don't know.
Anthony Watts:Well, it's good thing you don't have any turkeys.
Linnea Lueken:Yeah. There
Anthony Watts:are none left. Yeah.
Jim Lakely:Yes. I cooked most of them.
Anthony Watts:So are you expecting power outages soon? I noticed you have a kerosene lantern over there to your, over your right shoulder.
Linnea Lueken:Indeed. I'm always ready. And in fact, I lose power very, very frequently, where I live probably at least once a week, So that's
Anthony Watts:fun. Nice. Is it because of the Almost a third world country status.
Sterling Burnett:Is it is it because of the escaped monkeys ripping down the power lines or because of
Anthony Watts:climate change?
Linnea Lueken:Yeah. I think there's still one on the lam here. So they've they've got pretty much all of them, so I won't rule it out. It could be monkeys. I don't know.
Jim Lakely:Right. You have escaped monkeys in your neighborhood?
Sterling Burnett:Yeah.
Linnea Lueken:Yeah. About, like, a half hour north of me is where that big monkey breakout happens. So they there's still one monkey missing, I think.
Jim Lakely:Alright. Maybe I take off too much time during the holidays. I I think I vaguely remembered something about a monkey, monkey breakout, planet of the apes kind of situation, but, I haven't been following closely. So you'll keep us updated on that, since it those directly
Speaker 1:text Yeah.
Linnea Lueken:I think it's pretty much solved by now, but whatever it takes.
Jim Lakely:Alright. Well, we're going to, get the show rolling, and we're gonna start as we always do with, Anthony Watts' favorite segment, especially the, video drop for it. That is the crazy climate news of the week. Hit it, Andy. Yeah.
Jim Lakely:Could use some of that some of that warmth of the earth in a lot of places around around the United States today. So, anyway, so our first item here, I think will I think especially interest, Linnea. I'm gonna go to you for the first comment here. This is from Forbes. This is how the gaming community is leveling up on climate change awareness.
Jim Lakely:Apparently, gamers are going to be able to save the world, Linnea, so good good news there. So let me read a little bit from this story. The staggering number of 3,200,000,000 gamers worldwide represents a massive audience that could significantly impact public understanding of climate issues. Recognizing this potential, initiatives like the green game jam are leading the way by engaging major game developers to integrate eco friendly content to their games. Boy, does that sound like fun?
Jim Lakely:PUBG Mobile's, quote, play for green campaign, backed by the United Nations, that's great, exemplifies how games can educate and inspire players to take action on climate issues through immersive gameplay. With millions of players participating, this campaign underscores how the gaming industry can merge entertainment with education and foster environmental consciousness. Alright. Though, through Yeah. Collaborations with Climate Scientist.
Jim Lakely:Almost done. Like professor Mark Maslin, Pubg Mobile integrates scientifically grounded climate narratives into its gameplay. Boy, more fun stuff here. For example, the ruins of Erangel map series uses real life environmental data to depict the impacts of rising sea levels, heat waves, and droughts. This approach not only enhances the game's realism but also educates players about the real world consequences of climate in action.
Jim Lakely:So, Linnea, you certainly are among those 3,200,000,000 gamers out there. Have you come across this kind of messaging in, in your gaming world?
Linnea Lueken:I mean, yeah.
Jim Lakely:And and the gamers really it strikes me that gaming culture does not really respond to this kinda ham handed, propaganda in their entertainment.
Linnea Lueken:No. And in fact, you know, if you go on Steam and or which is, like, a PC gaming platform, distributor, If you go there, you can sign up for groups that will specifically mark different games as, like, DEI influenced or ESG influenced. And so, you can avoid buying those games if they're on those lists, and a lot of people do. Those those lists tend to be very heavily followed. Yeah.
Linnea Lueken:Everyone's just sick of the politicization of this stuff. But I will note that they're trying to make this out to be like some big gamer movement thing, and yet they're targeting mobile games, which for for for for the real gamers, mobile games are a little bit of a joke, I would say. It's, it is pretty funny that it's PUBG Mobile, and it's not, like, actual PUBG. So, yeah, it's it's been going on for a while. This isn't new.
Linnea Lueken:They've been putting little, like, climate change messaging stuff into tons of games. There's some, cool, like, broad scale map war games that have been including, you know, sea level rise stuff in it for a while now. So it's it's nothing new. I think even Sims has, like, a climate change thing, in it as well. So everyone just ignores it.
Linnea Lueken:I've never heard anyone even talk about it besides mentioning, like, yeah, they've already been doing this. It's not anything new. It doesn't influence anybody. It's just another thing for them to throw money at and feel good.
Anthony Watts:The games though. Can you can you role play in this stuff? Can you become like a hero that saves the planet through your climate change actions?
Linnea Lueken:No. In PUBG, you're just running around shooting people. So
Sterling Burnett:Oh, that's that's the thing is
Anthony Watts:That's that's depopulating the earth. That's a win. Right?
Sterling Burnett:You see these games you see these games, and the message doesn't look particularly it certainly doesn't look for the most part, sort of, humanist, pro human, because there's just a lot of killing and blowing up going on. But secondly, when it's not killing and blowing up, it's like what the civilization thinks where you build up from a primitive society to to modern civilization. I don't see the games where it says, let's go back. Let's be let's go back to the Pleistocene. We start with a modern city and slowly take things away until we're living like cavemen.
Sterling Burnett:That's what we all strive for in these games. No. The games don't do that, and the other games are are shooting things, blowing things up. Yeah. You kill people, but you start a lot of fires, and you're putting out c o two.
Sterling Burnett:If if you if you blow up cooling tanks, you you're putting, you know, CFCs into the air. They don't seem very green to me. The messaging is not very green.
Anthony Watts:Yeah. And as far as
Sterling Burnett:the sea level, you know, as far as the sea level rise in war games, if you're doing a war game and it's like a Napoleonic or, you know, some ancient war game where you've got wooden ships and sea level rising, I'm not seeing how you're getting the c02 is causing sea level rise matches their faults.
Linnea Lueken:Yeah. It's a pretty it's a pretty long war to be deeply or heavily influenced by sea level rise. That'd be a pretty bad time, actually.
Jim Lakely:And I think going back to the Pleistocene, boy, that is super super immersive for the for people to take us back to the Pleistocene. Yeah. You know? And and this thing about, we'll get to that story in a second here, Andy. But the thing about the, about gaming you know, when I when I read stories like this and I think we covered there was another game, and I should have put it in the show notes so we could bring it up.
Jim Lakely:If you guys remember I'm sure you you you remember, Linea, and Andy, our producer, does too, about another game that was not a mobile game. It was a, either online game or something that you would do on a maybe not on a console, but on your computer. Right? But when they they talk about that there are 3,200,000,000 gamers on Earth. I mean, they include you know, they're not these are not people that all have an Xbox or a, you know, or anything like that or or a PS 2 or PS 5, I guess it is now.
Jim Lakely:I haven't gamed in a long time. But they also include people who, like, play Words With Friends on their phone with their mom. Right? Or or play these these Candy crush. Yeah.
Jim Lakely:Yeah. Candy crush, things like that. Those are not gamers. Those are people that are that have downloaded games on their mobile devices to kill time while waiting for their flight to take off and stuff like that.
Linnea Lueken:Yeah. It's like saying someone's into a tabletop when they just play monopoly with their family at Thanksgiving every year. It's it's not exactly the same thing.
Jim Lakely:Yeah.
Sterling Burnett:And more importantly than any of that, the messaging is, shouldn't the message if what you're trying to be green, you know, you're trying to people to save the earth is to to turn off your games, to stop using energy? Because gaming takes energy. When people have it's plugging something in. The power is coming from somewhere. It's on a console that's made from fossil fuels.
Sterling Burnett:If you wanna say the earth is a gamer, you should cease to be a gamer.
Anthony Watts:Yeah. You know, Sterling, I'll point out that you are our resident gamer, although of a different kind. Instead of earning badges, you earn things that you post up on the wall there. Indeed. That's true.
Jim Lakely:That's true.
Sterling Burnett:And but when I'm out there, I'm not using any electricity. The only, the only, c o two I'm emitting is what I breathe out and then the small puff of, c02 that, when a cartridge goes off. Yep.
Linnea Lueken:How dare you.
Jim Lakely:That's right. Alright. Alright. Let's move on to our second item here in the, crazy climate news of the week, and that is from our friends over at the c o two coalition. And the headline is BRICS Kazan declaration, Trump's COP 29 climate blather.
Jim Lakely:BRICS, I'm sure a lot of our listeners and viewers know, stands for, Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. But then this coalition, it's basically a counter it's a it's a counter of the United Nations or, say, the g 7, of but of emerging economies. Right? So, anyway, so, our friends at the CO 2 Coalition point this out. Here we go.
Jim Lakely:Some of the world's most powerful nations made clear to the so called climate emergency or that the so called climate emergency was a secondary priority for them. Attendees of the 16th annual BRICS summit represented more than 45% of the global population and 35% of global gross domestic product and included representatives of Saudi Arabia, China, India, Brazil, and the United Arab Emirates. In the case, Kazan declaration, the core BRICS countries, including India, China, and Russia, have openly declared that their domestic energy needs and economic well-being will take precedence over international climate agreements like the Paris Accords and net zero initiatives. In hindsight, the meeting at Kazan could have seen could be seen as a foretelling of such doubts about the standing of the popular climate narrative. However, c n n CNBC's summary of the event, which supposedly lists key takeaways, completely ignored this critical aspect despite representing a considerable portion of the declaration's wording.
Jim Lakely:The mainstream media was silent as their green fantasy was disintegrating right in front of their eyes at Quezon. Now, Sterling, we here on the Climate Realism Show, we consider this, pretty darn good news, and we covered COP 29 on our show, 2 weeks ago when we took off for the Thanksgiving holiday. And, our friends at CFAK who were there said the the COP 29 had a bit of a funereal vibe. And now we have this, you know, the largest emerging economies, and they're growing in population while Europe and and North America, frankly, are not growing as fast or maybe they were even shrinking. And they're just thumbing their nose at, net zero in the UN's climate agenda.
Jim Lakely:Does this mean perhaps that we are seeing the beginning of the end of the global climate agenda ruling the Earth?
Sterling Burnett:No. Let's let's say first about COP 29. It was funereal within the boundaries of cop 29 within the little buildings that they held the meetings in. Outside, it was evidently not very funereal at all. There were people wearing MAGA hats.
Sterling Burnett:There were oil pump derricks going up and down. Their president saying, it's a it's a blessing from God. That sounds pretty celebratory to me. Concerning bricks, look, the lead singer for the talking heads, David Byrne, one one of his lines was same as it ever was. And nothing that happened at BRICS is really surprising because this is the position they've held since BRICS was formed, and they're expanding the number of nations in BRICS.
Sterling Burnett:It's gonna be inconvenient if they have to go longer with the acronym with the new nations. Yeah. But, they have always placed development first. They have always embraced fossil fuels. They they they genuflect.
Sterling Burnett:They say, oh, we've gotta do sustainable development. Oh, yeah. The climate climate change is an important issue. It's just not more important than anything else we're doing, which, by the way, reflects the kind of things that we find when we do polls of people. Oh, it's very important.
Sterling Burnett:It's just not more important than me being able to feed my children or get to work or be safe on the streets. So bricks have always been realist. The truth is we've written about, their realism. You know, it talked about what did you say? It was, they were 30%, 40 something percent of the of the population.
Sterling Burnett:Talk about their c o two emissions. I wonder how what what that percent was. I mean, China alone is more than a quarter. Right. India is probably another 6 to 8% or more.
Sterling Burnett:Russia is pretty high. So I bet when you add that, you're getting close to 50% of emissions that they represent, and theirs are growing.
Jim Lakely:Right.
Sterling Burnett:They're growing, not shrinking. And so, when the Paris agreement was signed back in 2015, I said then it was a paper tiger, And I wasn't the only one, but that's not what you that's not the message that you got coming out of the conference, of course, that's not the message you got from all its supporters, but it was a paper tiger, because it couldn't stop 1.5, it wouldn't stop emissions from rising, People wouldn't meet their, obligations either for funding or emissions cuts, and I've been proven right. And, the other skeptics have been proven right. And, honestly, I think the BRICS people are gonna be more accurate than the COP people because emissions are gonna continue rising, fossil fuels are gonna continue to be used, development will continue apace, and, despite all the gamers' efforts, if that's what's causing climate change, then climate is gonna continue to change. That doesn't mean it's a catastrophe.
Sterling Burnett:And and for the people in bricks, it's definitely not a catastrophe. What it is is a blessing just like the guy just like the president of of in Baku said.
Jim Lakely:Yeah. Yeah. I mean, well, India and China, they are, the 2 most populous countries on Earth. I wasn't it wasn't it the case of either Linnea or, oh, I guess we lost we lost Anthony there. We're gonna have to get him back.
Jim Lakely:I was just gonna ask him this question. But wasn't it the case that India did they walk out of one of the most recent cops? Or if they haven't walked out, they basically they okay. So they walked out. And China and India, just those 2 have told, you know, the United Nations and, like, and the global climate leaders, to go, buzz off when they show up to these things.
Jim Lakely:It's almost out of contempt that they show up. And then, like I said, this they're, the BRICS countries are 45% of the world's population and 35% of the gross domestic product. Those numbers, both of them are gonna continue going up as as the power and influence of the, you know, put it in the way a leftist liked it. The colonial powers, the old colonial powers is going to wane, and they and the powers of these countries are gonna go up. Then, of course, there's Argentina, which, walked physically walked out of the COP in the middle of it, just the in, in Azerbaijan just a couple weeks ago.
Linnea Lueken:Well, it's like I I said, you know, when we were talking about this last time. You know, the the news has been asking the question, you know, oh, is is the COP, still fit for purpose? And I still maintain that it is fit for purpose if that purpose is enjoying a nice dinner and an open bar in exotic locations and getting to listen to people, you know, who agree with you for hours and hours on different little, you know, kind of self congratulatory panels and stuff. It's it's not going to change, but it would be kinda nice to see fewer and fewer people pay any attention to these conferences as they become even more irrelevant than they already were. It it would be nice to see them no longer making the news even.
Linnea Lueken:I think at that point, they would probably stop having them.
Sterling Burnett:Well, I'm gonna make a prediction. I'm gonna predict the next cop will get much less media coverage in part, at least in the US, in part because the delegation from the US is gonna be much, much smaller than possible it's ever been before. Yeah. I mean, look, even the last cop, not as only I think only 2 or or 3, maybe 2 of the, g 7 nations sent their leaders. The US didn't have its leaders there.
Sterling Burnett:France didn't go. Germany's leaders didn't go. China certainly didn't go. They were at BRICS. Right?
Sterling Burnett:You know, they sent delegations. But, you know, when you're talking about saving the earth, wouldn't your delegation wouldn't you think, oh, well, that sort of requires the head of the country's, participation, even if it's just to show up and, you know, cut a cut a banner or something, opening the conference. So I think it is a, waning institution and, and rightly so, and so we'll hear less about it. That's not going to stop climate alarmism, sadly.
Anthony Watts:Yeah. Yeah. Well, you know, we're up to 30 almost now. You know, top 20 9, almost 30 of these things. You know?
Anthony Watts:And there's one of my favorite graphs out there shows carbon dioxide going up, up, up, up, and all these markers on there for all these cop conferences. These people haven't been able to accomplish anything, and yet they still have their conference. And, of course, you know, the we've made another breakthrough right at the last minute and all this other rubbish. The bottom line is is that it's nothing but a big party for them to go, schmooze, have some drinks, and go to an exotic country. That's all these conferences are.
Anthony Watts:They are accomplishing nothing.
Speaker 1:Well, I I would say I
Jim Lakely:just wanna push back on that just a tad, actually. Something, Joe Rogan had a guest on, I think, 2 episodes ago, Mike Benz, who is a tech policy, guy, cybersecurity guy. He was in Trump's administration. He's a fascinating and very, very educated person on on a lot of stuff, and I recommend people actually check it out. But he was talking about these kinds of, global summits and that their purpose isn't to save the world.
Jim Lakely:It's to establish a consensus. That's a word that we love around here. It's consensus. But it is to establish a global consensus that something must be done. And this takes years years years to accomplish.
Jim Lakely:And eventually, you do get to the point where you go to a cop and everybody is saying the same thing. If we could go, had a time machine, could go back to the first conference of the parties of the United Nations, you would see a lot more, let's say, variety of opinion, and, there would maybe even be 1 or 2 interesting conversations going on. But by the time you get to COP 29, everybody in the room is a is a absolutely brainwashed mind nub robot saying exactly the same things over and over. The the idea is to get the global consensus to do something about climate change, even if it's not going to work. And that always turns up to be more government power and going socialist, basically.
Sterling Burnett:The problem I I I think that analysis is interesting, Jim, but the problem with it is unlike, say, Super Bowl watching, which goes up, cop watching is going down. And the the the the status of those who attend cop is not as high as it was before, when president showed up, when prime ministers showed up, when even, you know, oh, let's go so low as, you know, a a department of interior head. You know, you're talking lower level people, and lower level people can agree all you want. And they can tell their governor, oh, this is what we agreed to. Okay.
Sterling Burnett:Okay. I don't have time for that. I'm running an election. In the end, if they're just talking to themselves, I I don't much care whether they get agreement amongst themselves. It's whether their national governments then do something.
Sterling Burnett:And they've been talking about doing something, and they've been trying to do something for decades now. Even before Paris, there were other agreements. One of them we actually signed as a treaty in the United States, the very first one, and we missed the goals. We continually missed the goals, and we're getting and the goals are getting farther and farther away, not closer and closer. So, it's it's they may get a consensus, but the consensus isn't moving action.
Sterling Burnett:And I'm unconvinced it'll ever move that kind of action because of something like bricks. In the end, leaders want to be leaders. They wanna be elected. They wanna stay in office, and you don't do that if you wreck your country.
Jim Lakely:Alright. Alright. Anything to add to that, Anthony and Linnea, before we move on to item number 3?
Anthony Watts:No. I think that's pretty well covered. My my point still stands. These folks are accomplishing nothing.
Jim Lakely:That is that is true. Yeah. I mean, even even with the point I made, I think probably peak, consensus building was in 2015 at the Paris climate agreement, and it's been downhill ever since for sure, I think.
Anthony Watts:Right.
Linnea Lueken:And Well, yeah.
Anthony Watts:Climate agreement is nil. You know? It's not really accomplishing anything either because, oh gosh, we've already passed 1.5 degrees centigrade. Oh, no. We're going to die.
Anthony Watts:You know? Yeah. Yeah.
Jim Lakely:Alright. Our third item is, well, it's from our own Climate Change Weekly, and it is marking the 15th anniversary of, Climategate. I forgot to give the, we're gonna get to that meme in a second, Andy. That's this is my fault for the producer. I forgot
Anthony Watts:to give you the link,
Jim Lakely:to the, climate change weekly that we published this morning, or I should say last night at heartland.org. But, climate change weekly is a is a weekly newsletter newsletter. You should definitely go to heartland.org/subscribe and subscribe to Climate Change Weekly. Sterling Burnett works on this, very hard every week. He takes a week off once in a while.
Jim Lakely:We still call it Climate Change Weekly. It's fine. But, anyway, we are marking in Climate Change Weekly number 527. That is the 15th anniversary of, Climategate, the exposure of basically, having the peer reviewed journals rigged to only tell one story and a narrative instead of actually, you know, being scientific and sharing with people the actual data and science of what's going on. So I'll just read a little bit from the top here and then I'd love, Anthony and Sterling especially to talk a little bit more about this.
Jim Lakely:But, this month does mark the 15th anniversary of Climate Day, the release of thousands of emails across among climate scientists showing them behaving very badly. The scientists colluded and are still colluding to create the perception of a man made climate crisis based on their preconceptions about the way the world works, backed by computer model projections, computer models they helped build, inputting their assumptions about what affects global temperatures, an instance of confirmation bias and circular reasoning, or both. By contrast, real world experience demonstrated and measured data and trends shows no crisis has occurred despite repeated predictions, tipping points, and specific terrible events made by climate scolds, none of which have come to pass. Now, I will stop there, and and and Anthony and and Sterling, especially, you can kind of fill in some background because a lot of our viewers and listeners may not be may not be familiar with Climategate. Now, there are a lot of very interesting characters in the story of Climategate and the emails that went around.
Jim Lakely:Phil Jones. Of course, Michael Mann is a character in here. I think all of them are villains pretty much, but they do mention some heroes in their emails in Climategate, some real scientists that they are trying to run down and keep out of the peer reviewed literature. I mean, to me, because we follow this. This is our, you know, this is our full time job and our passion.
Jim Lakely:You know, this scandal was 15 years ago in my mind. It feels like it was just last year. You know, so, Anthony, what you wanna start, Anthony? I wanna start with you. But it's like
Anthony Watts:Yeah. Thanks. Yeah. This is what we talked about. I wanna point out that I broke the climate gate story on Whatsapp with that.com.
Jim Lakely:There you go.
Anthony Watts:I remember it vividly. I was in Europe, and, my, second in command, Charles Rauter, found the file. The the file got posted to several websites, including, Real Climate, and Gavin Schmidt was running interference trying to make people believe that, oh, this isn't real. Don't pay any attention to it. And in the process, he verified it.
Anthony Watts:He accidentally verified that it was real. And so I had I had I was concerned that this was some kind of a plant. You know? Why is it showing up while I'm in Europe? And so I made, made the decision to wait until I got back into the United States before we published on this.
Anthony Watts:And that caused a little consternate consternation to mister Climategate himself. He was wondering, why aren't you guys publishing this? I couldn't tell him exactly because I didn't want, you know, someone to pick up on the fact that I was traveling from outside the United States. Because I was afraid I wouldn't get back in the country if I published this thing. Literally, that was, that was a big fear of mine that, you know, somehow this was a plant that just basically shut me down or were other websites down.
Anthony Watts:I just didn't know at that point. And I remember vividly clearing customs. I was texting with Steve McIntyre and Steve Mosher and Charles Rotter while I'm standing in line at customs, saying, you know, I've I've just got 10 minutes before I can do this. You know? Come on.
Anthony Watts:Come on. Get it out there. And so, literally, once I passed customs, I went over and found the nearest electrical plug, pulled out my laptop, sat down on the floor, wrote it, wrote the release, about Climategate. And I I looked up and I I realized, wait a minute. My plane's boarding.
Anthony Watts:And, so I've I've finished it, hit publish, and then ran to the door. And, literally, I was the last person on the plane. And back then, they didn't have Wi Fi on planes. So I had 5 and a half hours between Washington DC and Sacramento, California where I didn't know what had happened. You know?
Anthony Watts:I'm just like, what have I done? Right? And so I get off the plane in Sacramento, and I see if it's going viral and people are freaking out and all this stuff. And so it was, it was quite extraordinary. But, the takeaway from all of this is that we we expose, as you said, Jim, scientists behaving badly, scientists perverting the peer review process, scientists fudging and manipulating data.
Anthony Watts:And then, you know, rather than own up to it, these people and I don't even wanna call them scientists anymore. These people decided, well, we're just gonna whitewash this. You know? Rather than tell the truth, rather than stick to science, rather than pay attention to what the real data says, they whitewashed it. They got, you know, these fake investigations going over in Europe at, at the, in the UK, you know, at the at the climate research unit there.
Anthony Watts:They had a couple of them there. They had one with Penn State and Michael Mann, and they were all whitewashes saying, well, these people behaved appropriately and blah blah blah. Like, that's a big load of horseshit. Bottom line is is that we did stop some advancement of climate alarmism with that, but they went back to business as usual once they finished damage control.
Jim Lakely:Yeah. And and just to just a little bit more background for a third to you, Sterling, is that, you know, Climategate, this this was the exposure of, more than a 1000 documents, I think mostly emails, that were from the climactic research unit at East Anglia University, and it really exposed what was going on behind the scenes, among the, you know, the the climate consensus pushers, and how they were basically conspiring with each other on a global scale. It's like, you know, sometimes a conspiracy theory is not a conspiracy theory. It's a spoiler it's a spoiler alert, and that was the case, for this.
Anthony Watts:Right. And we have,
Jim Lakely:you
Anthony Watts:know, we have all kinds of of stuff leading up to this. One of the things that Steve McIntyre was doing was making, you know, new FOIA request. And one of the most famous emails that came out of it was from Phil Jones, basically saying, if they ever find out that we have an FOIA law here in the UK, we're in trouble. Yeah. I mean, seriously, what what further admission do you need?
Anthony Watts:Yeah.
Sterling Burnett:Well, you know, they had look. They they said they said oh, you got put in context. No. No. No.
Sterling Burnett:The words speak for themselves. The you know, when you say, I've done a little trick and got rid of the medieval, the, the the little ice age. That speaks for itself. I did a little trick and got it. And I and and the other researchers are saying, I need to figure out his little trick or get his trick from him so I can do it in my data.
Jim Lakely:Yeah. Mike's Mike's Mike's nature trick,
Anthony Watts:I think, is what we're doing on it. That's exactly it. And basically, what it is, they they, tacked on the big instrumental temperature record to the proxy record, but stopped the proxy record of of tree rings after about 1960. Because instead of heading up like it was supposed to, it was heading down, and that was inconvenient. So what do they do?
Anthony Watts:They slap on the instrumental record to take 2 dissimilar datasets that should never be displayed in the same graph, put them together, and publish it that way as if everything's all hunky dory because the instrumental record went up. You know? And the the tree room record went down. Basically, they they, they subsumed science with this process.
Sterling Burnett:And and so it's what they did with the science, and it's what they did to cover up what they did with the science that's detailed in these emails. It's what they did to suppress science that disagreed with their positions that, you know, it it was a complete corruption in the field of climate science from the research itself, from the data manipulation to the suppression, the active suppression of other research, in up to and including attempting to get editors of journals fired for publishing inconvenient research. And then, honestly, breaking the law when they they're supposed to keep, all this information that they have, and they have emails saying, get rid of all your emails. Destroy them before they have to be released under freedom of information. They can't they can't read what doesn't exist anymore.
Sterling Burnett:It was all supposed to be saved, and and, it shows them doing this. It shows them ignoring Freedom of Information Act request. Just, honestly, just a few years ago, this is still happening. This is an ongoing, issue. Just a few years ago, researchers at the, is either Arizona State or the University of Arizona.
Sterling Burnett:I don't wanna, say which one because I'm not sure. It's one of those 2. The the Arizona Supreme Court said you have to release these emails. This this is, like, 12 years on. It's public emails.
Sterling Burnett:It's not your private property. It was emails done in your role as professor at at the university on university, computers through the university system. It is public. You must release. And, of course, what they were trying not to release was stuff that undermines the climate alarm narrative, and that's what it comes down to is.
Sterling Burnett:These are researchers who get 1,000,000 of dollars, as long as they keep the narrative going. Yeah. If if if if we come to the point where we all agree climate change is not causing a climate a catastrophe that's gonna destroy the earth, then we move on to other things. And they not only do they have egg on their face, their reputations are are are are ruined, but they don't get the money. They don't bring the money into the universities.
Sterling Burnett:And so the universities have a, an incentive to fight to distort science for their own benefit.
Jim Lakely:Yeah. Liz, as as Anthony pointed out earlier, and you can go to heartland.org. Right there, one of the the one of the three featured items on our front page is this week's Climate Change Weekly where you can read this stuff. Andy has found the original post from, from What's Up With That and is going through some stuff. But as he was scrolling through, guys, there's there's a a part here about the emails about the manipulation of temperature data.
Jim Lakely:And, doctor Tom Wigley of the University Corporation For Atmospheric Research, in an email to Phil Jones on September 28, 2008, said, quote, if you look at the attached plot, you will see that the land also shows the 19 forties warming blip, as I'm sure you know. So if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degrees Celsius, then this would be significant for the global mean, but we still have to explain the land blip. And so when we talk about on this show that the the consensus scientists that the, the gate kept scientific, establishment that does not allow anybody else with actual data to question anything they do, when we say that they're hiding the decline, that the you can't trust their data because they wanna hide it, and when they talk to themselves in private, they talk about manipulating the data so that it fits a narrative instead of telling people what's actually happening on the planet.
Anthony Watts:Right. You know? I think and it it boils down to money. Yeah. Really.
Anthony Watts:I mean, it go back to Watergate and follow the money. The money is what really is the issue here. If they if if they suddenly discovered, well, climate change isn't the big deal we thought it was and admitted that, then all the money would dry up because there's no crisis anymore. Instead, it it's exactly the reverse. What these guys are doing is is following the maximum, money talks, bullshit multiplies.
Anthony Watts:Right? That's what's going on here. They're just Something like that. Making it higher and deeper.
Jim Lakely:Yeah. Alright. Well, as mentioned earlier
Sterling Burnett:Here's here's one quote I'd like. I I like this.
Jim Lakely:It's just One more quote.
Sterling Burnett:Yep. Keith, which Keith Briffa, Keith's series differs in large part in exactly the opposite direction that Phil Jones does from ours. This is the problem we all picked up on, and everyone in the room at IPCC is in agreement that this was a problem and a potential distraction, detraction from reasonably consensus viewpoint we'd like to show. Basically, it's when they run into a problem, when they run into inconvenient data, their response is, how do we get rid of? How do we manipulate the data to change what the results actually are, and how do we suppress the original data?
Sterling Burnett:And it goes on. Right. You know, there's one one that says, this this is really inconvenient for us. How how do we do that?
Anthony Watts:Yeah. That's not science. That is sophistry.
Jim Lakely:No. And it's it's it's false narrative building. It has nothing to do with science, and that's what it's always been and has been. And that's why this show exists. You know, actually, it's kind of ironic.
Jim Lakely:If it wasn't for Climategate in 2009, their pop this show probably wouldn't exist because we wouldn't need to be here because, you know, if they were telling the truth about about the the data that we have around the Earth and instead of exaggerating or, frankly, just making things up, there would not be a need for a climate realism show. This would be just the climate science show. I mean, we talk about science a lot more, but we have to push back at the narrative because that's what everybody hears for sure. We do cover science here quite a bit, though, actually. So alright.
Jim Lakely:Let's let's pop up our meme of the week, and that is this one that, that is actually part of the Climate Change Weekly publication this week from Smellingbirdett. It's a, just for those just listening, it's a, some cows frolicking in a field, and it says the amount of methane released from a single blade of grass wouldn't change if it was just left to decompose or if it was eaten by a cow. Yet we now live in a world in which, Bill Gates is trying to give drugs to cows to make them fart less to save the planet, and, you know, all silliness ensues from there. So I actually didn't know that. I you know?
Jim Lakely:So this is a meme. We found this. I will not vouch for its accuracy. Does anybody on this show know that if that is a actual true claim? Does the methane release, but the decomposing blade of grass in a field equate that from the, methane parted out by a cow for that one single blade of grass?
Linnea Lueken:I'm not sure that that's correct because you're gonna have different chemical, but it's probably it's probably partially correct. I think that probably the chemical reactions involved in the decomposition are different, and so you'll have a different amount of methane released. But we'll also say that the the methane issue is such a nonissue when it comes to, the amount of influence that it has on on, you know, heat absorption in the atmosphere anyway that it this, it's a wash either way. The thing that makes it a real difference with regards to this meme is, you know, the cow is gonna make it release a lot sooner than waiting for the grass to die.
Anthony Watts:Oh, that's true.
Linnea Lueken:But I I don't know if I would say that that's a problem.
Jim Lakely:Alright. Alright. Well, we don't vouch for the accuracy of that meme, but it is kinda funny. Alright. We'll move on.
Jim Lakely:You could do your own research.
Anthony Watts:Know this. If they're making drugs for cows to keep them from making methane, is that made in a meth lab?
Jim Lakely:Oh, where's the come on, Andy. You're a little slow on the on the rim shot there.
Sterling Burnett:The rim shot.
Jim Lakely:Yeah. Here we go. Alright. Yeah. Alright.
Jim Lakely:Okay. Okay. Alright. So we're gonna go to our main topic, today, and that is, on this EPA. Scandal.
Jim Lakely:This is a scandal. It it's it would be a scandal if our, mainstream media was interested in reporting scandals anymore, but they are not. And this is from our friends over at Project Veritas. EPA adviser admits insurance policy against Trump is funneling billions to climate organizations, quote, we're throwing gold bars off the Titanic. You know, I was I I could read from this.
Jim Lakely:Let's just say that this is a one of those classic Project Veritas sting operations, where they have a hidden camera and basically kinda do a honeypot operation, where you take an unsuspecting, corrupt government bureaucrat out for a few drinks. And I guess by drink 3 or so, they just start talking and can't shut their yaps, and so they start giving away the game of what's really going on in our government behind the scenes. So instead of reading some of the story, we can get into the details of it. I wanna play, Andy, if you will, EPA scam video, please.
Speaker 1:Just have to get the money out as fast as possible before they come in and, like, pop it up. It truly feels like it's like Ramas Titanic or throwing, like, gold bars off the top hat. Who are the gold bars going to? On top, it's states, tribes. We gave them the money because it was harder if it was a government run program, they could make the money away.
Andy Singer:No. If Trump won and because
Speaker 1:it was a it was a experience policy against Trump winning. Until the Trump people come in and tell us they can longer give up money. So I do, you know, the inflation reduction back? Yes. Okay.
Speaker 1:Biden's climate law? Yes. Yeah. So I do entire implementation. I work with, like, Biden appointees.
Speaker 1:It's a company that we've given out. We've given out, like, tens of 1,000,000,000 of dollars, like, over the last year. I'm glad I can give out, like, $50,000,000. $50,000,000. $50,000,000.
Speaker 1:$50,000,000. $50,000,000. Philly would be. $50,000,000,000. Yes.
Speaker 1:For Climate Bank. So, like, to go work for one of these places, I think we'll be really good. What what are the places that you've given them to? It's only been a few weeks, so it's a little more. But, like Green Bay.
Speaker 1:So, like, so, you know, like, nonprofit institutions that are, like, making it more financially feasible to build renewables to do, like, climate projects. I do implementation now. So I do, like like, how do you spend a $100,000,000,000? How do you make sure that, like, they're the prop well, until recently, how do you make sure the proper, like, process are in place to, like, prevent Todd and prevent the users and, like, ensure that, like, we are funding, like, good paying jobs and and that sort of stuff. That's not now it's just how to get the money out as fast as possible before they come in and, like, talk to them.
Speaker 1:Really? Yeah. No. I think we gave them the money because it was harder if it was a government run program, they could the
Andy Singer:money away. No. If Trump won
Speaker 1:and because it was a it was a experienced policy against Trump winning. So, like, these are basically, like, nonprofit institutions that will cover the entire country. They could have been in a government agency, but because they aren't, they're safer. From publicanization than we have been. You guys are, like, saving saving the world, literally.
Anthony Watts:I don't
Speaker 1:know if we are, but I'm just they're throwing gold bars up at their clinic. Yeah.
Jim Lakely:Yeah. Alright. Yeah. So that's that's any god. That is so it is so offensive and so it just builds up a little bit of rage to me, to be honest.
Jim Lakely:I mean, this is a guy. His his name is Brent Efron. He's a special adviser, implementing Biden's climate agenda. His his role is to is to find a way, the fastest way possible, possible, to shovel literally $100,000,000,000 worth of grants under, the so called inflation reduction act. And, as he says right there, normally you know, in a normal thing, they would take some time to make sure that, there wouldn't any be fraud or abuse, and the plate the targets for the money would would check out, and they would do do good with it.
Jim Lakely:They don't have time for that anymore. Nope. They're just gonna shovel it out the door. All the checks and balances are gone, and and literally their goal is to get as much money into the hands of nongovernmental organizations, NGOs, quote, unquote, as possible because that money will be untraceable. You won't be able to get it back.
Jim Lakely:It'll be gone forever. And to me, this is really about as corrupt as it gets and is a great example of what it is when you have the partnership between NGOs and the government. It's not really that's not really a nongovernmental organization. If an NGO is taking if if NGOs are taking $100,000,000,000 from government, they are a government agent. They are not a nongovernmental organization.
Sterling Burnett:Extension of government.
Jim Lakely:So who who's Mattis? Who wants to go first?
Anthony Watts:Well, well, I'm gonna say this. I'm gonna go back to what I said a few minutes ago. Money talks, bullshit multiplies. Here it is right there.
Sterling Burnett:I I've been covering this for some time, back in Climate Change Weekly and some other, I was interviewed about this back in the middle of summer because they were shoveling money out the door before. Look. The inflation reduction act is on congress's shoulders. They passed it. They lied about it.
Sterling Burnett:I mean, they gave it a title called inflation reduction act and increased inflation. They, the green spending some of the money they gave, like, in in the summer were to nonprofits, to community based nonprofits under the climate justice, environmental justice provisions of Biden's executive orders. And to give you an example of some of the organizations is, they they gave they gave, I think it was either a 1,000,000,000 or $500,000,000 to an organization who the previous year had, a total of something like $25100, come through its account. It didn't even have a full time employee. It was it was working in the community to, to help poor people.
Sterling Burnett:So they give them all this money to, help poor people adjust to climate change, to to build, you know, community action on climate change, and to, retrofit, you know, homes with climate friendly technologies and things like that. But the point is it had like a part time guy who had no idea how to handle 100 of 1,000,000, 1,000,000 of dollars. And that was just one instance because there was like 5 or 6 organizations that were all the same in that regard. None of them were large organizations. None of them had any kind of budgets that that were in a $1,000,000, or or even half a $1,000,000,000, much less, a 1,000,000,000, 500,000,000.
Sterling Burnett:And as he said, or as was pointed out, yeah, there's no tracking. There's no we we don't know if they have proper accounting in place. There'll be no way to account for it. My suspicion is these organizations will grow dramatically. They will have offices, not be working out of someone's home, that will hire multiple people, and that there won't be much accomplished other than to pad the the pocketbooks of, the people who run the organization, who set it up, maybe initially with a noble purpose, and their employees now, and waste taxpayer dollars.
Sterling Burnett:And, it will be like the green climate fund internationally, where they can't account for 40% of the money they've sent out of a of a $100,000,000,000. They can't account for more than 40,000,000,000 of how it was spent. And other stuff that they can't account for, a lot of it's not for climate stuff. It's like for a love film, a love story that was filmed in, in Argentina or gelato shops, in developing countries. So it's a disgrace.
Sterling Burnett:It's it's our money. It's future generations money because we all know it's done with deficit spending. Future generations money and, you know, we should never allow bills like this to pass again. Not with that kind of discretionary funding. No.
Jim Lakely:Well, Anthony, you know, Donald Trump's been getting a lot of guff. I know he just appointed Lee Zeldin as the new head of the EPA, and, you know, guys like you and me hope that Lee Zeldin goes in there, and and with a chainsaw and start sawing desks at half and throwing people out. You know? But the the idea that the EPA is, one, qualified to give to figure out how to dole out at least a $100,000,000,000 worth of grants, when it isn't, and that that's not what its purpose is, actually. It's to is to protect our clean our our air and water and all that stuff.
Jim Lakely:But the idea that these these these government agencies, are pristine and they're out they're out looking for the best interests of the Earth and of the American people is belied by the idea that this is a completely corrupt process. In fact, the guy even said in that interview that he knows he's gonna be fired when Trump comes in, so he's hoping to land a job in one of these, NGOs that he just helped give 1,000,000,000 of dollars to.
Anthony Watts:Exactly. Yeah. It it's just criminal. The whole thing is it's a criminal enterprise. That's all I can say.
Anthony Watts:I mean, basically, they're going in the through the process of money money laundering of public fund, public tax dollars. And there are laws against this, but yet they're not being enforced. I don't know if we can bring it up or not, but we just had a a report from Fox News. I put it up on the private chat channel. A link they're talking about that the EPA has just made their first ever climate change arrest.
Anthony Watts:While they're giving out 1,000,000,000 and 1,000,000,000, they're arresting someone for not doing whatever obscure law they're throwing at him, you know, because they're destroying the planet. Meanwhile, these guys are destroying the treasury. It's it's just criminal.
Jim Lakely:Anthony, you're just jealous that the first ever climate arrest by EPA was not you. You wanted to make history.
Anthony Watts:Well, you know, the I I I wish him well, but, gosh, I don't know if that's something I really want.
Jim Lakely:Well, call me surprised.
Sterling Burnett:I have a feeling it might be voided very shortly.
Jim Lakely:Yeah. Yeah. We'll see. Yeah. I mean, that that's the thing.
Jim Lakely:So so, you know, you know, the the change of the changeover of power can't happen soon enough, and it just, I'm glad for Project Veritas for highlighting the fact that EPA is corrupt and corruptly shoveling money out the door to their left wing, so called NGOs, all these green groups out there. And I will point out the Heartland Institute, as almost everybody listening and watching the show realizes, we are also a nonprofit 501c3 organization. We would be, fairly categorized as an NGO or a nongovernmental organization or an educational organization. We have never taken a single cent from any government, either federal or state or local, ever. We never will.
Jim Lakely:We stand by our principles, and we our job is to advance truth and encourage conversations like this one on what's really happening to the planet. There is a lot of scamming going on out there in the nonprofit world. And if a nonprofit is getting money from the government, in my opinion, they can't be trusted. And I think, the more people know that, the better.
Speaker 1:Alright. With that with that, you know, we're trying to
Jim Lakely:well, that wasn't very fun.
Anthony Watts:I think we we need a, I think we need a new feature. We need, a disgust o meter. You know?
Jim Lakely:Well, we'll probably peg that thing every time. So
Sterling Burnett:I'll vomit, though. A vomit.
Jim Lakely:Yeah. Levitt. Levitt.
Linnea Lueken:Levitt does not exist. It will just
Sterling Burnett:it'll just But it would be it would be it would be it would be like spinal taps, amp amp
Anthony Watts:Goes to 11. To 11.
Jim Lakely:That's right. That's right. It goes to 11 every time. Alright. Well, thank thanks, guys.
Jim Lakely:I thought that was a a great rundown of that, and, we'll stay on top of this EPA green, cash scam. Maybe, maybe it can be stopped. Maybe they'll be embarrassed and not send out all the money. I guess we'll find out. And if we find out, we'll share it with you.
Jim Lakely:Let's get on to our favorite part of the show other than crazy climate news, and that is the q and a, with Linea, who's gonna run through the questions you guys have left in the chat. So take it away, Linea.
Linnea Lueken:Sure thing. I will give a warning to begin with. Most of the a good chunk of these questions are kind of tongue in cheek, but I decided to include them anyway because I think they're funny. So, let's see. This one, I believe, is a sarcastic question, but I'm going to, reference it anyway.
Linnea Lueken:This is regarding our COP conversation. Montana Blues asks, are all the COP people vegans, or do they eat red meat?
Anthony Watts:Well, I would point out that a few years ago, I was I think it was in Spain, Jim, when we were there. The they already had a Burger King there, and people were lined up at the Burger King. You know, we had pictures of that. It was, it was hilarious because you're thinking, oh, they're more vegan, you know, saving the earth. Yeah.
Anthony Watts:They are lined up to get Burger King. Wow.
Sterling Burnett:Well, there look. There there are probably some vegans that go to these things, But, our friends from CFACT who were there, you know, they said, the most popular places were the buffets, where they were going up getting different types of meat.
Anthony Watts:I love
Sterling Burnett:it. Yeah. So, it's worked for
Anthony Watts:dinner. Exactly.
Linnea Lueken:Well, I mean, if you I mean, this stuff, half of this stuff is Germany's fault. Right? Like, the Germans are very into the climate change stuff. And, as Germany is always trying to destroy Europe every couple of decades, And those those Germans love to have, like, piles and piles of, like, salami and stuff for breakfast. So I'm sure you can't have a a cup without at least a little bit of that.
Sterling Burnett:No. They they, they you know, it's like the I'm reliably informed that there were no mealworms or crickets on the menu. Right.
Linnea Lueken:Okay. So here is a question from above us only Skye. Does the panel think that global emissions may have reduced by COP 473?
Anthony Watts:Is that like Fahrenheit 451? I mean
Speaker 1:Well, yeah. Well, so what would that be?
Jim Lakely:So we're at COP 29. That would be, you know, 450 some, cops from now. So we'll we'll see. Maybe by the time I predict I
Sterling Burnett:predict that by then, emissions will have declined because we will have a different form of energy, that is cheaper, and as reliable. You know, maybe they'll have figured out fusion by then. Maybe I'll have a a a jetpack. There it is.
Anthony Watts:A jetpack. Spectrometer.
Sterling Burnett:Yeah. A a jet pack that runs on my little, mini nuke. Of course, I won't be around, but, my ancestors gosh, 473. Of course, by then, they'll have discovered that climate change isn't a problem because it'll be cooling again, and, they'll not need other big government programs to prevent the ice age. Yeah.
Linnea Lueken:Right. Okay. So here is, from Kite Man Music who says, can we have a whip round for a better camera for Sterling? We're gonna pass around the collection basket for that. Thanks, guys.
Sterling Burnett:Are you is that something you really, really want? No, I'm trying to be.
Jim Lakely:You guys think that it was just bad. No, no, no, no, no. Those are the settings.
Sterling Burnett:Yeah. It's like I put a little filter over my camera on my computer.
Jim Lakely:The best we could do
Sterling Burnett:It's to your benefit.
Linnea Lueken:Alright. Here's from our friend Chris, who says, will man get a preemptive global pardon from Biden?
Anthony Watts:Well, I think in order to get one of those, Mann would have to be petitioning to get a pardon. And Mann thinks he's done nothing wrong, so I don't think that'll happen. I mean, the guy is completely without any regret, completely without any conscience, it seems. So I don't think that'll happen.
Linnea Lueken:We can only hope. It would be very, very astonishing to see something like that, and that would make my year. I I would I would be even more blown away, than the hunter situation. Okay. I don't know who this is, but I will go for this question from k one f eight who says, whatever happened to Bishop Hill?
Anthony Watts:Well, he's still around. He's working for the NetZero group over there on the UK, and he's focusing his efforts on research and policy, pieces for them. He basically found out that blogging doesn't pay. Gosh. I figured that out a long time ago, but, you know, I'm not allowed to earn money just like, the Climate Realism Show.
Anthony Watts:Google shut us off, you know, because how dare you make money off of spreading lies? That's what they look at it as. But, you know, we're we're all about climate realism on what's up with that as we are here, but they can't handle it, so they shut us down. But, yeah, earth doesn't pay. That's apparently the problem.
Linnea Lueken:Of course. Alrighty. Here's Michael Downs asking, can parents sue a teacher's union for teaching climate cult to our children? I wish. I don't think you can sue for that.
Sterling Burnett:You might, however, as a parent, be able to, shut it down at the board level. Right? Go to your be be be a member of the active member of the PTA. Show up at your school board meetings, show up when it's voted for the school board, vote show up and, demonstrate concerning your state board of education to get it all out of the, you know, out of the schools. The teachers' unions, I'm I'm not sure.
Sterling Burnett:You know, in some states, they're more powerful than others, but, I'm not sure you could sue them for that because, a lot of the stuff is set by, your school boards and and your state education agencies. They they may encourage that type of teaching that they teach. They may agree with the type of teaching, but, the Texas Education Agency says what you have to what you have to teach in Texas, for instance.
Anthony Watts:Yeah. When I was on the school board in California between 2,006, 2002 and 2006, they would give us a an approved list of textbooks from the state. We could not choose anything else, you know, so there was, like, 2 choices for history, 2 choices for science or whatever, and the state dictated what textbooks you could use in your school district. And if you deviated from that, well, then there was hell to pay. And in fact, that happened.
Anthony Watts:We had a math teacher at one of the high schools come up with this fantastic little booklet that really was going like gangbusters. And we saw great improvements on from this thing, and the state stepped in and shut it down. We can't have this. It's not on the approved list.
Sterling Burnett:I suspect, you know, maybe you could see the teachers' unions if if you find out that your local union are lobbying for particular textbooks. You know, these are the ones we want and and lobbying for it because that's using union funds to to get viewpoint across as opposed to, you tell us what we're supposed to teach. This is our, this is what we'll teach. If if they're saying that we should tell you what we should be teaching, and these are the textbooks that we approve. Maybe you could go after them then.
Linnea Lueken:Thank you, LT Oracle of Truth. Yeah. We do like to be on Rumble. This is a question with regards to climate gate, which which is from Darren, and he asks begs the question of why it was never called out big time. That is the corruption, the the, collusion between different, top climate scientists.
Linnea Lueken:And he says, although I can guess why.
Anthony Watts:Well, there's this mistaken belief that scientists are pure as the driven snow. Of course, there's not gonna be any more snow, according to them. But the thing is that people that are on the left in particular elevate science into some kind of, it's almost cultish. You know? Science says, you know, follow the science, that kind of thing.
Anthony Watts:And so they don't want to tear down science because they know that if they start doing so, there's gonna be a lot of inconvenient stuff coming out. I mean, and it's not just in climate science that we're having this problem. We're having this in the medical and pharmaceutical, areas a lot. There's a lot of false papers based on false data out there. It seems to become almost systemic now, and the thing that's driving this is money.
Anthony Watts:There's all this money available for research. Yes. And so Government money. Exactly. And so if you've got a $1,000,000 grant for something that you, you know, you you you came up with an idea.
Anthony Watts:I think I can prove that climate change is causing wildebeest to, run amok in this in the savannah or something dumb like that. Right? And so you're gonna come up with a way to justify that money so you can get the next grant. It doesn't matter if it's true or not. It's all about the next grant.
Sterling Burnett:I'm not sure it's fair to say that it wasn't a big deal at the time. I mean, not just we cover it. I I suspect you could go back in archives and find that the New York Times covered it, the Washington Post covered it, that most of the, major media outlets, covered it. I think at the time I was interviewed on television stations here in Dallas, but it faded very quickly because they immediately it was big enough thing that they had various, they set up various boards to study it, to find out if there was any wrongdoing. And, of course, when Penn State is gonna lose its money, it's gonna find no wrongdoing.
Sterling Burnett:Over there in in England, they found no wrongdoing. There was only one that found they didn't find that the science was corrupted. They found that the science did bad things, and they shouldn't have done it. Naughty naughty. They, you know, they scraped a little thing.
Sterling Burnett:Naughty naughty. Don't don't do this again. We we find it's wrong, but there was no penalties attached. And so as soon as that came down, they said, oh, well, we investigated it. We we had investigations.
Sterling Burnett:They didn't find wrongdoing. And so it it it was it was easy to sweep it away. But when it first broke, I thought it was I thought it got quite a a fair amount of coverage. It just faded quickly, and that's why people like us have to bring it up every so often because the the malfeasance, the corruption is still ongoing. Every couple of years, you find new stuff, and you have to publicize it and then tie it back into climate gate because it's all related.
Sterling Burnett:It's the same actors and the same types of actions.
Anthony Watts:Yep. And a lot of what we get today is science by press release. You know? It's about getting the the success is often measured not by the validity of the science itself, but how much press you get. And when you get more press, then you're likely to get more money.
Sterling Burnett:The truth the truth is 15 years ago when it first broke, skeptics like us were actually given more access to the mainstream media.
Anthony Watts:We were.
Sterling Burnett:We were interviewed more often. They they wanted balance in the stories. They wanted different points of view. There has been an active suppression of that. They said, we shit we can't give these people points of view as if they have an equal, knowledge as if they count as much.
Sterling Burnett:We can't you know, the the Los Angeles Times explicitly say, we will no longer publish anything that's critical of climate change. No letters to the editor, no op eds. That wasn't true 15 years ago. It's happened since then.
Linnea Lueken:Yep. Okay. I'm gonna answer this question really quick from Hippie who's asking me directly, if and I'll try to explain because I think I understand what she's asking or he's asking. But, it says, if we don't use oil up, what will we do when the oil starts seeping into the oceans and land more? And I think what the context of this question is, is that there are natural oil seeps that exist at the bottom of the ocean, that exist on the land.
Linnea Lueken:I think that we don't really harvest or no. I know that we we don't really harvest from natural seeps all that much, except for the case of, like, the tar sands. I think you could count in that category. And when you're doing drilling off of, like, Santa Barbara, and producing from reservoirs there, you're probably reducing the amount of oil seeps that will occur at the bottom of the ocean in that area just by, you know, virtue of you pulling, oil from the reservoirs there.
Sterling Burnett:Reducing the pressure in the
Linnea Lueken:reservoirs. Yeah. And so I think that that's probably relatively minimal, though, compared to the amount of natural seeps that we never touch. The bottom of the ocean is absolutely full of things called, methane hydrates for 1. There have been a lot of theories, and, there's a lot of research that goes into trying to figure out how we could harvest those things.
Linnea Lueken:But most of the ideas as far as I've seen so far are pretty bad or, you know, like, economically not feasible. So I don't think that if we if we were to stop using oil, which would be a bad idea, but if we were to stop using oil, I don't think that would significantly increase the amount of seepage. But just because we don't harvest that much from those areas, but it would certainly be bad for, energy security. So, yeah, I I I wouldn't too I wouldn't be too worried about that. But that's a good question, though, and and it's fun to get to talk about that stuff a little bit.
Linnea Lueken:Okay. Next question is one that I think I can pitch to Jim, which is from, Riz Reid who says, when is the next NIPCC? And I think he means ICCC, But I think we also have an NIPCC, which is the
Anthony Watts:It's about it's about this thick. You've got it on the shelf over there.
Linnea Lueken:We've got these books. I don't know if we're gonna do another one of those, but, Jim, you're muted. You're one mute.
Jim Lakely:There's my one mute of, per per podcast. Yeah. Yeah. Nipsey stands for, Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change. It's a gathering of real scientists who put together, as as Linae was pointing out their books, volumes about this thick, in response or kind of in parallel to the reports of the United Nations IPCC.
Jim Lakely:We do not have any plans to do another volume of that size, in the near future. But if you meant when is the next, Heartland Climate Conference, which is, the International Conference on Climate Change, that's ICCC by the Heartland Institute. We are kicking around the idea of having 1 in 2025. So it's in the very preliminary stages, but we know that they're important and we know that they're very popular. So when we have news on that, we'll share it.
Anthony Watts:That would be a good opportunity to promote our book. There you go. Climate and a glass. Right. And and and note how thin it is.
Anthony Watts:Right? Yes. Because we condensed those topics down to to, you know, a crucible of truth that can fit on a single page, instead of volumes and, you know, references and so forth. This has references in it. But, you know, you can get our book.
Anthony Watts:Go to climate at a glance.com. You can download it for free if you'd like, and we also have a climate at a glance app that you can install on your iPhone or on your Android phone. It has all that stuff in it too, and it's really handy, especially if you're, you know, somewhere where you get in an argument with someone where they say, oh, you know, climate change is doing this or doing that or causing this or whatever. You can look it right up on the app and say, look. No.
Anthony Watts:It's not true. It's not true. It's all hype.
Sterling Burnett:So Yeah. The the virtues the virtues of the app and the web page, the the is that we have newer material in it, you know, additional material that we've added since we published the the book.
Linnea Lueken:Right. That's true. And and it's, the reason why I think we're avoiding doing the big text textbooks is 1, you know, you don't distribute as many of those things. I mean, they're gigantic. I remember yeah.
Linnea Lueken:When I first went to, one of our conferences, and I attempted to go back home with a couple of those textbooks, and it was very, cumbersome to take on the plane. So, they really are like full size textbooks. And I do believe that the NIPCC texts are available in PDF form on the Heartland website as well. So if you want our massive amount of information about different climate related subjects, including, you know, physics and biology and everything, you can find those online, and it's a lot easier than having a gigantic textbook.
Jim Lakely:Yes. Yes. Go to heartland.org and actually scroll all the way down to the bottom in the footer. There's a website called climate change reconsidered. So it's, actually climate change reconsidered.org.
Jim Lakely:You can get all of the, voluminous reports. I think it's in total about 4,000 pages of scientific work. So, yeah.
Linnea Lueken:Okay. This is a good question from Redneck Screw Loose regarding, the, EPA's green cash scam, which is how do I get on the gravy chain train with biscuit wheels? And I I wanted to comment on this because Andy and I joke about this all the time that, you know, if we didn't have souls, this is the wrong industry to get into is on the climate realism side. If we really wanted to make some money, we'd be on the green side, and let this be our, you know, evidence that we believe what we're talking about.
Sterling Burnett:I've been offered it. You know? I I was offered position in other places. That's all you gotta do is just, you know, can't you come over? Don't you really think it's going on?
Sterling Burnett:Because they thought I was corrupt. Right? They thought, look, I'm just in it for the money. And if they offer me the right money, then I I would admit the truth. It's like, no.
Sterling Burnett:I a, I'm not corrupt. B, I'm not getting the oil money you think I'm getting. C, I follow the science, and I'm not gonna not do that because you offer me money.
Anthony Watts:Yeah. I will point out that not too long after Climategate, I was offered some money to shut down what's up with that. Seriously.
Jim Lakely:Really?
Anthony Watts:Yes. I haven't talked about this. But, basically, I'll put this bluntly. I told that person to go shove that idea up the bodily orifice of choice.
Linnea Lueken:Right. Here's another good tongue in cheek kind of question, which is, from Gilbert who says a question for everyone. Would the world stop spinning on its access access if Michael Mann admitted that he knew his paleo reconstruction was wrong? Anthony, comment.
Anthony Watts:He'll never admit that. As I'm as I'm fond of saying, his ego is so large. He can't fit through most doors. He will never be able to admit that even if someone publishes a peer reviewed paper that proves it, and there have been some out there, you know, like what McIntyre did, he's not gonna admit to it. His his ego is too large and too fragile to be, able to admit such a thing.
Sterling Burnett:I was at a conference with him once, and we're both we're actually both published in the same journal, because the journal, there was a a journal that was published based on the conference. And, he he's the only scientist. He's one of only 2 scientists that I've ever talked to, debated, been on stage with, who gave me an answer to what would it take to convince you that, you were wrong, that the humans weren't causing catastrophic climate change. Others that I've questioned, they've they've thrown up their hands, which shows me it's not science because there's no there are no conditions that would disprove the theory that they can think of. But Michael Mann had an answer, and, he said this in front of a few people in in answering my question, and he said, all of physics would have to be overturned.
Anthony Watts:I said
Sterling Burnett:I said, what? I said, the like the laws of conservation of energy and entropy? He says, everything I've ever learned about physics would to be overturned for me to be wrong about climate change.
Jim Lakely:Oh my god. What what an ego on that guy. It's unbelievable. Even Einstein said it would only take one scientist to prove me wrong. But for a Michael Mann, all of physics has to be proven wrong for him to change his mind.
Sterling Burnett:Not to his credit. He gave me an answer to my question.
Jim Lakely:They did.
Sterling Burnett:He had an answer. All we have to do is overturn everything in physics.
Anthony Watts:Right. And then the universe stops working, and then it's to make the moot point. Right?
Sterling Burnett:So maybe so maybe the guys has is onto something. The the world would have to stop turning on its axis.
Jim Lakely:I think he's right.
Linnea Lueken:Yeah. Okay. This is a question referring to something that's been in the news recently, from Chris Shattuck again, who says, does bovir fed meat increase nonvegan human farting propensity? And then another related question, which is, is Beauvoir being fed to cows in the US? Would we be told about it?
Linnea Lueken:Would the milk be labeled? I don't know actually if we would label milk if we were doing that. I'm pretty sure we're not.
Anthony Watts:They're labeled
Jim Lakely:if they got hormones, so why wouldn't they be labeled?
Linnea Lueken:Yeah.
Sterling Burnett:Yeah. No. I would have to go through FDA approval, and I don't think it's been approved by the FDA. You know?
Linnea Lueken:It takes a very long time also to get that kind of thing approved. That's one of that's one of the few kind of good things with the slow moving FDA is crazy stuff like that can't get through quite as quickly. But it's it's it's an interesting story for for those in the audience who are not aware. There are a couple of different drugs and like methods that are being used right now on cattle, or at least are being proposed to be used on cattle in New Zealand and the UK and some other places that are meant to reduce the amount of methane that a cow's stomach produces or stomachs produce when they are digesting the roughage that they eat. And it's probably a bad idea right now.
Linnea Lueken:They're insisting that it probably won't have any adverse effects, but it really hasn't been, from what I've seen, like in circulation long enough to show that that's the case. So it's kind of questionable and very spooky, and, everyone in the UK is very upset about it, and they've pretty much boycotted the one company that has been doing it. And I believe that they do have to, market it on their milk bottles if they are using cattle that have been treated with this stuff. And there's one company in particular that everyone is boycotting over there right now. So I don't know.
Linnea Lueken:It's, it's an interesting situation. Hopefully it doesn't go anywhere. Hopefully it kind of stops here and they they'll probably try again in some other sneaky way eventually. But but I don't know. I just think it's, you know, cattle produce that kind of a methane in those amounts with their gut bacteria for a reason.
Linnea Lueken:And it's probably, like, not quite a Jurassic Park scenario, but a pretty serious scenario where we're trying to circumvent nature in that way. I have a feeling we're going to end up with either a lot of dead cows or worse. So
Anthony Watts:Yeah. I think the stuff is misnamed myself. You know, they call it both here. I think it should be called both these.
Jim Lakely:Yeah. And maybe we'll have to do a whole show dedicated to that kind of thing, the methane regulation. I I will note just on that topic that there seems to be a lot of interest in reducing the methane and harming the cattle industry in the United States, but there's a lot more bovine in India, and nobody ever talks about that.
Anthony Watts:That's sacred.
Jim Lakely:They're sacred. I guess their methane is sacred too. So that's a great place to leave it. Sacred methane. Yes.
Jim Lakely:I wanna thank
Sterling Burnett:man Demanipotent. I can hear this on now. Every fart is sacred.
Jim Lakely:Every fart is secret. Alright. Lots of ideas. What a way to end the show. Thank you, Anthony Watts, Sterling Burnett, Linnea Luca for being on the show.
Jim Lakely:They're all from the Heartland Institute. Thank you all who are watching on YouTube, Rumble, and x, and especially those who are in the chat with us today. Hey. Bring some friends to the show with you next time. Help spread the word.
Jim Lakely:Although nothing we want you to like and share and subscribe. Nothing beats a personal recommendation and and spreading the word of the show to others, so I hope you will do that as well. Visit climate realism.com where you could get great information every single day on the counter spin to climate alarmism. Go to climate at a glance.com and get our app for climate at a glance so you can always know and have the facts at your fingertips to counter climate alarmism. Visit what's up with that, the number one climate realist website in the world.
Jim Lakely:And, of course, always visit heartland.org where you can subscribe to our climate change weekly newsletter. Thank you all for watching and listening, and we will talk to you next Friday. Bye bye.
Speaker 1:Okay.