Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
Environmentalists in California pushed for, and got approved, a ballot initiative in 2008 to build a bullet train from Los Angeles to San Francisco. Instead of flying, which is a sin against the climate, Golden State residents could settle into their seats, look out the window, and feel good about themselves for being “green” as they were whisked to their destination. It’s now almost 20 years on and not a single track has been laid despite $15 billion being spent. And what’s the biggest holdup? Some of the most-absurd environmental roadblocks you can imagine.
On Episode #222 of The Climate Realism Show, we will examine what might be the world’s greatest climate grift, the California train that even Gov. Gavin Newsom said may never be built in our lifetimes, as well as other Crazy Climate News of the Week. Now that the U.S. is getting out of the global climate grift, how much will temperatures rise? We will report on a positive “butterfly effect” not reported by once-panicked corporate media. And now that even the Labour Party has opened up the North Sea to natural gas drilling again, they say it won’t do a thing to reduce energy costs. Is that true?
Join The Heartland Institute’s Sterling Burnett, Anthony Watts, Linnea Lueken, Jim Lakely and guest Lois Perry for another weekly, 90-minute dose of fun and spirited discussion about the climate on Friday, October 23 at 1 p.m. ET on YouTube, Rumble, X, and Facebook. Participate in the show by leaving your comments and questions in the live chat.
Visit our sponsors:
Advisor Metals: https://climaterealismshow.com/metals
The Energy Bad Boys Substack: https://energybadboys.substack.com/
In The Tank broadcasts LIVE every Thursday at 12pm CT on on The Heartland Institute YouTube channel. Tune in to have your comments addressed live by the In The Tank Crew. Be sure to subscribe and never miss an episode. See you there!
Climate Change Roundtable is LIVE every Friday at 12pm CT on The Heartland Institute YouTube channel. Have a topic you want addressed? Join the live show and leave a comment for our panelists and we'll cover it during the live show!
Climate Change Roundtable is LIVE every Friday at 12pm CT on The Heartland Institute YouTube channel. Have a topic you want addressed? Join the live show and leave a comment for our panelists and we'll cover it during the live show!
Creators and Guests
Host
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
Anthony Watts
Anthony Watts has been in the weather business both in front of, and behind the camera as an on-air television meteorologist since 1978, and currently does daily radio forecasts. He has created weather graphics presentation systems for television, specialized weather instrumentation, as well as co-authored peer-reviewed papers on climate issues.
Guest
Guest
What is Heartland Daily Podcast?
The “fire hose” of all podcasts produced by The Heartland Institute, a national free-market think tank.
One of the most urgent tasks of our country is to decisively defeat the climate hysteria hoax.
Lois Perry:We are in the beginning of a mass extinction.
Jim Lakely:The ability of c o two 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.
Jim Lakely:The ultimate goal of this renewable energy, you know, plan is to reach the exact same point that we're
Lois Perry:at now.
Sterling Burnett:You know who's tried that? Germany. Seven straight days of no wind for Germany. Their factories are shutting down.
Linnea Lueken:They really do act like weather didn't happen prior to, like, 1910. Today is Friday.
Jim Lakely:That's right, Greta. It is Friday, and this is the best day of the week. Not just because the weekend is almost here, but because this is the day the Heartland Institute broadcasts the climate realism show. I am Jim Lakely. I'm your host and the vice president of the Heartland Institute, which is an organization that has been around for forty two years and is known as the leading global think tank pushing back on climate alarmism.
Jim Lakely:Heartland and this show bring you the data, the science, the truth that counters the climate alarmist narrative you've been fed every single day of your life. There is nothing else quite like the climate realism show streaming anywhere. So I hope you will help us out and bring friends to view this livestream every Friday at 1PM eastern time. And also like, share, and subscribe, and be sure to leave your comments underneath this video. These actions help, convince YouTube's very mysterious algorithm to smile upon this program, and that helps helps get it in front of even more people.
Jim Lakely:And as a reminder, because big tech and legacy media are not big fans the way we cover climate and energy policy on this program, Heartland's YouTube channel has been demonetized. So if you wanna support this program, and I really, really hope you do, please visit heartland.org/tcrs. That's heartland.org/tcrs, and you can help join other friends of this program who bring it to the world every single week. And before we get started, we wanna thank our streaming partners who help spread the show to the world, jungscience.com, C Fact, what's up with that, the c o two coalition, and our friends at Heartland, UK, Europe. Let's get started.
Jim Lakely:We have a very fun show today, and we have with us as usual, Anthony Watts. He's senior fellow with the Heartland Institute and publisher of the world's most viewed website on climate change. What's up with that? Sterling Burnett, the archbishop of Rancher Berry whose day job is director of the Arthur b Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy, and Linnea Lueken, senior fellow at Heartland and the host of all of our excellent climate and energy policy videos. And, also, I wanna thank Andy Singer and Silas Pearson, our producers working behind the scenes to make sure it all looks and sounds great.
Jim Lakely:And our special guest today, she's back, is the lovely Lois Perry. She's the director of the Heartland UK Europe who's gonna hang out with us on what is a Friday evening in London. Welcome back, Lois. You know, you've said some wild things on this program in the past, and I was kind of inclined to tell you to behave. But what's the fun in that?
Lois Perry:Well, you have seven weeks into... No. Eight weeks into my, twelve week detox, so I'm being very, very well behaved recently. So I I I I will try and find some inner naughtiness just for your viewers so they don't get bored with with me, not with you guys, obviously.
Jim Lakely:I knew I can count on you even in your detox stage. Alright. Very, very good. Alright. Well, we got a lot to cover today, so let's get to it as we always do with the crazy climate news of the week.
Jim Lakely:Hit it, Andy. Thank you very much, Bill Nye. Okay. Our first item today, I've titled it US abandons the climate fight. There probably should be a question mark after that.
Jim Lakely:This story comes from the AP, the Associated Press. Headline, US is a big reason for the world losing ground in the fight against climate change, UN report says. I'll read a little bit from from it here from our, well, our favorite AP science reporter... Climate science reporter, Seth Borenstein. Losing more ground in the fight against climate change, humanity is heading for a hotter world than experts projected last year, and The United States is a big reason for that, a new United Nations report says.
Jim Lakely:If all the countries do what they promise to reduce heat trapping emissions, Earth will still likely warm another two point degrees Fahrenheit or 1.2 degrees Celsius above current temperatures according to Wednesday's update of the climate calculations by the United Nations Environment Program. That's about two tenths of a degree Fahrenheit or 0.1 degree Celsius, more than last year's projections by the same science team. Quote, this is a worse outcome than expected last year as a result of the formal withdrawal of The United States from the Paris Agreement and revised estimates of historical emissions, reports said. The report also blames The United States for increased emissions last year, saying all the other top 20 major economies reduced their carbon pollution, no, no carbon dioxide emissions, or at least slowed the growth in how much carbon dioxide was skewed from the burning of coal, oil, and gas. Now as I mentioned, carbon dioxide is not pollution.
Jim Lakely:This show, to be honest, exists in part to hammer that fact into your mind. But the corrupt media actually, as we were discussing this story at Heartland this week, Anthony pointed out, the media outlets like the AP are actually paid paid to lie to you about this and other facts about climate change. Anyway, moving on. The new calculations say that if countries do all they promise in the climate fighting plans they submitted to the United Nations by 2100, the globe will be 2.6 degrees Celsius or 4.7 degrees Fahrenheit hotter than pre industrial times. If the world continues on its current path without national promises, it will be 2.8 degrees Celsius or five degrees Fahrenheit warmer than the last half of the nineteenth century, the same as last year's projection.
Jim Lakely:Both of those temperatures blow far past the goal of less than two degrees Celsius and preferably 1.5 degrees Celsius adopted by the 2015 Paris Climate Pact. The world is now at about 1.4 degrees c above pre industrial times, and earlier this year, and again, this is in the report, United Nations officials conceded that there is no way of limiting warming to the 1.5 degree goal that they had embraced. Instead, officials are pinning their hopes of limiting warning warning to about 1.8 degrees Celsius and then somehow pulling enough carbon dioxide out of the air to lower temperatures back down to 1.5 degrees. That is an ambitious plan, folks. Before I throw it to the panel, a couple things here.
Jim Lakely:As our friend Steve Malloy noted, he's been on this program a lot, The US abandoning the world's fight against climate change is estimated to make the world 0.1 degrees Celsius warmer in the year 2100. That is statistically insignificant, and it's actually not even really measurable.
Anthony Watts:Not to mention that it's stupid. It's stupid.
Jim Lakely:And two, you'll get your chance, Anthony. Cool cool your jets. Two, Heartland... We were actually in Paris in 2015 when this 1.5 degree warming, you know, that's the goal, no more than that. That was settled.
Jim Lakely:It was... Number pulled out of the air. They were thinking 1.9, 1.7, 1.3. 1.5 was a compromised number. It has no scientific value in the real world or any significance whatsoever, as Anthony were just alluding to.
Jim Lakely:Now I'll let you start. You can speak more to those figures and perhaps to the I... The idea that pre industrial times, which were quite cool historically, actually, isn't that a very convenient starting point for all of these plans?
Anthony Watts:Anthony? Well, I'm thinking. I mean, you know,
Sterling Burnett:when you get stuff that this stupid,
Anthony Watts:you know, you try to come up with things that that make sense, but I can't see much here that makes sense. Here's the bottom line. We're almost saturated with the total c o two content and how it affects warming. Most of the warming on the planet happens well below a 100 parts per million, and then everything else is a logarithmic curve that gets smaller and smaller if you put more c o two into the atmosphere. So it really doesn't matter.
Anthony Watts:You know, none of these folks that push these ideas or the plans or the mandates or whatever you might call them actually have any understanding of how c o two in the atmosphere warms. They think it happens linearly, but it doesn't. It's a logarithmic flat smooth curve, and we're near the top. So, you know, we could pump up to 5,000 parts per million. And, yeah, it might get a little warmer, but it's not gonna destroy the planet.
Anthony Watts:The planet's been doing fine for millions of years, billions of years. We've had higher carbon dioxide concentrations in the past. And, you know, like I said, the whole thing is just stupid.
Jim Lakely:Yeah. Well, there's... I mean, I harped out. I probably maybe put you in a bit of a corner there. But, you know, to me, it's this idea that, two, the convenient starting point.
Jim Lakely:I mean, pre industrial times, we don't wanna go back to pre industrial times, first of all. Second, it was a lot cooler than than it is now, naturally. We weren't driving SUVs back then, so we weren't emitting all of this carbon dioxide of the atmosphere. We have very few coal plants in the later part of the... Compared to now, compared in the later later nineteenth century.
Jim Lakely:But then there's this whole idea that it's bad to be warm and better to be cold.
Sterling Burnett:Let me... Look. I I wrote an essay this week for Climate Change Weekly about the the ridiculousness of the whole idea of global average temperature. There are so many flaws in it. But in the end, what it comes down to is these guys have taken a god's eye point of view.
Sterling Burnett:They think they know what the ideal temperature of the Earth is. In relation to what I don't know, it's not in relation to life because life can thrive in hotter temperatures or cooler temperatures. It's not in relation to human thriving because we've thrived in in warmer temperatures. Whatever it is, they think they they know where the temperature should be. It's not it's not for the healthy earth because the earth has no health.
Sterling Burnett:It... It's not a living entity contrary to what some of those guys may believe. It is the the platform upon which life, exists, at least in this, you know, our planet. So it... It's it's all ridiculous.
Sterling Burnett:And I've gotta say, if I walked outside tomorrow and it were 0.1 degrees warmer than it would have been otherwise, it's not that I'm insensitive. I wouldn't notice, and no one else would notice. It's it's ridiculous. It's foolish. And, you know, they wanna blame The US.
Sterling Burnett:Oh, well, The US. Okay. We take away that 0.1 degree. Does that make it not global warming exceeding whatever their their goal is? Two point o?
Sterling Burnett:1.5? No. Because China's still building the coal fuel power plant a week. India is still growing its coal use. Even Australia has now started going back to coal, both for use and for export.
Sterling Burnett:So, you know, it's, this article was a waste of newspaper, print, and ink.
Linnea Lueken:Wanna I wanna take it back to kind of the, like, thesis of that particular article, which is that it's The United States' fault in particular, for daring to abandon the the climate grift. Right? That's what they're really whinging about is that The United States stopped funding this stuff. Well, we've got a lot of other wealthy countries in the world. How about they pick up the slack if it's so important?
Linnea Lueken:Everyone else, everyone in Europe, all... Sorry, Lois, and sorry to our European audience. Know you don't want this. But if their leadership are the ones complaining about us not helping anymore, then fine. You pick up the Slack if you think it's worth it, if you think it's so important.
Linnea Lueken:But they won't because they don't actually think it's that important. Because what's been happening for the last several decades is they've been siphoning money from The United States in order to fund all sorts of little pet projects and programs all around the world. And now that that faucet has been at least greatly reduced, and they're all freaked out about it. Well, how about you turn to the next biggest emitter of carbon dioxide, which would be China, and tell them that they have to start actually carrying the burden of of what The United States is is apparently lacking now. But they won't because it's not actually about emissions.
Linnea Lueken:It's about control and it's about redistribution of economics... Of of money and of resources. That's my rant.
Sterling Burnett:You know? Yeah. Remember what China said, more than a decade ago at one of these UN conferences? They said for the purpose of climate change agreements, we will always be a developing country. They have no intention of limiting their growth and emissions to fight climate change because they're always on the trajectory of growth, of development.
Jim Lakely:Actually, what they said, Sterling, was however you say f u in Mandarin. That's what they said. That's The
Lois Perry:United States.
Sterling Burnett:Yeah. And and and, honestly, I I would like... Well, I mean, Trump's pretty close to this, but I would like every president, every leader of this country, whatever the party, to say, America will always be a developing country. We're always going to grow. We put our country first and our peoples first.
Sterling Burnett:Yeah.
Anthony Watts:I would qualify that, Sterling. We'll always be a developing country and always growing unless the psychos that are pushing socialism take over. Yeah.
Jim Lakely:Lois, I wanna finish up with you because our friend Steve Malloy was on GB News this week, and he was on to talk about the Jackdaw gas development in the North Sea, which we're gonna get to here later in the show. But he was actually a little bit gobsmacked that on a conservative network like GB News, he had to explain to them, you know, to the host that, you know, the rising temperature that it doesn't matter, that the 1.5 is pulled out of
Sterling Burnett:the air that if... Now that we'd stopped it, if we are gonna actually stop for the rest of the century, which, again, is
Jim Lakely:a very open question, that it would only matter by one point or, you know, not point one degree as you say, in Well... In The UK. But... Yeah.
Lois Perry:Well, unfortunately... And I love GB News, but they have been... Well, we call Ofcom, which is the regulatory body which controls the the the mainstream media in The UK. We call them the off communist. And unfortunately, GB News GB News have been novel novel.
Lois Perry:Do you know is that the same term in America they've been got at? And, yeah, it's it's unfortunate that they've they've lost a huge amount of their their biggest their biggest presenters who've then gone on to do their own YouTube channels and stuff. One example is Dan Wotton. That was some time ago, but there's been quite a few that that have gone since then. So, yeah, you you will be seeing on GB News very sadly recently the the the line, the official line, which I've worked so hard over the last five years to, you know, to to to destroy.
Lois Perry:And... But if you look at all of the other right wing non traditional media, which quite often is a lot bigger anyway, but blessing the news, you'll... You won't find any pro net zero commentators, and and that is my doing and the Heartland's doing. So, you know, I can... I'm gonna claim credit for us for that.
Lois Perry:But, no, I mean, I don't even know where to start with this article. It's just so absolutely ludicrous. I mean, I don't know if you know anything about different areas of The UK in terms of temperature, but Manchester was like, I don't know, a Chicago in the winter compared to other parts of The UK, and it's pretty cold compared to parts of The UK all all year round. And that you're talking about being warm being a good thing, you know. They were...
Lois Perry:In the Roman period, they were actually growing grapes to make wine in Manchester. So, you know, I'm sure that the Mancunians, as we call them, that's where Oasis and other rock stars that you may affect that you've always... Well, definitely heard of from. I think they'd be pleased with a bit of warming, you know, based on if they could be growing grapes. So, yeah, I mean, it's an...
Lois Perry:It's another ludicrous article. And and interesting what you were saying, Linnea, about the redistribution, that it being all about redistribution. That's true domestically and internationally, as you were saying, because there's a global redistribution. China, the the, you know, the the white cat stroking people that I've spoken about, they obviously made a decision that China was going to be used as as a... As the production base of this global country called called And, you know, everything was gonna be wound down everywhere else and was gonna go full steam ahead, literally, or full coal ahead or full gas ahead in China.
Lois Perry:So, yeah, not just domestic redistribution of wealth and industry, but global redistribution of wealth and industry.
Anthony Watts:Yeah. Hey. I have a question for you, Lois.
Lois Perry:Oh, okay. Is... I hope it's an easy one. It's been a long week.
Anthony Watts:Well... Okay. So I noticed something in their background that was disturbing to me. You have a fireplace going, but it's a virtual fireplace. Why aren't you burning wood?
Lois Perry:Well, because we're not allowed to in London. Our our lovely mayor, the the mayor, Sadiq Khan, who really quite lovely guy used to be the lawyer for actual Islamic terrorists. He represented the group of terrorists, which included Jihadi John. Do you remember the guy that beheaded somebody? He he he was the lawyer for that group, apparently.
Lois Perry:So... Yeah. So we've got a lovely lawyer that... Sorry. We've a lovely man.
Lois Perry:He used to be a lawyer that represented Islamic terrorists. And... But that's okay. But what's not okay is to burn wood in London. So, unfortunately, this is as close as I get unless I go a little mini break with the kitchen.
Jim Lakely:Maybe if you really wanna
Lois Perry:for the weekend.
Anthony Watts:Maybe if you really wanna stick it to him, why don't you get a fireplace image that's got a roasted pig on a spit going?
Sterling Burnett:Or just or just step outside and
Jim Lakely:freeze it. Yeah.
Lois Perry:That wouldn't go down well with the city hall at the moment. No.
Jim Lakely:Oh, jeez. Knew it. I knew it. I knew it. No behaving on this on this show today.
Jim Lakely:Not with Lois in town.
Lois Perry:Oh, no. It's all my fault. Sorry.
Jim Lakely:No. No. No. No. Not your fault.
Sterling Burnett:Step outside and create a fire pit. I I just have a question then. Are you telling me that if the king lit up a fire in Buckingham Palace, the Bobby's gonna bust down the doors and, cart him off to jail?
Lois Perry:No. I'm sure. I'm I'm sure that, the palaces would have an extension. Although, I don't know, but I'm sure that they... They'd get around it.
Lois Perry:I mean, there are synthetic gas fired places that look like fires, but in terms of burning actual wood, it's not allowed. Cow wood, anything in in London anymore. So that... Yeah. It's annoying.
Lois Perry:It's upsetting, actually.
Sterling Burnett:Well, if they want us to go back
Lois Perry:to the nineteenth...... Fireplace as well that's been here since the house was built in 1820. So that it... You know, it's got candles in it, but it's not the same, is it? Not the
Jim Lakely:same. No. If they want us
Sterling Burnett:to go back to the nineteenth century,
Jim Lakely:pre industrial towns, you should be burning coal, and then that'll be... That'll do it the the right way. You burn coal.
Lois Perry:Right? They want us to go back to nature, yet we're not allowed to use anything natural. Doesn't... Yeah. It's just ridiculous, isn't it?
Jim Lakely:Yes. Well, speaking of something natural, here's something that was naturally going to occur on this show. We now have an additional sponsor to the Climate Realism Show that I need to tell you about right now. This episode of the Climate Realm Realism Show was brought to you by the energy bad boys Substack. It's written by Heartland's student alum, Isaac Orr, and energy analyst, Mitch Rowling.
Jim Lakely:And if you are tired of being lied to about the cost of wind and solar, that's one of the reasons why you watch this program, the energy bad boys can also give you the data you need to destroy the myths peddled by the left wing media and climate activists to promote the green news scam, and they also show you why the aforementioned coal, natural gas, and nuclear power are the backbone of an affordable, reliable American electric grid and for that in The UK for that matter. Isaac and Mitch expose how blue state politics and policies drive up electricity costs for everyone and increase the threat of devastating blackouts. America's best energy modelers, that's those two guys, give you the facts that the mainstream media refused to do. You'll love reading energy bad boys because they take bad energy arguments behind the woodshed. If you enjoy the climate realism show, and I know you do, you're gonna wanna check them out.
Jim Lakely:Subscribe today to the energy bad boys substack at energy bad boys substack... I'm sorry. Energybadboys.substack.com. And, also, just like everything else, be sure to tell them that Heartland sent you. Alright.
Jim Lakely:Thank you very much, Isaac and Mitch. Very glad to have you guys aboard. Alright.
Anthony Watts:I'm humming the bad boys theme in my head. I'm trying to come up with something to go with that. You know? Like, what you gonna do when the lights go out?
Jim Lakely:Well, you bet... Keep workshopping that, Anthony. I don't know if that's gonna work for us.
Lois Perry:Alright. Well, I'm just... I used to say when... Well, sometimes when I was debating these sort of climate change, nut jobs, not net zero fanatics, and their and their connection went a bit funny that clearly that, you know, it's being powered by wind power. So, yeah, just just going into what you were saying there about what you're gonna do when the lights go out.
Jim Lakely:Yeah. Well, we've been we've been, we've been frustrated with Sterling Burnett's wind powered Internet for quite a bit quite a while now. So we'll see we'll see if the wind is falling technically......
Lois Perry:Savvy than me. Mind you, you know, there are people in in in jungles that have never met other human beings that are more technically savvy than me. So True.
Jim Lakely:Alright. Well, let's be I I
Sterling Burnett:I resent that remark. It is well known it is well known that my computer runs on squirrel power, the little wheel back here that they're running on.
Jim Lakely:And then after the show, he's gonna shoot the squirrel and eat it. Fortunately,
Sterling Burnett:they're a renewable resource, I have plenty of them.
Jim Lakely:That's that's true. That's true. Get in touch with nature. Alright. Speaking of getting in touch with nature, let's move on here to our second item, which I've titled the butterfly effect.
Jim Lakely:This comes to us from legal insert... Legal insurrection. Linnea picked this one out this week. Headline, monarch butterfly populations rebound as US honeybee colony counts rise. Wow.
Jim Lakely:I'll read from it here. Somebody alert the mainstream media. Mother nature has interrupted their regularly scheduled environmental doom and gloom broadcast with a little bit of good news. Monarch butterflies are fluttering into the headlines this autumn as new reports indicate a 64% increase in their population. The World Wildlife Fund reported in March that two new reports, both released by WWF Mexico and its partners, estimate a 64% increase in species population and a significant decrease in forest degradation within their critical winter habitat.
Jim Lakely:Now mind you, back in the nineteen nineties, researchers assured us that the monarch butterfly was in big, big trouble. I guess maybe they're a little tougher and more adaptable than they look. I'll read a little bit more. One reason for the uptick is that people are planting butterfly friendly plants in their local gardens. Recruitment and survival are affected by the availability and...
Jim Lakely:Of quality habitat, I. E. Milkweed for breeding and nectar sources, particularly during migration, weather conditions, etc. It's challenging to quantify changes in habitat availability on a year to year basis, but we know that people throughout the monarch's breeding and migratory range are restoring habitat in yards, workplaces, schools, churches, along roadsides, utility rights of rights of way, and railroads, and on open land. All of this is positive.
Jim Lakely:That's for sure. A little bit more good news. The buzz is that US honeybee colonies entered 2026 at higher numbers. According to the USDA's National Agricultural Statistics Service, operations managing five or more colonies began the year with 2,810,000 colonies, up 6% from the previous year. Alright.
Jim Lakely:Linnea, you're doing your part in your own yard. I believe you said on Twitter or x that you have one milkweed plant going in your backyard. Way to go.
Linnea Lueken:Yeah. I planted a whole bunch of them, and only one survived.
Lois Perry:So Oh, that's right.
Linnea Lueken:But I'm like, you know what? This is the one that survived is the one that pushed us over the edge into, recovery territory. I'm sure.
Jim Lakely:Yes. Yes. But this is, you know, this is the kind of story that we do highlight on the show from time to time because everybody sees the bad news story, but they never see the recovery good news story.
Lois Perry:Yeah. I
Jim Lakely:I should say, Linnea,
Sterling Burnett:I didn't know South Carolina was along the migration route of monarch butterflies down to Mexico of all
Lois Perry:places.
Linnea Lueken:Get them. I Okay. Yeah. I get a lot of monarchs. I got a little bit fewer...
Linnea Lueken:Strangely enough, I got fewer this year than I got last year. Last year, it seemed like they were all over the place. But this year, I did see a few. No. It's...
Linnea Lueken:I will say one of our commenters said, just wait. Darren and Lokey said, just wait. Next week, we'll be told this is a bad thing. That's the first thing... Sadly, that's the first thing that popped into my mind when they were talking about the honeybee colony rebound.
Linnea Lueken:Because the honeybees that they're talking about, I I can see the article in my brain already, and that's that, you know, US honeybee populations have rebounded. Why this is a bad thing for native pollinators? Because the fact of the matter is that it is. Because everything in nature impacts everything else in nature. It's why I think that it was an apt title for this segment was the butterfly effect.
Linnea Lueken:You can say that, you know, invasive, technically not native European honeybees that we call... Having colonies for honey production in The United States often outcompete native pollinators, the little wild bees. And and the little wild bees actually tend to be slightly better pollinators than the cultivated honey bees are. And and it's it's funny. And the only reason why I'm thinking about this is because I've I've considered this deeply every summer for the last couple of years or every spring rather because I've been trying to get my gardens going, adjusting to an entirely different type of climate than the one I grew up in where it was fairly easy to just throw some tomato plants out there, but especially things like zucchini squash and stuff.
Linnea Lueken:And down here, we've got... Because it's warmer and stuff, there's all sorts of new issues that you deal with, like mildew and these terrible, boring, like, caterpillars that go inside of the zucchini vine and every... Just a nightmare. So I've been studying how to improve the yields of my little garden besides just spraying the crap out of them with everything, with all the chemicals, which I'm not opposed to, and I'm not scared of of pesticides, and I'm not scared of any of that. However, I'm lazy.
Linnea Lueken:And going out there and spraying pesticides takes time. So I I can see how they're going to try to spin this if the trend continues. But most of the time, what the climate alarmist or what the environmentalist will do is they'll just ignore the good news for the most part. They just don't talk about it. Now I don't wanna say for certain because I didn't look this up before we went, but I am fairly confident that you're not gonna see an article in the Associated Press or something highlighting this as a benefit of a milder climate in North America.
Linnea Lueken:Right? Recovery of monarch butterflies, recovery of bees. But it also goes to show that what human beings do with regards to landscaping has a really big impact on insect populations. And we know that when it comes to mosquitoes, you know, warmer, wetter weather can produce situations where it's easier for mosquitoes to reproduce. But the thing that has the biggest impact is tipping that bucket over in your backyard that would otherwise be collecting water and turning into mosquito heaven.
Anthony Watts:Old tires.
Jim Lakely:Old
Linnea Lueken:tires. Old tires and emptying them out. So there are things that we do that have a much larger and immediate influence on insect populations than the, you know, zero point what what was the difference that they said between
Sterling Burnett:Zero point one
Linnea Lueken:Zero point zero one or 0.02 degrees temperature change over the course of decades. Yeah.
Anthony Watts:I I don't have a problem with mosquitoes here. Thanks to my personal private stash of DDT.
Linnea Lueken:Yeah. That too. But there there are things that we can do. I talked about it a couple weeks ago too. The Trump administration is looking at launching some pilot programs in Washington DC's parks to do major mosquito and tick remediation.
Anthony Watts:Watch. They'll protest that too.
Lois Perry:Oh, they will.
Linnea Lueken:The the Deep South, you know, like, down deep in Florida and whatnot has success with these programs. It's how they got rid of the screwworm in the Southwest in the first place. There are there are major steps that we can take, and it's kind of the fix everything easy button. The fix everything easy button for monarch butterflies is recovering, like, prairie habitat with milkweed and stuff. You know, people adding milkweed to their gardens obviously helps, if you can do a a relatively large area.
Linnea Lueken:But monarch butterflies, this is something I didn't realize that not everybody knows this, but monarch butterflies rely pretty much exclusively on milkweed alone for their larva to... For their caterpillars to eat and for them to reproduce and everything. So the fact that people think that it's an ugly plant because it is a little bit of an ugly... Like, it's not the the prettiest landscaping plant ever. It looks like a weed because it's a weed, but it's important.
Anthony Watts:A weed is anything we don't want.
Linnea Lueken:And so... And and so it is important, for for these to be part of, like, you know, highway landscaping and stuff. They do it. And as Charles Rogers says here, you can just do things. You can.
Linnea Lueken:You can just kill the bad ticks. You can just kill the bad mosquitoes.
Anthony Watts:Well
Linnea Lueken:And you can just plant milkweed and bring the monarch butterflies back.
Sterling Burnett:Well, you can plant you can plant milkweed, and I have no opinion as to whether we should or should not. But it doesn't matter what we do up here if they clear the forest where the monarch butterfly's winter habitat is. And that was that was the big growth is is they stopped destroying the forest. And butterflies, had inhabited four acres in 2025... 2024, inhabited nearly eight acres in 2025 because they expanded...
Sterling Burnett:You know, they improved the forest, and that's where they wintered. 900,000,000 monarchs evidently went there. So, maybe, some of our efforts should be in encouraging, if you care about the monarchs, you know, encouraging financially Mexico to stop deforestation and preserve monarch habitat.
Anthony Watts:Yeah. You know, Linnea, I think you should start a program to rehabilitate the image of the milkweed. You know? I think it would go a lot better with the public if you could come up with chocolate milkweed.
Jim Lakely:That's good.
Linnea Lueken:You got you got me
Lois Perry:on that one, Anthony.
Sterling Burnett:That that was so bad. It doesn't even deserve a ring.
Anthony Watts:I know. I know.
Jim Lakely:Yeah. You don't get... You don't... No no audio drop for that. No no no rimshot.
Anthony Watts:I think you need a raspberry effect for me.
Lois Perry:Yeah.
Jim Lakely:Alright. Let... Let's move on. We got a lot of... We got a big story that Lois is gonna really inform us on here very shortly, but she might have something to say about this one here too.
Jim Lakely:This is California's bullet train to nowhere. This is really something, folks. Scrap in. This comes from City Journal. California's bullet train boondoggle, the state's high speed rail project, sunk more than 677,000,000 just on environmental paperwork benefiting well connected contractors.
Jim Lakely:Now it's as if the entire point of building a bullet train from Los Angeles to San Francisco was to create a giant grift perpetual motion machine and not an actual train. That's the way... That's what I think the subhead should be. This comes from the great Christopher Ruffo and Kenneth Schrupp, and they write in City Journal. In 2008, California voters approved funding for a high speed high speed rail line between San Francisco and Los Angeles.
Jim Lakely:A group of contractors donated tens of thousands of dollars to support the ballot measure. A state program manager projected that the initiative would create more than 100,000 construction jobs. Eighteen years and more than $15,000,000,000 later, not a single mile of high speed track has been laid. The state hasn't even laid track on the rump Merced to Bakersfield line that it wants to open in the twenty thirties. In a recently resurfaced video from his time as lieutenant governor, Gavin Newsom said the full project was unlikely to, quote, materialize in our lifetime.
Jim Lakely:Oh, but lots and lots of people are getting rich in these lifetimes. Why isn't Newsom or anyone in the mainstream media curious about where that $15,000,000,000 went so far? Alright. There's more to say here, though. There's more to read here.
Jim Lakely:It is great. The bullet train, like almost every effort to build things in California, was killed by environmental regulations. The state's high speed rail website contains more than 130,000 pages of environmental review related materials. Stacked together, they stand 40 feet tall and weigh 1,300 pounds. All of this has cost taxpayers more than $677,000,000 and served as a meal ticket for consulting firms that backed the 2008 ballot measure.
Jim Lakely:Now get a load of this. This is the little wrap up for us. Some of the bullet train reports include ridiculous measures. One proposed that biologists count bumblebees one by one. Another outlined when a contractor was allowed to break down wood rat stick huts.
Jim Lakely:Still others contemplated using dogs to sniff for lizard scat or spending $119,400,000 on an overhead tube partly to limit the train's acoustic impacts on waterfowl and shorebirds. Such measures have prompted a flurry of expensive change orders. Contractors have requested $480,000 to, quote, dig small burrows for mammals by hand, $352,490 for lizard surveys and reports. And in one case, California's high speed rail agency revised its draft environmental report after the state proposed a regional mountain lion as a candidate for protected status. Sterling, you just got back from a hunting trip.
Jim Lakely:You saw, not you, but you saw somebody else shoot a mountain lion, so I hope that person is not in trouble. But the irony here, of course, is that leftist environmentalists wanted this project because it would save the planet. However, the left is also obsessed with slowing every construction project down with endless and largely pointless environmental roadblocks. So by their own logic, we need a bullet train in California because it's more environmentally friendly than flying, but we can't build the bullet train because it'll harm the environment. So instead, billions of our money goes into the pockets of people we've never known and never see, and nothing is actually built.
Sterling Burnett:I'm I'm not sure what what there is left to say, Jim. I'm sorry.
Jim Lakely:I got a little I got a little excited. I got a little
Sterling Burnett:excited. You know, the federal government's poured money into this. The bullet train is the black hole within which federal and state dollars go to disappear. And we'll, as far as I can tell, for the foreseeable future despite repeated attempts to kill it, The congressional delegation from California still supports it. They...
Sterling Burnett:It was supposed to go from, I think, San Francisco to San Diego originally. Now it's like Bakersfield to Merced because air... That's the hotbed of travel. I I know people are jumping on planes in Bakersfield and traveling to Merced. This could replace all that.
Sterling Burnett:I would say... I have a foul word to say about this, but I'm not gonna say it. A decade decade and a half ago or more, there were tremendous inordinately vitriolic debates about a so called bridge and road to nowhere in Alaska. And it actually was only a three point three point four mile bridge and road system, and it was to connect an airport to a small village. And it was important because the small village only had access as it was to the hospital, via ferry, which had difficulties running during the winter when the ice covered the ocean, or airplane, you know, small planes, which, you know, problematic during rough weather.
Sterling Burnett:So people were dying unnecessarily. Three three miles, it was gonna cost... They were debating. They were fighting. They were they were calling each other names and defeated it, by the way.
Sterling Burnett:The the bridge never got built. Over $28,000,000. That's how much it was gonna... $28,000,000. Oh, we wouldn't wanna waste that $28,000,000.
Sterling Burnett:That would be 28,000,000 less that we had to throw in the black hole of the train to nowhere. That will never be built. And that if it's built, it won't function as a high speed rail because they've given up. They're not trying to build one like in Japan where you're going over 200 miles per hour. They're not doing that.
Sterling Burnett:As far as I know, they're not doing one like in in Europe that has high speed rail, at least for parts of its line. It... The the... There's... It's it's gonna go slightly faster than rail will go now because high speed rail is really, really expensive as opposed to $16,000,000,000 for nothing.
Sterling Burnett:I I don't know. You say the environmentalist really wanted this. I'm unconvinced they really wanted it. I'm just convinced what they didn't want is anything being built anywhere near anybody in California. They're bananas.
Sterling Burnett:Yep.
Linnea Lueken:I have... I'll say the mean word, Sterling, graft.
Lois Perry:Oh, that's all not mean at all.
Linnea Lueken:Would be the mean word that comes to my mind. I I really, really enjoy the idea of them having to rebuild, like, muskrat houses.
Jim Lakely:Well, because I love all
Linnea Lueken:these little projects, all the, like, bee counting project. I love... They've... It's just like when they when they build those. I'm sure Lois is is sitting here thinking about bat bridges while we're talking about this because it's the same sort of little things that make make all development impossible.
Linnea Lueken:People wonder... You know, I wrote an article a couple of months ago about, you know, what's California's excuse for not having, you know, proportionate number of desalination plants for their population and the size of their state and their water needs. And it's basically just environmental issues. Like, the environmental paperwork that it takes to build one is so insane now that it's it's not even worth trying in a lot of cases unless you get all sorts of special permits. And and half the time it's, you know, governor Newsom is coming in and and waiving all of their normal procedures for getting something built in California just so that they can have these projects underway at the, like, discussion and paperwork stage, the early stages of permitting, not even full on permitting.
Linnea Lueken:It's it's... Yeah. It's pretty crazy, but not surprising in the slightest.
Sterling Burnett:And the California Air Resources Board and the California Coastal Commission are two of the biggest roadblocks to development around the globe. There... There's almost nothing that competes with them for their ability to halt, prevent, inhibit projects. No state has anything like that. Yeah.
Sterling Burnett:It's amazing.
Jim Lakely:Lois, you guys in The UK do rail a lot better than we do, and so many of people on the left environmentalists are envious of the rail system in Europe and in The UK, yet we can't... You know, we may be envious, but we're incapable of even trying to replicate what you guys have.
Lois Perry:Well, it seems to me from from reading the brief that you sent me and from listening to you guys, do do you think that they had any intention of building this chain in the first place? I mean, I... Or or was it literally a grift? Was it literally to have a huge pot of money which could be used by, I don't know, political donors or or friends of, you know, the politicians to to actually hand out large chunks of cash. I mean, if that wasn't the intention, then that's obviously based on what you've been saying completely what's happened.
Lois Perry:I'd go back to what Linnea was saying, a friend of mine was trying to build a huge project in The UK, and it was gonna cost him a £100,000,000 to do... And this this is for the... To do with bats. I mean, you're talking about bats and making a joke about it. But this guy, it was a £100,000,000 bill that that...
Lois Perry:What he would have to do, the surveys and and the things that he'd have to build on this huge project that he was go... Wanted to do to create jobs and homes in The UK. So he didn't do it. I mean, who wants to spend a £100,000,000 on bats? Nobody does.
Lois Perry:It's it's it's mind boggling. So, yeah, there's no intention. I mean, it's almost as if, you know, shock horror. These guys don't want capitalism. I mean, who would have thought that?
Lois Perry:It's it's extraordinary.
Linnea Lueken:I'm sure the few people that do want this train being finished are just looking at the the Union Pacific line and thinking, my goodness. We built that thing in '18... In the eighteen seventies. Yeah. And they got it done crazy fast.
Linnea Lueken:Like, crazy fast. Didn't have any environmental. Yeah.
Sterling Burnett:They didn't have a California Air Resources Board or US EPA.
Linnea Lueken:They were not worried about muskrat habitat.
Lois Perry:No. They certainly weren't. No.
Sterling Burnett:Or or buffalo or anything else. They had a goal, and they got it done.
Lois Perry:The priority was as it always should be. Obviously, you need to take into consideration the environment, but human habitats and humans should be the priority. Yeah. We've lost that completely, obviously.
Jim Lakely:100%. I mean, the hallmark of a great civilization is building things, and both The UK and The United States used to be able to build great things. The transcontinental railroad, the Hoover Dam was built, I think, in eighteen months. We we can't... It would take twice that long just for the environmental regulation studies, for crying out loud.
Jim Lakely:We... You are no longer a great civilization. Even even if you wanna build exactly what the environmentalists want, which is rail so that people aren't flying, they get in the way of that. I just find it hilarious, but also actually kinda tragic because you you lose your momentum as a great civilization when you can't even attempt great project.
Lois Perry:It's all about money, and it's interesting that it's all very selective as well. I mean, that you don't ever hear them complaining about how it damaged the the birds that are killed with the, you know, with the with the wind farms Winds. Yeah. And all of that. They don't care about that.
Lois Perry:They don't... They... You know, the the whales, the the the the sonars that are going off and them ended up being beached and all this weird stuff happening with them, with sea wildlife and, as I say, birds. That's fine. That's fine.
Lois Perry:Yeah. It's always...
Sterling Burnett:They they spent decades. They spent decades and millions of dollars to preserve the bald eagle, and now they're killing them by the by the dozens with wind turbines.
Jim Lakely:Yep. Anthony, you wanna jump in here? Wrap it up.
Anthony Watts:My big worry is that if they do, in fact, have people go out and dig burrows for the small rodents and so forth, that the rodents are gonna become dependent on people digging burrows for them. And then they're gonna have to set up a social welfare program to have... Come out and dig burrows for these things. It's just Right.
Jim Lakely:You know, they're
Sterling Burnett:little rodent sofas eating bonbons and watching subsidized television and using their subsidized cell phones.
Jim Lakely:Yep. Alright. Well, let's get to our last item here in the in the rundown, and so excited. And this... Big reason why we have Lois here today is she's talked about this on UK media, and now she's talking about it with us.
Jim Lakely:And I've titled this back to drilling in The UK. This comes from metro.co.uk. Headline, will energy bills get any cheaper after government backs new UK gas field? So, just a little bit of background here. So Jackdaw is the name given to a gas field in the North Sea.
Jim Lakely:It's around a 150 miles west of Aberdeen. Jackdaw is typically seen as less controversial than the Rosebank oil field, which is about 500 kilometers to the Northwest because supposedly Jackdaw will supply gas for British homes while Rosebank would produce oil to be exported to the global market. Alright. Let me read from the story here, and we'll kick it to Lois. It's a decision that has been a long time coming, but the government has now officially approved the Jackdaw gas field in the North Sea.
Jim Lakely:Reaction to the move has been mixed with joy from trade unions, despair from climate campaigners, and criticism from some opposition politicians over the time it's taken to reach this conclusion. Energy secretary, Matya von Buehla, goodness, who took over the job from Ed Miliband after Andy Burnett became PM, insists the approval won't impact The UK's sprint or net zero. Of course not. But there are also questions over what it will mean for ordinary households across The UK as they struggle with rising energy bills. According to the Department of Energy Security and net zero, gas from the field will be supplied to British homes and businesses by the end of this month.
Jim Lakely:But despite British gas being supplied to British homes, the labor party says this will not drive down energy costs. I don't know, Lois. Help us make sense of this. Well,
Lois Perry:you know, on the surface... And I like to say, you know, things are a win. This is a win. And it is a win. Let's...
Lois Perry:Okay. I'm I'm I'm gonna be nice. It is a win. It is a win for us and for the work that we're doing because the public is on side with the... With new licenses being granted.
Lois Perry:And and and it is good that this is happening because we need to be developing, you know, our our oil production and energy production in the North Sea. But my argument and the argument that I've made in The UK media is this is a schizophrenic approach to to energy policy. The... On the one hand, we are saying how wonderful the labor part, labor government is saying how wonderful it is that all these new jobs have been created and everything else by this project and being given the green light. But then on the other hand, the oil and gas and the whole industry is evil at the same time, and there's loads of other projects that could be given the go ahead that haven't been.
Lois Perry:And even the fact that this is a story is ridiculous. Even the fact that granting a license for us to break... To produce more of our own homegrown domestic energy is a story is is mind boggling mind bogglingly ludicrous. Yeah. So it's great that this has happened, but but but there's still issues with all the other expiration licenses being granted.
Lois Perry:There's still loads and loads and loads of regions that have not been exploited properly within within the North Sea. And the whole thing, as I say, is schizophrenic. I mean, you've got the energy minister saying, oh, this is not gonna reduce bills. Well, how can you be... How can there be an argument that not producing your own energy is a good thing?
Lois Perry:It's absolutely ludicrous. And they say, well, okay. This will be sold on the international market. But with one stroke of a pen, maybe a pen like this, you could actually you can actually change the law and, like, during wartime, all your energy, obviously, like, we could change the law like that. We did it during COVID, didn't we?
Lois Perry:And we could say that all our energy is just for The United Kingdom. So, yeah, the whole... Oh, it has to be sold in the international market thing. No. It doesn't.
Lois Perry:It doesn't have to have to be at all. The the unfortunate thing for us with fracking, I've said this before, is because not because not like with you guys, you guys, you own your house, you own the land underneath it. No. In this country, you own a house, and you own about that much underneath it, and and then the rest belongs to the king. I can tell you if people...
Lois Perry:Individual people that own their own properties in The United Kingdom were gonna make money from the land underneath, fracking would be all day long. There would be no issues with fracking. Everyone would be like, drill, go for gold. But... Yeah.
Lois Perry:Okay. So a win, but let's see more of this and this stop... This schizophrenic approach from the government.
Jim Lakely:So you can't convince the king to frack. Is that all it takes to get the
Sterling Burnett:crown to want to frack?
Jim Lakely:Because that seems like a doable thing.
Lois Perry:Well...
Sterling Burnett:No. He's an environment... He's he's a wacko environmentalist. Oh, I'm not... I'm...
Lois Perry:Well, no. He's making a fortune, the king, and I I don't wanna speak yell about the king, but he is he is making a fortune from off... Offshore wind because when when... Within a certain parameter of of the coastline, that's obviously... That's all owned by the crown.
Lois Perry:So so the... I mean, the hundreds and hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of millions of pounds a year coming
Jim Lakely:in from that. Yeah. Why not make billions upon billions by fracking and drilling for natural gas on the land?
Lois Perry:Because people wouldn't make. Well, they should be. And there's there's huge regions in The UK, the Bowling Shelf, the whole area up in Lancashire that that don't have any properties on them that could be fracked. You know? But, obviously, I I don't think they would be that that shocked about the king fracking under their house.
Lois Perry:But but, yeah, I mean, there are loads of properties. Sorry. There's loads loads of areas where, you know, we've had geologists come over and energy experts come over from The US, and they've said that at the quality of our shale gas in in The United Kingdom is actually superior to the shale gas that's found in The United States. So we've got, I think, three hundred years worth of energy that's not been exploited from fracking. It would keep...
Lois Perry:It would pay off the national debt 10 times over. Yeah. I mean, you guys pay eight times less for your electricity than we do.
Sterling Burnett:Well,
Lois Perry:no. That's just gonna...
Sterling Burnett:You said one thing that was just super critical about the difference between The US and and and The UK. And not just The UK, but actually most of the world. In The US, the mineral rights reside with the property owner. Yep. If there's oil under our land, there's water under our land, if there's molybdenum under our land, we can exploit it at a profit.
Sterling Burnett:And so that's that's what created so much of the entrepreneurship that's that's brought this development. When government builds on
Lois Perry:resources isn't it? It's great. And that attitude that you guys have, it comes from that from that. Yeah.
Sterling Burnett:And it creates wealth. And Yeah. Wealth redounds to not just the people developing the energy, but in lower prices to all the consumers and all the goods and services that are created by these things instead of the crown, not just your crown, but the government, I mean, if if it's in Africa or whatever, controlling it for political purposes, doling out a few licenses to their friends and getting the kickback. It's the difference between The US and the rest... And much of the rest of the world.
Lois Perry:Well, you kicked out George the third, didn't you? So, yeah, so now you own you own... Literally own the ground under your feet, and we don't. So there you go.
Jim Lakely:Are you are you are you allowed
Lois Perry:to...... There somewhere. Are
Jim Lakely:you still put to death for hunting in the Kingswood these days, or you're okay?
Lois Perry:Haven't been hunting in the Kingswood for ages, so I wouldn't know. Oh, no. Right.
Jim Lakely:Well, the problem the problem is go.
Sterling Burnett:Can't they can't hunt in the Kingswood either. You know? They they banned fox hunting.
Jim Lakely:Yeah. That's why you're still alive, Lois. You see,
Lois Perry:stay on the Kingswood. It is why why I'm still alive. Yeah.
Jim Lakely:I just wonder... Just again
Lois Perry:been hunting. I've never done anything like that. I went to Las Vegas. I used to work in PR, and my ex husband and I went to Las Vegas. No one believed we were going to Las Vegas for work, but we genuinely were.
Lois Perry:And the actual company was called Machine Guns Vegas. Right? And, obviously, they gave people an opportunity to shoot machine guns. You know? I've never heard a gun being fired before.
Lois Perry:Right? And and I burst into tears because it was machine gun fire. It wasn't like someone shooting a pistol or whatever. I don't even know what guns are called. But, anyway...
Lois Perry:But I sat there and burst into tears, which they... All the guys thought was quite cute, but I thought I looked like a complete wet... Know, just wet. Obviously, I was embarrassed. Completely embarrassed.
Jim Lakely:Oh my gosh, Lois.
Lois Perry:That's my gun experience. We... You need And I wasn't even shooting a gun. I was just sitting in the waiting area.
Sterling Burnett:Oh, you got a long way to go. You got a long way to go. You need to
Jim Lakely:have more visits to The United States. You gotta be hanging out a lot with Linnea and Sterling who know their way around... No.
Lois Perry:Well, I need to hang out with Linnea. Linnea Linnea is nailing the whole thing. I I I need to hang out more with her next time. Next time I come and see you guys.
Jim Lakely:Next time. So, anyway, just just to wrap it up, I mean, I I heard you say that you've kind of... It seemed like reluctantly saying that this is good news. I mean...
Lois Perry:Well, no. I'm not being... I I wish that they were doing this across the board. Of course, it's good news, but it's not being pushed out as a general rule. It's just they...
Lois Perry:They're doing one. I know you've gotta start somewhere.
Jim Lakely:Yes. Yes. Yes. But why would... Why why did the labor government approve this?
Jim Lakely:It's what I don't get. I can understand if if... Well,
Lois Perry:it's interesting. So the way the political funding so... But I think you've got the same situation in The United States. The Democrats, do they receive the vast amount of their funding via unions? Is that correct?
Lois Perry:Is that... Yeah. Is it... Well, obviously, it's the same here with the labor party. And the unions really, really, really are not net zero fanatics.
Lois Perry:They're really not. So it's quite interesting. You've got a pushback from the people that are funding the labor party, actually, for certain unions. There are big unions that are funding the Labour Party that that want this, and they're actually delighted. And you read out in your in your piece at the beginning, there's been a mixed reaction.
Lois Perry:Well, part one of them is that the unions are very, very pleased. So, yeah, very interesting. Interesting. Yeah. Well, yeah, you you mean...
Lois Perry:It creates jobs.
Jim Lakely:It does. Yes. It creates jobs. And like I said, it creates labor jobs. It Yeah.
Jim Lakely:You know, people who are who belong to labor unions, and people who belong to labor unions work very hard day after day after day by the sweat of their brow and the and the muscles on their back. That's one way to work. Another way to work is to have your money work for you. And a good way to have your money work for you is is is to visit our sponsor, and that is Advisor Metals. Ira Brushatsky, who runs Advisor Metals, he's a big fan of this program.
Jim Lakely:We correspond pretty regularly, and he reminded me that just four years ago, about the time we started streaming this live every Friday at 1PM, precious metals were selling for just a fraction of what they are today. And if you were invested in them then, you'd be in a really good position now because since then, gold is up a 144%, silver is up 210%, and platinum has gained nearly 82%. Ira tells me, don't wait to buy gold. Buy gold and wait. Ira is the managing member of advisor metals, and he doesn't employ the kind of high pressure tactics you see from a lot of the big players in big gold.
Jim Lakely:He's a straight shooter, and he also doesn't deal in so called rare coins, which you probably don't want. When you buy gold and other precious metals from advisor metals, you're dealing with quality bullion, and it's sent directly and discreetly to your home. And should I mention again that Ira really loves this program? He gets what we're doing here. He is one of us, and that is why we are proud to call him a sponsor.
Jim Lakely:So today, go to climaterealismshow.com/metals. You can leave your information there, and Ira's gonna make the process very easy for you. Again, if you're interested in adding physical precious metals to your financial portfolio, go to climaterealismshow.com/metals, and definitely tell them who sent you because that helps us in this program while you're helping to secure your financial future. Alright. Thank you for your attention to this matter, and it is now time for q and a.
Jim Lakely:Take it away, Linnea.
Linnea Lueken:He's waiting to cut me off. It's what Andy is doing. Alright. Fine. I guess...
Lois Perry:Terrible.
Linnea Lueken:Terrible. The way I'm treated on this show.
Jim Lakely:I have to confess I did that. Amy's computer is frozen, so that's that's what happened.
Linnea Lueken:Okay. Alright. Let's see what... Oh, yeah. Alright.
Linnea Lueken:So a good good friend of ours, longtime follower and viewer of the show, Kenneth over on x, has a question for Sterling. He says, does Sterling feel better since he killed something?
Sterling Burnett:Well, Sterling feels better that he got to spend time with his brother-in-law, but in point of fact, he killed nothing. It was a very unsuccessful hunting trip. No, grouse, no deer, no mountain lion or bear.
Jim Lakely:Oh, it's it's as if you brought Lois along, which you said.
Lois Perry:You never know. I might be quite good if I had a chance.
Sterling Burnett:Yeah. A lot of it... It was quite a it was quite a slog. My, for the first time in in years, my blood sugars dipped to dangerous levels.
Linnea Lueken:Yeah. We had we had a couple of comments about the the hunting trip. We had Joe Tripp who also said, you know, bullet bullet train, shmullet train. Let's hear about the mountain lion that got shot.
Sterling Burnett:I was so envious of that guy. I was constantly... While I was hiking, constantly on my... The lookout on my backside to see if maybe a mountain lion would be sneaking up on me and hoping that he was sneaking up on me. Aw.
Sterling Burnett:You can't
Lois Perry:call him lion.
Sterling Burnett:That's not a Because, you know, as much as I wanted this this hybrid deer, a mountain lion would have been... I I I told my partners in advance. I said, look. I know we're hunting deer, but if I spoil the entire deer hunting trip, I'm gonna shoot a lion if there's a lion available.
Jim Lakely:That that lion would be mounted behind you like this right now on screen. It would have been really something.
Sterling Burnett:But, they, some guy, he was very fortunate. I saw Lion Tracks. I don't know whether he was targeting it or he was just... He shot it like I was looking to... He shot it while he was out hunting deer, and there it was.
Linnea Lueken:Claim self defense.
Jim Lakely:Oh, it is.
Sterling Burnett:Well, you don't you don't have to. I mean, it's... The tags... The tag was, like, $49 or something to add.
Lois Perry:But isn't it supposed to be about shooting things that you can eat?
Sterling Burnett:You can eat in mountain lion. I've had mountain lion or doofs before, but it's about
Lois Perry:to Yeah. Be Yeah. Yeah. Sure. Hey.
Lois Perry:You
Sterling Burnett:know, when I was in Montana, yeah, mountain lion tastes pretty good.
Lois Perry:But You're I'm star corrected.
Sterling Burnett:Hunting is about hunting. It may be for trophies for some. It may be for sport for others. It may be for meat.
Lois Perry:Oh, I'm a cat person, so you can talk about cheating lions for a laugh. It makes
Sterling Burnett:me feel horrible. Yeah. I I
Jim Lakely:didn't say it with a laugh.
Sterling Burnett:It wasn't a laugh. It wouldn't have been a laugh. Oh, it wouldn't have been a laugh.
Jim Lakely:Yeah. The The United States Of America has never seemed like more of a foreign country to Lois Perry than it does right now.
Lois Perry:Well, I just hope that you've made thousands of mountain lion hors d'oeuvres.
Jim Lakely:Yep. And...
Lois Perry:I mean, that would be a lot of hors d'oeuvres.
Sterling Burnett:That would
Jim Lakely:be a
Sterling Burnett:lot of hors d'oeuvres.
Jim Lakely:And just so and just so you know, Lois, we are not allowed to hunt with machine guns, so there's no relation to
Lois Perry:that. Oh, that's alright. Then I won't burst into tears in my little joint out with them with Sterling now.
Sterling Burnett:I I hunted be
Linnea Lueken:able to hunt
Sterling Burnett:with with a traditional lever action rifle. And when I leave next week for elk, I'll be hunting with a single shot rifle.
Lois Perry:I caused all of my troubles... All of my mischief with the pen.
Linnea Lueken:Alright. Let me get into some of our our science questions here. Let's see. Oh, you know what? This is this is a econ question, but I'm gonna pitch it to Sterling.
Linnea Lueken:And tech asks, do they at least have some econometric model of how much is going to be saved by hitting their 1.5 degree temperature reduction goal?
Sterling Burnett:Well, I don't think such an econometric model exists. What they say is, and and and Lois may know some about this because one of the most prominent advocates for it was a guy named Lord Stern who produced his report, that'll say billions and billion billions and billions of dollars in, health benefits, in in, you know, ecosystems not being disrupted, in people not having, asthma attacks or dying from heat waves. They they claim that, but they claimed it based on really, really flawed climate models that had been abandoned. RCP 8.5. Ugh.
Sterling Burnett:And and just made up numbers. They got rid of the discount rate, but econometric models, you know, really detailed things, I don't know that those exist. What I've seen are... It it looks to me like back of the envelope calculations based on very general generalizations about what might happen, you know, how many deaths might be prevented, and, they're all bad. You know?
Sterling Burnett:They're they're all bad. The social cost of carbon number is, is, is bad. And if it... If if they include the benefits of warming, like more crops, more food, less cold deaths, warming is probably a net benefit, not a net cost. But they didn't do the benefit side.
Sterling Burnett:They just calculated the cost.
Linnea Lueken:Thank you, Sterling. Let's see.
Lois Perry:Can I just say that they're talking about the health benefits, but we know that more people die, you know, from? They're talking about heat waves and and stuff like that, but more people die from the cold than from being warm. And so even that doesn't make any sense. The the whole concept doesn't make any sense at all.
Linnea Lueken:Alright. So this is a question from Andrew Pickard. I'm gonna send this to Anthony's way if you if you know about it. I know a little bit about what it was like up north this summer from a... Yeah.
Linnea Lueken:From a article that I worked on today for climate realism. But I'm gonna send it to Anthony because I think he probably has better data than I do.
Anthony Watts:Well, I don't know that answer exactly, but I'm gonna find out.
Linnea Lueken:We could reserve......
Anthony Watts:You this with certainty that it was somewhere between absolute zero and the freezing point of water.
Sterling Burnett:Yeah. Well, that's pretty good. Yeah.
Linnea Lueken:That's good. You know what? Well... Yeah.
Anthony Watts:Hold on. Hold on.
Jim Lakely:So we could put a pin in it and come back on how cold it was in the North... Okay.
Anthony Watts:So here we go.
Lois Perry:Alright.
Anthony Watts:Here we go. NASA says that it's hit the tenth lowest summer level. No. That's CS. Never mind.
Anthony Watts:I don't have an answer. Sorry.
Jim Lakely:Well, I heard it was... It it never got below freezing at the North Pole is what I heard. So
Lois Perry:we'll look that up.
Sterling Burnett:And I don't doubt that is true.
Anthony Watts:Yeah. That's silly.
Linnea Lueken:I I do know... I've I've also heard though that... Or I I was looking at the data on this that that Newfoundland Newfoundland and Labrador, that part of Canada was a bit unseasonably cold for much of the summer this year, although they were hot last year. And the the screeching in the media about the difference between this summer and last summer is another, you know, another climate claim that they make when they can't say that it's been the hottest summer ever is that they say that the fact that it's not as hot as it was last year is evidence of climate whiplash, and that's something that I'm working on. That article will be up on Monday.
Linnea Lueken:So, yeah, very silly stuff.
Sterling Burnett:If if you have... If you suffer from climate whiplash, are there trial attorneys you can find who will see some relevant authority for
Linnea Lueken:I think they're trying to do that. You know? Get yourself right now.
Sterling Burnett:Yourself a neck brace and say, I've got climate whiplash. Alright.
Linnea Lueken:This is a question from Kyle Glenn who says, but why do the major oil companies insist that carbon capture is necessary? Well, they
Anthony Watts:make money. Simply it's because they wanna appease the people that demand it so they don't come burn down the refinery.
Sterling Burnett:No. No. No. It's because they're making money off of it. It.
Sterling Burnett:They're making lots and lots and lots
Lois Perry:of money off it. Carbon capture. They're going ahead with that in The UK. It's just... Yeah.
Lois Perry:We do have some extraordinary natural carbon capture units. They're called trees. You know, we don't need to build any other... It's just it's just a money making thing again, as you say. Yeah.
Sterling Burnett:Look. So the old companies, let's be clear. There's carbon capture and storage, and there's carbon capture and utilization. Oil companies have been doing carbon capture and utilization for decades because they pump carbon into marginal wells to increase production. That's a profit for them.
Sterling Burnett:That that that increases their profits. The government got into saying, oh, we want more carbon capture and storage. And so they funded people to capture carbon and just store it somewhere where we hope it never comes out of the ground. It it it... It's magically...
Sterling Burnett:A molecule can't seep through solid earth. You know, that's never happened before. You've never had leaks from, underground storage. But
Lois Perry:It's carbon capture.
Sterling Burnett:The oil company... Yeah. It is.
Lois Perry:Yeah. The
Sterling Burnett:the the oil company said, hold it. We could get in on this. And so they lobbied for, in part of the... As part of the big beautiful bill. They now get paid as much as people who are just carbon capture and storing it.
Sterling Burnett:They get paid as much. They get a subsidy to do what they were doing anyway. Now they say that when they're pumping it into these reservoirs to increase oil, now it's, oh, we didn't count it before, but, really, it's storing that carbon for all time. No. It...
Sterling Burnett:It's not. It's not. Things leak from those wells. And if anything's gonna leak, a gaseous, carbon dioxide is gonna be one of those things. But they're getting paid for it.
Sterling Burnett:They're getting good money. They're getting taxpayer money. So they're doubling their profits on this stuff. That's why they're for it.
Linnea Lueken:Yep. I don't think any more needs to be said. That's pretty much the gist there. Alright. So redneck screw loose.
Linnea Lueken:He says, aren't we going to colonize Mars by warming up its atmosphere with carbon dioxide? No. No. We are not.
Lois Perry:You have to have...
Linnea Lueken:Well, you have to have you have to have enough, like, magnetic forces and stuff on the planet to keep any atmosphere that you try to put on it. It. So... No. It would just build on
Anthony Watts:its space.... That that Mars would ever be successfully terraformed without a magnetic field to help push away all the solar wind and everything.
Linnea Lueken:It's it's unlikely to be terraformed, but in that way, but it's it's not impossible to build, like, dome communities and stuff. I think that's probably the best that they can hope for when it comes to Mars colonization. Trying to terraform by adding in this sphere, a little bit too complicated. You imagine what
Lois Perry:depressing that would be.
Sterling Burnett:I've got a mad scientist idea. I'm sorry, Lois. Lois, you want that?
Lois Perry:No. I just... That was all I wanted to say. Being one of the first people in a dome community, we... I mean, I can't be...
Lois Perry:It's so bleak. It's unbelievable, the whole concept of it, isn't it? Sorry. Sorry. I'm joking.
Linnea Lueken:No. I... Not to me. I I would find the... I've...
Linnea Lueken:I... I'm... I... I'm... I hunger for the frontier, Lois.
Lois Perry:Right. Okay. Alright. Fair enough. I I would go mental.
Lois Perry:But, anyway I I...
Sterling Burnett:I've got a mad scientist idea. We bore deep, deep holes and create reservoirs inside Mars. And then all the magnets that we're building to run wind turbines and such, we ship them up there, dump them into the core of Mars, and try and create a magnetosphere. Thus, we could then hold the, like I said, mad scientist idea.
Linnea Lueken:I like it.
Sterling Burnett:Someone else has to do the physic... The actual mathematics of it. I I can't do that.
Linnea Lueken:It doesn't matter, Sterling. All you have to do is make the model, and they'll pour money on you.
Jim Lakely:There you
Linnea Lueken:go. Well, you have to say that it's also some kind of, like, climate remediation project or something, and then they'll just pour money on that modeling study. Alright. Let's see. This is a question from Scott who says, are they gonna break down your door for hate speech because of Sterling's mentioning a pig on a spit, Lois?
Sterling Burnett:Sterling did not mention that. That was not Sterling.
Jim Lakely:That was Anthony.
Lois Perry:Well, I'm... They haven't yet.
Sterling Burnett:It would... And it would not be the
Jim Lakely:first time. It wouldn't be the first time you got in trouble for what you said with knocks on doors.
Lois Perry:No. Well, no. I mean, but... No. I...
Lois Perry:Joking aside, I've had I've had to have full security put into my back, you know. So I had... She actually had the the Israeli embassy, actually, funny enough. I'm not even Jewish, but anyway, they they they looked they looked after me, and they sent people to the flat. I've got all security systems and and everything.
Lois Perry:So I was hoping that there's gonna be loads of pot Israeli men and, you know, it looked like they were out of powder or something, but it wasn't the case, unfortunately. And then the men
Sterling Burnett:men out of Frankfurt set
Lois Perry:up taking...... Pretty secure now. But you know what? If they wanna kill me, they can run me over. They they can...
Lois Perry:You know, there's loads of different ways they can kill me. So c'est la vie.
Jim Lakely:And Lois may or may not have a machine gun in her home because she has
Lois Perry:a Yeah.
Linnea Lueken:Well, don't say that, Jim.
Lois Perry:I got
Linnea Lueken:it. I'm really gonna be
Lois Perry:in trouble. Well, like, you know, the crying whenever I fired it would probably scare them more.
Linnea Lueken:A couple of our viewers wanted to talk about the line that's been attempted to be started for a bullet train in The UK. Jerry Palmer says, I'll see your poultry 15,000,000,000 and raise you £46,000,000,000. The cost so far for HS two in The UK, no track laid yet, been ongoing since 2009.
Lois Perry:Wow.
Linnea Lueken:Yeah. Lois, if you wanted to comment on your own train.
Sterling Burnett:Yeah. I wouldn't
Lois Perry:even wear it.
Jim Lakely:I wasn't aware of it.
Lois Perry:It kept getting shorter and shorter, the destination point to where HS two was supposed to go. And I stayed in in Birmingham with a friend of mine, which is in the sort of mid... Which is in the Midlands. Right? And, obviously, it's supposed to be from London to the North.
Lois Perry:This was in the Midlands. And you could actually see from the hotel where we stayed that that that... Where the cutoff was. You know? That it was supposed to be going through this particular point, but they just...
Lois Perry:They... Yeah. I mean, it's just
Sterling Burnett:Now it now it could be
Lois Perry:halfway at the moment. It's a similar situation to the California thing.
Sterling Burnett:Now it could be from London to Chingford, which is... It was a suburb.
Lois Perry:That that basically is London.
Jim Lakely:That's I
Lois Perry:know. I know. Yeah. On the border. Yeah.
Lois Perry:That's that's where I'm from.
Sterling Burnett:Downtown London to Chinkford in five minutes.
Lois Perry:Yeah. Yeah. And and
Jim Lakely:for for our British viewers and and listeners, I mean, building a building a high speed bullet train from Bakersfield, California to Merced is like, I don't know, like in the Lord of the Rings, building a bullet train from Hobbiton to Bree. It's like nobody would use that train. It doesn't make any sense.
Lois Perry:Well, I guess, I mean, I... Yes. But it's the one true train.... Talking about. But I guess from the way you were saying it, that it was two ludicrous locations.
Lois Perry:Yeah.
Linnea Lueken:The one trained to rule them all except that they don't even build it. Alright. Let's see. Energy colonizer says, how many approved bullet train projects actually reach completion and how long do they take for the money to be laundered anyway?
Jim Lakely:In this country? Never. Zero.
Linnea Lueken:Yeah. And like Japan and stuff, they they finish those projects and then they're... They just use them and they're happy.
Lois Perry:Yeah. And that's pretty much the end of it.
Jim Lakely:For Japan's a proper country, not run by radical leftists.
Lois Perry:Right. Lucky you that you're not being run by radical leftists.
Linnea Lueken:Not anymore. California certainly is.
Jim Lakely:Yeah. But I paid the fool.
Sterling Burnett:I mean, ever since you said one train to rule them all, I keep picturing Gavin Newsom as golem.
Lois Perry:You know, sort of morphing into
Jim Lakely:to golem.
Linnea Lueken:Alright. Gerard Marsh says, how many environmental roadblocks go in front of wind turbines or solar farms?
Lois Perry:Probably none.
Linnea Lueken:I think they waive a lot of them.
Jim Lakely:Well well, they do... I mean, yeah, they do waive a lot of them. There are some, of course. But the the problem is that, Sterling alluded to this earlier, the allowances they have for killing, especially raptor birds, is outrageous. If if a if a bald eagle landed landed on the fence on your coal plant and died of natural causes, you would be in big, big trouble.
Jim Lakely:But if your wind turbine kills a a rare raptor hawk or something or a, you know, a California condor, you have an allowance for that. Don't worry about it. It's it's ludicrous.
Linnea Lueken:I heard a story once of a... I think it was a near shore offshore oil rig where a bald eagle decided to set up. And it didn't even, like, fully build a nest or anything. It just decided to start camping out up on the derrick because it's a good vantage point for looking out at the ocean stuff and finding dead fish to eat or whatever or live fish. And they had to they had to shut in all operations.
Linnea Lueken:They couldn't just shoo it away or anything. They had to just let it take possession of the rig. Essentially, it's just like squatter's laws for those eagles, but only for oil and gas.
Lois Perry:Yeah. Oh, yeah. Yeah.
Anthony Watts:Maybe we can train eagles to go roost on the roofs of environmentalist houses.
Lois Perry:Just to annoy them.
Linnea Lueken:Tech says, question. Has the impact of carbon dioxide on birth rates ever been discussed in the paper? Any one of yous has read? Anthony?
Anthony Watts:You know, I seem to recall something about that about maybe five to ten years ago. But at the time, I thought it was too stupid to bother reading, so I never really absorbed any of it. But there's... If such a paper has been written, it's it's garbage.
Linnea Lueken:Alright. Let's see. Steven Lindsay says chancellor speech on Wednesday is expecting change to gas payments ditching the standard charge. Ask Lois to explain this to the audience. Thanks.
Linnea Lueken:Lois?
Lois Perry:Right. Okay. So what I think this is referring to is there's been a cap on energy. Basically, what they've had to do is... Because their energy prices are so out of control.
Lois Perry:They've had to to have a a cap that they can't go above, and that cap is going to be is going to be hired. So we'll be pay... I think I think what they're going to do is that we're going to be paying more. But I think... But as I say, we shouldn't we shouldn't need any changes on any...
Lois Perry:We shouldn't need any caps or anything like that. We should just have cheap and abundant energy. I apologize to Steven if I... If I've I've got that wrong, but I think that's what he's referring to.
Linnea Lueken:Alright. Thank you very much. Let's see. And Chris says the gas from Jackdaw feeds directly into The UK grid. Right?
Linnea Lueken:How can that not be more efficient than importing from somewhere else?
Lois Perry:Yeah. He's right. Absolutely. How could that book be more... Not be more efficient?
Lois Perry:But the argument that they use, the nutty left and and any net zero person is... It has to be sold in the international market. Nothing has to be done at all. It's it's a decision that's made by us, you know. We are sovereign.
Lois Perry:We are actually... Although this dismays almost every single person in this labor government, actually out of Europe. We can actually do what we want. We choose not to, but we could. So, yeah, absolutely.
Lois Perry:Chris is absolutely right.
Sterling Burnett:But even if it's produced and sold in the international market, it still has a positive impact on the people in UK.
Lois Perry:Of course it does. Tax review...
Sterling Burnett:Oil oil is fungible. It doesn't matter where it comes from and where it's sold. As long as it's on the market, it reduce... More volume reduces prices.
Lois Perry:Absolutely correct. Yep.
Linnea Lueken:Alrighty. AnneMarieRock over on Rumble, which I see is back in operation, says, could the law in Britain be changed so that the people own the land beneath their houses?
Lois Perry:Well, so we have our own fourth of July moment. Is that what is that what Mars Rock is saying? Well, I I don't think overthrowing the monarchy is that much of a great idea, and I and I can't imagine the the law being changed. So... Yeah.
Sterling Burnett:But all it would take is an act of parliament. I mean, the key... The king's a figurehead in
Lois Perry:terms of Yeah. But the king would have to sign it off. It has to go to the king. But then he's not gonna sign that, is he? Would you?
Sterling Burnett:There you go. Well, yeah, but I wouldn't be an ineffectual... A feat king that really has no control over anything, but I get to
Lois Perry:show up at things. The fact that I just said that to you shows you that he does ultimately. Mean, it... He... Our king, whether he uses the power or not, can dissolve parliament and can rule if he wants to.
Lois Perry:I mean, it'd be unlikely that he could do it, but he could. And it it... So on the one hand, the Mickey, you know, I'll be... I get why you're taking the Mickey and everything, but the very fact that we're having this conversation shows you that the the the monarch does retain power. So...
Lois Perry:Yeah. I mean, whether that's a good thing or not is debatable. But but I mean...
Sterling Burnett:Maybe I'm I'm wrong. I just think he retains power as long as he doesn't challenge an act of congress... I mean, an act of parliament. If he if he were to stand up to parliament...
Lois Perry:But we don't know what the conversations that go on in the background. Background. I mean, I don't know. I'm I'm not I'm not using The Crown, the Netflix program, as a historically accurate thing, but the... Anyone who's watched The Crown on Netflix, it's...
Lois Perry:A lot of it, not all of it, is based on on facts and and and, you know, interviews with people and stuff like that. And the queen had loads of soft power in the background, but never official. Never. Don't forget the monarch has a weekly audience. Well, no.
Lois Perry:No. Sorry. Our prime minister has a weekly audience with the monarch as well. And the discussion, they are not allowed to repeat one word of that conversation outside of that room. So who knows what power is deployed in those conversations?
Sterling Burnett:You might be right.
Linnea Lueken:Alright. And then we have one more question about British law that I'm gonna bring up here from tech who says, does The UK allow public sector sector unions?
Lois Perry:Yes. Yeah. They fund the labor party. Yeah. Yeah.
Lois Perry:And they're the woke ones, the public sector unions. Yeah. So the the union... So that's why I said it's certain unions that are happy about the oil and gas about Jack Dorr. The other super duper wokey ones, which includes the education union, the the main education union, they would be appalled by the Jack Dor, you know, that being allowed to happen.
Lois Perry:So so... Yeah. I mean, they're indoctrinating our kids with some extraordinary nonsense at the moment. I don't know if you've sorted it out in The States, but we certainly haven't here. It's awful.
Lois Perry:The kids are being told.
Sterling Burnett:We have not. And it... A lot of that got created. We we went a hundred and, what, a hundred and fifty years without the federal government having one word to say about education in United States. And then I believe under a a republican, under Nixon, we created Department of Education.
Sterling Burnett:And since then, education has gone downhill and wokeness has taken over.
Lois Perry:Yeah.
Linnea Lueken:Alrighty. That is actually all the questions that we have this week for once we got through every single one. Okay. Every single one that I found and start anyway. And that is it for me then.
Linnea Lueken:I will hand it back over to you, Jim.
Sterling Burnett:Alright. Thank you. And I put a poll in the chat there during the q and
Jim Lakely:a on which Lord of the Rings character Gavin Newsom would be. And the choices were Sauron, Gollum, Saruman, or the Balrog. And congratulations, everyone. The winner is Gollum.
Sterling Burnett:Of course. Gollum Newsome. It only makes sense.
Jim Lakely:Gollum Newsome as we have in the comments. There it is. Fantastic. So, that's just a little taste of the kind of fun we have on this program. So, I hope you will bring other friends here to hang out with us every Friday at 1PM eastern time for the Climate Realism Show by the Heartland Institute.
Jim Lakely:I wanna thank our sponsors, Advisor Metals, and our new sponsor now, energy bad boys Substack. I also wanna thank our streaming partners, Junk Science, CFAX, c o two coalition, Climate Depot, Watts Up With That, and Heartland UK Europe. Thank you very much, Lois Perry, for hanging out with us this Friday, and we'll have you on again very soon.
Lois Perry:Looking forward to it. Thank you for having me.
Jim Lakely:Thank you. And and thank our producer, Andy Singer, in the background, helping make sure everything runs and flows just straight. Be sure to visit climaterealism.com. Visit climate@aglance.com, energy@aglance.com, and, of course, alwaysheartland.org, where you can subscribe to Sterling Burnett's climate change weekly newsletter. And thank you all, especially all you in the chat who are here with us today, and we will talk to you again next week.
Jim Lakely:Bye bye.
Lois Perry:Bye. Bye bye.