Joe Biden: 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
France didn't go. Germany's leaders didn't go. China
certainly didn't go. They were at BRICS. Right?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
Yeah.
Sterling Burnett: Well, you know, they had look. They they
said they said oh, you got put in context. No. No. No.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Okay. Okay. Alright. So we're gonna go to our main topic,
today, and that is, on this EPA. Scandal.
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.
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.
Biden's climate law? Yes. Yeah. So I do entire implementation. I
work with, like, Biden appointees.
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.
$50,000,000. $50,000,000. Philly would be. $50,000,000,000. Yes.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.