Heartland Daily Podcast

And that's what climate change is about. It is literally not figuratively a clear and present danger.

We are in the beginning of a mass extinction.

The ability of c 02 to do the heavy work of creating a climate catastrophe is almost nil at this point. The price of oil has been artificially elevated to the point of insanity.

That's not how you power a modern industrial system.

The ultimate goal of this renewable energy, you know, plan is to reach the exact same point that we're at now.

You know who's trying that? Germany. 7 straight days of no wind for Germany. Their factories are shutting down.

They really do act like weather didn't happen prior to, like, 1910. Today is Friday.

That's right, Greta. It is Friday. It's time for another episode of the Climate Realism Show, where every week, we counter the alarmist nonsense about the climate coming out of the mouths of politicians and activists and the media and other members of the climate cult with science, data, and a sense of humor, and sometimes a little bit of outrage. I'm your host, Jim Lakely. I am filling in for Anthony Watts, who is on special assignment, which you'll probably hear about next week.

So let's welcome in our usual panelists, h Sterling Burnett, the, senior fellow I'm sorry, director of the Robinson Center on, Climate and Environmental Policy at the Heartland Institute. Sorry for the downgrade, Sterling. And, research fellow, Linnea Lukin, from the Heartland Institute. And we are so happy to have, as a special guest, somebody a lot of people in the chat have been asking for for a long time, the one and only Tony Heller. Tony, as you probably all know, is the publisher of real climate science dot com.

He's one of the most popular climate realists in America with an enormous following, and rightly so because he's one of the best climate communicators around. Welcome to the show, Tony, and, the rest of the panel.

Yeah. Thanks, Jim. It's good to be here.

Another Friday with good good commit companions.

Yes. Yes. Always a good highlight of the week for sure. But, hey, so we're gonna have our usual stuff, climate, crazy climate news of the week. We're going to be talking about a hit piece against, one of the Heartland Institute's projects on, temperature stations around the country.

And, Tony is also gonna give a presentation of his own. But before we get started, I wanna ask everyone, watching this program to do us a favor. We see our videos on this channel get tagged as misinformation on climate all the time. And that tells YouTube's algorithm to massively suppress its ability for this video to show up as others, might if you're interested in this, content, which is presenting climate information and opinion based on data and science and not alarmism and scare tactics. Now for the longest time, there'd be a box tagged to our videos linking people to Wikipedia for real climate information, meaning the alarmist information so that people will be even further discouraged from listening and thinking for themselves.

But, Lanao, you might find this interesting. Yesterday, I noticed on one of your excellent climate at a glance videos, which we are rolling out in, for the next several months. Now there's a box there linking directly to the United Nations, for real climate information. So I suppose, in a way, that's kind of an upgrade. But it's still the same thing.

It's big tech, suppressing climate information that challenges alarmist narratives, and that supports more government action to supposedly solve climate change. But you can help us get around that suppression by hitting that like button, by sharing this video with friends, on other social media platforms, by being active in the chat, which we always enjoy, and also leaving comments under the video if you're watching this after we have already streamed. And no other think tank or global organization produces a weekly show like this. And now we've done more than a 100 of them, and we're going to do many 100 more. But we need your support.

So if you're not already a donor to the Heartland Institute, please consider joining us. You can go to heartland.org and click the orange donate button at the top of the page, or and, you know, you can join thousands of others who actually support, the Heartland Institute. We need all the support we can get. And if you are already a donor to the Heartland Institute, thank you very much. And if you can, keep giving to us on a regular basis, that is a big, big help.

We can't do any of this great work without your support. Alright. Thank you for listening, and let's go on now to the crazy climate news of the week. It is, you know, the first item I have here, it's it's, it's fun because I thought this was fake. Anthony Watts sent this to me.

There's a website called climatechangebunkers.com. Keely, if you can bring that up on the screen. Yeah. I I really did think this was fake. It is not fake.

It it actually exists. And so, there's a company out there that is going to be building bunkers to protect you and your family from dying due to climate change. And look at that. It has a it has a it'll have a nice little sensor there. Look at the there's four levels there.

That looks very pleasant, and fun. I think that's a a great place to hang out, during the climate apocalypse. Look at that. It even has a monitor that says the c o two concentration in the atmosphere above is 452 parts per million. Now I have two things to say about that.

I'll let you guys have a little fun with this as well. The c o two level inside that bunker is going to be a heck of a lot higher than 452 parts per million. And, by the way, at at the current rate of, of, carbon dioxide emissions, I believe we'll probably get to 452 parts per million on, next Tuesday. So I hope they can build these fast if people are panicking over 4 152 parts per million of CO 2 in the atmosphere.

Okay. I have two comments on this. My first comment is, I don't care what the bunkers protect you from building bunkers is based. 2nd and if they wanna waste their money building bunk these bunkers against climate change, I hope they harden them against, some other stuff too just to be safe, just in case climate change doesn't get them first. But, yeah.

No. That's fun and cool. I like bunkers. 2nd, what's what is the company called? Does would it happen to be Vault Tec?

Because I Right.

Right. That's a fallout record.

Of this is pretty funny.

Yes. It is.

I I've got a couple of thoughts too. My first thought when I saw this was, well, I'm sure there are still some, Atlas missile silos out in the Midwest for sale. The US government put some up for sale a few years ago. School's been put into them. I wish I'd had the money, honestly, to to to buy 1, just because I think it would be cool to hang out in 1 and and outfit it and have the they they come with acreage around it.

So so you get the acres around it, and that would be my hunting and chances or whatever, my hunting shelter. So, like like Linda says, bunkers can be cool. I've always wanted property with a cave on it anyway. I look at this and I think, gee, who who who could this be, the target audience? I'm I'm convinced that they're not gonna have a lot of these low income bunkers built.

I wonder where the people who live in these bunkers will get their, food from. I mean, I I you dried goods will only, you can only have so much stored. Pretty soon, you have to farm and grow more. I, you know, I wonder, like you said, the the the 450 parts per million, that that's laughable. Hold a c o two sensor in front of your mouth when you exhale and see what the c o two inside your lungs is.

It's somebody in the comments put, why shouldn't free marketeers be able to make money off idiots? I've got no problem with this company doing this. It's just stupid for anyone to put their money into it. But if you wanna do that, look, I've got some bridges I could sell you in in Houston that, might be good. But, you spend your money where you want.

Yeah.

Well, I see they have an op they have an office space there. I don't know why you need an office with, when the when the world has ended. I don't know what what important work it may be doing in there. But, Sterling, I see there is not a gun rack, location in there, but I'm sure you'd be able to find some, for sure.

At least in the bunker, you wouldn't need it in a safe because presumably, it's already pretty safe. So you don't have to buy an extra gun safe. But you're right. That's clearly not my bunker.

Right.

That's somebody's bunker, but it ain't Sterling's bunker.

Alright. I'm wondering where they got that 452 number from because I'm looking at the no Noah's website right now. It says it's currently 426. So it looks like they made up, you know, the first thing

you see.

I think they're saying that it's, like, a bad future at 452. Right. Also, is that a car in the garage at the base?

I well, it's it's let me see if I can blow it up online so I can see. It does look like the back end of, like, a beetle or something down here, but I don't see the road going to the surface. Maybe it's just down there. That's where the gun room would be. This is a car collector, and, it's just nostalgia on his part for those days when we could actually drive.

Alright. Excellent. Well, alright. Let's move on. That's a that's a lot of fun in that, for the fallout shelter there.

Let's go on to our next, story, producer Keeley. World hits streak of record record temperatures as United Nations warns of climate hell. We've gone from in fact, I have a video on this I wanna I wanna play, our favorite one of our favorite climate alarmists, Antonio Gutierrez. He previously, he said global the era of global warming has ended, and the era of global boiling has begun. I believe that was last year.

And now we are on the road to, climate hell. So, let's hear from his own words.

We are at the moment of truth. The truth is, almost 10 years since the Paris Agreement was adopted, the target of limiting long term global warming to 1 0.5 degrees Celsius is hanging by a thread. The truth is the world is spewing emissions so fast that by 2030, a far higher temperature rise would be all but guaranteed. The truth is global emissions need to fall 9% every year until 2030 to keep the 1.5 degree limit alive. We need an exit ramp off the highway to climate hell.

And the truth is we have control of the wheel.

Do we know?

The 1.5 degree limit is still just about possible. It means we need to fight harder now.

So there you have it. We are, we are doomed, and we're never gonna make that, 1.5, degree target. Tony, what is your reaction when when they seem so panicked that we're never gonna make that 1.5 degrees Celsius, warming by, you know, the end of the century or by 2030 or whatever year they keep they keep putting out there. And, of course, 1.5 degrees Celsius warming was just a a number pulled out of the air and under no science, yet they continue to try to panic the world with this stuff.

Yeah. Look. I never believe any of these numbers or, NOAA's temperature graphs, as we'll be discussing a lot later on in the show. You know, I think they're fake. They're dead.

They're created using fraudulent junk science methods, and they should be ignored. But what I'd really like to see from these people is they always say at some point in the future, we're gonna have this hell. Well, what can they lay out? What the steps are between now and then? It's like, one day, you're gonna wake up, and it's gonna be hell.

I don't see any indication of climate heading towards hell. In fact, we just had a ridiculously cold spring here in Wyoming, cold and windy every day, and I was every day, I was just hoping that we'd get some warm weather. So what what are the intermediate steps? Like, you know, what's it gonna be like next year? Are are we gonna have huge famines?

You know, it would be really nice if they would just lay out some sort of plan for how this climate hell arrives rather than constantly pushing back, their predictions. And in 1989, the United Nations said we only had 10 years to save the planet from global warming. Well, that was a long time ago. That was 35 years ago, and they're still saying the same thing. We're right on the verge of a climate catastrophe.

What is this catastrophe? You know, they they they never it's I I don't understand how people can cling to this decade after decade without actually seeing any evidence of what they're predicting. Yeah.

Here, I thought we were sort of in what what I would think of as a climate heaven on earth, as close to heaven as we may be able to get. Climate hell would be where we were 12, 13000 years ago and where we are likely to be again at sometime in the future when giant ice sheets and glaciers scrape off the topsoil of most of North America and much of Northern Europe and and, and Russia and Asia, and the ice age comes back. That would be climate health. Warmer temperatures, more longer growing seasons with more crop production, lower mortality, lower infant mortality, better infrastructure, better income. That's a really odd vision of hell.

The idea that we should shut off the engine that made all of the things I just listed possible, he's trying to bring hell about on earth, impoverished us as as so many people are still tragically impoverished in developing countries and in some places of America. You know, I I used to tell people I went to school with who are communist that said, oh, I want everyone to have a hot tub. I want everyone. I said, look, You can't raise everyone's condition to the elites, but you can certainly lower everyone's conditions to those in absolute penury. And that's what his vision is is, you know, equality, but it's equality of poverty because he'd take away fossil fuels and all the goods and services that they make possible that have made our life better over the past century and a half.

Yep. Well, I'm sure Gutierrez is gonna be investing in one of those bunkers for sure.

I've been reading, Hubert Lamb's sort of classic book, Climate History in the Modern World, And he's he consistently discusses how civilization thrives when temperatures are higher, like 5000 years ago, and people have a lot of trouble when temperatures are colder. So based on the actual history of the world, not not the fake hockey sticks we see published all the time, like the the Egyptians developed their culture during a very warm time, and and that's been the way it's been throughout history. Humans like warm temperatures. They thrive in warm temperatures, and they do badly when it's cold. So why don't they keep saying we need to go back to cold periods again or lower temperature?

Doesn't make any sense.

That makes no sense.

I'm wondering I'm wondering if Gutierrez is a legal migrant or if he should start getting a lawyer real quick under Biden's new scheme. You know, he has, like, 4 hours to get a lawyer if he's not legal.

Alright. Oh, yeah. Before we go on, Tony, who is that, joining us on in the stream on your camera that is looking up at you so cute?

Oh, this is Maureen. She's 9 months old.

Oh, my god.

One of 4 puppies from that litter.

Adorable.

She's one of my favorites.

We're gonna have to have her back on. I mean, not you. Just her. Alright. Yeah.

Move on. A couple more stories to get through here. This one was we always kinda like to keep tabs on the collapse of the all these green energy schemes, and this one, waste to fuel company that raised a $1,000,000,000, verges on collapse. Fulcrum Bioenergy, a clean fuels pioneer that raised more than a $1,000,000,000 to turn household waste into lower emitting fuels for planes and trucks, is in danger of going under. They recently laid off nearly all of its staff of about a 100, halted most of its operations, according to dozen more than a half dozen former employees.

It signals the apparent demise of a company, you think, that garnered funding from a litany of industry giants, including BP, United Airlines, Cathay Pacific, and Japan Airlines, and a setback in the push for clean fuels breakthrough to lower emissions from the aviation industry. Linea and, Sterling, I know we've brought up the idea of, you know, this crazy idea that you can have sustainable aviation fuels or, you know, you can turn waste into fuel and all these things. And one after another, I mean they're they're scientifically impractical or impossible, and one after another these companies that, get all of this venture capital and in most cases tons tons of taxpayer dollars spiral down the drain, as quickly as they ever came.

Well, I'm hesitant to say that it's impossible to make a efficient or, like, an effective low emissions fuel. But so far, most of it, especially the stuff that leans harder into the, like, ultra low emissions or, like, the the cellulose based ones or, like, the, you know, woody plant material based ones. It just seems to just not work. Like, the numbers just don't work out at all. All of these companies that have tried this have gone under over and over, or they're not producing enough to be, you know, at scale.

It's one thing to have something like a like a boutique biofuel boutique biofuel plant. It's a whole another issue to bring it to the scale of commercial aviation. Right? And that's, I think, where a lot of this is falling apart. You know, they're able a lot of these scientists will put their their money behind and their word behind a lot of these fuels because they're able to make it, you know, in small batches.

They're able to make it in a lab, and they think that they can scale it up. And then when, you know, when the rubber meets the road, they actually can't, at least not for long before they start hemorrhaging. So it is yeah. I'm not gonna say that it's never going to work, but it certainly isn't working so far. And the idea that this this thing had 1,000,000,000 dumped into it or a 1,000,000,000 dumped into it, to come to not is kinda depressing.

Well, I, you know, I was heartened that I didn't see any, in that story, I didn't see any information about the government pouring money into it. I, personally have nothing against, fuel from waste. I wish, you know, I'm not I think open pit dumps and, municipal waste sites are are eyesores. Usually, they're out of the way, so you don't have to see them. But, if we could find a way to use that waste, and I don't just mean recycle everything always, If we could turn that into fuel, that'd be great.

And maybe one day they can. The technology is not there yet. This is what this was trying to do. But they have to be not just able to produce it, but produce it economically. It should compete on its own with the fuels that we have.

Now I would question the claims that it was particularly efficient. My suspicion is that the process of creating the fuel, what little they did by the way, you know, look, they were 12 years behind their deadline for opening their first plant. They planned 2 others. And then they showed a picture of the first rail car rolling away from the plant. We we produced our first fuel.

It had 353 gallons of fuel in it. It was not even a quarter, or a tenth of the way full. That's what they brag about. So a $1,000,000,000 to produce 353 gallons of fuel that probably wouldn't get a jet across the Atlantic. So, I just really, really question I I wonder what that $1,000,000,000 and the $1,000,000,000 that that, Biden I mean, that, Obama, threw behind the solar plant in California that was so big and the 1,000,000,000 of dollars that they're spending on, c o two carbon and capture.

Surely, surely, we can find more effective uses of that funding that would be better for people in the face of climate change. So for instance, Phoenix urban heat island effect is making it very hot there. In fact, it's hot out west, largely driven by the urban heat island effect. Can we get the homeless off the streets and out of danger? Can we harden infrastructure along the coast in the face of sea level rise, which has been rising for 12000 years?

I I would just think there were better use of that money. All these grandiose ideas for new energy, of all of them, the only one I think has any real promise at all, and it's a long way off, is fission energy. And, right now, that takes a lot more energy to produce a little bit of fission in experimental cases. So, you know, I I I see people wasting a lot of resources on foolish technologies, and then they they act like they're surprised.

Yeah. Yeah. You know, that's that's a good point. The Guardian had an article yesterday predicting that 10 or last week, predicting that something like 10% of the population of Phoenix was gonna die from the heat just based on some statistics from last year. So I so I went and did some research on it and found that essentially all of the people who died from the heat in Phoenix last year were homeless.

People homeless people in downtown Phoenix who didn't have any shelter. In neighboring communities like Tempe, there was almost no deaths. So you you're exactly right, Sterling. 6

60 percent I I looked at that data too, Tony. 60% of them were drug addicts as well. So their health wasn't that good to start with. Right? Yeah.

So it's

they could they could spend that money to provide air con some place for the homeless to go and and the air conditioning and be comfortable. But their but their prediction of, you know, 10% of the population dying was absurd. And another thing I wanted to point out was the test the SpaceX launch yesterday used £10,000,000 of propellant. How long is it gonna take to generate £10,000,000 pounds of fuel, at at one of these waste to fuel plants. It would probably take a couple of centuries.

And you had the Starliner and you had the Starliner finally launch, the day before that. I wonder how much fuel that used.

Yeah. Yep.

Probably very similar. And I I enjoy our our comments. They're having a good discussion about, you know, waste to energy versus waste to fuel. And I think they're probably right about that. I mean, Japan burns a ton of trash because where are they gonna put it?

Right? Like, they could do what the Chinese do and dump it in the ocean, I guess, but, Japanese seem to be a little bit nicer about, caring about that sort of thing. So, yeah, and that's something that is you know, to me, seems pretty reasonable as well when it comes to, like, you know, so called green technology. Waste energy just seems like an obvious solution. You know, but God forbid there's some kind of, emission of carbon dioxide from burning plastics and stuff, but, you know, whatever, I guess.

Yeah. Yeah. We we we have a waste of fuel plant not too far from my, house. And by not too far, I mean, 50 miles. It's been operating for quite a while.

Yep. They they take shredded tires and, and other things.

Mhmm. Alright. Let's move on. We got a couple more items to get through here. This one was sent to us by, Anthony Watts, who, as I mentioned, is on assignment.

We'll see him next week. Climate justice now requires Edinburgh City Council to ban ads tempting locals to go on a cruise, in Scotland, Edinburgh City Council is to ban adverts for cruise ships, airports, airlines, and internal combustion engine cars. Quote, it's just basic common sense that if the council is serious about its commitment to climate justice, we cannot allow council advertising space to be used to promote fossil fuel companies, said Ben Parker, counselor for the Scottish Greens, who is reported to have spearheaded the policy. Curiously missing from the banned list are medicines and plastics along with other common products such as clothing, food preservatives, cleaning products, soft contact lenses, together with countless other useful and essential items in widespread use, they are all derived from the evil hydrocarbons courtesy of oil and gas. So, you can't see a Adver cruise outside in Edinburgh, apparently.

That's, that's taking it to pretty much an extreme.

Well, you know, there have long been, I think, awful, stupid, unconscious in the US, they would be unconstitutional, but they're not. Restrictions on commercial speech. Scotland can do what it wants, but it just said it just shows it's not a bastion of freedom. It's a bastion of authoritarianism. It's the government telling you what you can say, who can say it, and what you can hear.

It is it is Orwell. Little Orwell, but Orwell. Because the this small, small rump group, the greens have been able to pass a law that restricts everyone's speech. You know, they get to dictate to the rest of us. That ain't democracy folks.

That ain't liberty. That ain't freedom. That's authoritarianism. True.

Well, just just think about this too, kind of between the lines or or what the, like, deeper meaning of something like this is. They don't want average people seeing advertisements for traveling and for going on vacations. I mean

But they also don't want They

call us conspiracy theorists. They make fun of us. They call us conspiracy theorists for saying that the that the Greens and that our governments don't want the average person to be able to travel anymore. Well, they're doing a soft push of exactly what we're talking about.

And and and what are they doing at the same time? If you if you read some of my stuff on Climate Change Weekly recently, they're mowing down trees to put up wind turbines that are falling apart and putting plastics everywhere. They are banning, even wood, the burnt. They're mowing down these trees, but you can't use them as fuel for your, home heating, despite the fact that it produces less pollution than the wind and solar they wanna replace the stuff with. So while you sit home and shiver in the dark when the wind's not blowing and the sun's not shining, you also can't travel to sunnier climbs.

Yeah. Tolkien, who likened his works and stuff to kind of the the worst excesses of the initial, industrialization of the United Kingdom, I think he would be absolutely producing electricity, spinning so hard in his grave over the the elimination of, like, the countryside

Yep.

In order to bring green energy.

You've given me an idea, Linnea. Maybe that's where we can get the greens on board and produce green electricity. Set up large hamster wheels and have the greens just switch off every so often, it keeps them in shape. Right. Keeps them doing healthy.

Yeah. It keeps them doing something that's the actual progress, you know, actual, not just talking the talk, but walking the walk. They're producing electricity, and my suspicion is they won't be able to talk and protest while they're running on a hamster wheel. So

Yep. Alright. Let's put, a a cup some funny images here for y'all, and then, we can get into, the meat of this, of this podcast. So, yeah, these are protesters in, Cologne, Germany raising awareness about global warming. They have, nooses around their necks, they're there in the gallows and they're apparently standing on blocks of ice.

I don't know whether this was a recent thing or this may have been a few years ago, but it sure is kind of weird. And, actually, looking at it, I think those nooses are supposed to be a little tighter than that, if they're really serious about this. But, anyway, just thought that was kinda funny.

Well, you know, and then my thinking is if they hang themselves, they won't be putting out carbon dioxide, but their rotting bodies will be emitting methane. So I'm not sure how green this is.

Well, the the noose on the guy in the middle, that looks a lot it looks like he could stand on the ground and still be okay. But, you know Yeah.

I think I think that's probably on purpose. I'm thinking I'd be pretty nervous standing on a slippery block of ice with a properly tightened noose around my neck. I I don't think I would wanna take my, protest that far.

Yeah. Well, I mean, some of them do. It's it's this is kind of the, it's the mentality when you're when you're in a climate cult, when you're completely brainwashed.

Yeah. Maybe maybe they're part of extinction of rebellion.

Yep. Anyway, so then, we've seen these 2 cartoons. It is cicada season here in Illinois and all across the Midwest. So, apparently, cicada crunch by Kellogg's is Greta endorsed. That's a joke, obviously.

And then for lunch for the kitties, you can, give them cicada cicada to take with them to school. So, yeah, I'm sure all summer, we're going to be seeing lots and lots of stories about how important it is that we eat all of these bugs. Not don't leave any for the birds, I guess. These these should all be collected and eaten by humans instead.

It's pretty impressive that the AI is starting to do text correctly. That's been a weird thing for a while.

Yes. Yes. Alright. Well, okay. So we're gonna get into the, into the main topic, and, Tony is also going to give a presentation.

But, frank frankly, the reason, we picked this topic this week, Scott Waldman, who has covered the Heartland Institute poorly, and, he's probably watching this. You know, hey hey, Scott. How are you doing? I hope you report on this, on this stream as well. But he wrote a story about a project that the Heartland Institute is doing.

We're installing independent or let's just say state of the art weather stations all around the country. This is gonna be a long term project obviously because it's to replace or supplement or correct, however you wanna put it, the, the terrible and corrupt and broken stations that no one uses. And, this is important because as, as noted in a in a report that we had released, in 2022, that the surface stations here in the US are 96% of them are corrupt, are wrong for one reason or another. A lot of these stations were set up, in places where it would it was rural couple decades ago, and now it's just surrounded by urban and suburban sprawl. These things are put in next to and and this report, shows how with pictures that Anthony Watts had done, shows these weather stations outside of air conditioning units, where jet exhaust will come and hit them in right next to brick walls and other other heat, very hot places that are artificially hot, doesn't really show what the real temperature is like.

And when your plan is to completely transform the economy and life of everyone in America and everyone on Earth based on its global boiling or climate hell based on temperatures and temperature stations that are not accurate, that's a problem. And so we we started doing this and Scott Waldman, who found himself on our donor list, thank you for that Scott, appreciate that, he says that, the Heartland Institute apparently this is a problem, that that we're building our own network of temperature sensors across the United States. He says in an attempt to disprove that the country and planet are warming at an unprecedented pace due to human caused climate change. It's yeah. Actually, it is to disprove that the country, the planet are warming at an unprecedented pace because if you get actual real data, not not, bad data, not adjusted data, then you will, see for yourself that there is not a climate crisis when it comes to temperature and it, it seems to me that this should be applauded, this shouldn't be derided or mocked or attacked by you know our corrupt climate media in this country.

What's wrong, Tony Heller? What is wrong with trying to add to the corpus of data to make sure that the temperatures that we are getting here in the United States actually reflect what the temperature and what the climate has been doing over a long period of time?

Well, what what really bothered me about what he said was he he described it as conspiracy theory, that it was a that you believed in some sort of conspiracy theory that the US temperature data wasn't accurate. And and for me, that was very entertaining because they're they're doing this. They alter the data right out in the open. You can go to the NOAA website. You can see their raw measure temperature data for the United States historical climatology network, And you can see the, their final adjusted temperature data set.

They they're out there every single day on the Internet, and you can see how they've altered the data to turn a long term cooling trend in the United States into a warming trend. There's no secret about it. There's no conspiracy about it. They are tampering with the data, and they're doing it right out in the open. The raw temperature data, the measured temperature data from the United States historical climatology network does not show any long term warming.

And all of the warming that you see in their graphs is due to data tampering by NOAA. So how why anyone would think of this as being conspiracy theory when it's being done right out in the open just baffled me. And having better stations is obviously gonna help. You know, some of the data is corrupted by the things you were describing, and, having an even better temperature data set would would improve people's understanding of what's going on with the climate. So what is it there?

Why is it what is Scott Waldman afraid of? They're well Why does good high quality data scare them?

They're they're they are conspiring to suppress high quality data. That's the that's the point. What was interesting in the story, I thought, was and and and, Jim, I'm gonna, I I guess, disagree with you a bit. We're not, or Waldman, we're not trying to replace or supplement. We are acting this this goat station network is, I guess, in the UK, they talk about shadow government, shadow cabinets, where you have an alternative system of government.

This is what we would do if we were in power. Well, this is a a a shadow temperature system that shows what the real data is to educate people. That's what we're about is educating people the truth, and that's what they don't want. But they also said in the story, if I recall correctly, they invite one of the NOAA people said, hey. This is this is okay.

They can join our volunteer network and add their add their, temperature things into our system. But that's like taking this that would be like taking me, taking this bottled water, walking down to the stream, dumping it in and thinking I had I had improved the quality that that suddenly the water there was safe to drink. It ain't. You don't dilute bad data. You don't dilute good data with bad data.

And so

Yeah. Well, the the the story, actually, this is such this is such a serious thing, guys, that Scott, that the reporter got called up and got Gavin Schmidt, the director of NASA's, Goddard Institute For Space Studies. And, yeah, he said here's quote at the bottom of the story. If they want to join the cooperative network, it's a cooperative network. Right?

And anybody can host a station and do what they want with it, and it can go into the hopper. And I'm sure that no one will say, that's great. Let's make sure all your data is open so that we can access it. They may regret making that promise. We'll see.

You know, this project is just starting, but, the data, you know, is going to be publicly available. I've seen we were testing making it so that it's real time. You can you can go to a website, and you you can see the data in real time. You can get daily updates. You can go there every day and see what the history of the temperature data was.

These weather stations are absolutely state of the art. They're hooked up to, cellular networks, so they continually send out information. So, I I guarantee you, because we see the the pictures of the stations that, Anthony had, found and reported on, they are vastly superior in technology to the ones to a lot of the ones that that, NASA is depending on today.

And more importantly, they comply with NOAA's standards for quality station. Yep. Unlike Noah's own stations

Unlike Noah's own stations.

We have we they have rules, and Noah violates their rules 96% of the time.

That's right. We we didn't set up our own rules or kinda try to skirt any rules. We use the exact standards that NOAA is supposed to adhere by, and our stations are pretty much the only ones that absolutely do a 100% of the time, while theirs don't. That's what's really ironic. Alright.

Well, you know, so so, yes, I I wanted to thank Tony because, you know, with your enormous influence on both YouTube and Twitter, You've helped bring us bring us to, I think, definitely a record audience of our livestream today. So thank you for that, Tony. But you had as you said, you made a video saying that you were bothered by it call being called a conspiracy theorist or, you know, just by questioning the data. And so, you know, we wanted to bring you on and thank you for that. But, you know, also, you have come equipped and armed with a, with a presentation you'd like to make.

So let's why don't we just get into that?

Yep. Sounds

good.

So Yep. So the the presentation is I'm gonna discuss, both the the alterations to the US temperature record, which, we were just talking about, this actual conspiracy that's occurring. And the other thing was we were constantly bombarded with all this nonsense about heat waves are getting worse. We're gonna burn up. You know, fires are gonna burn us up.

But when you look at the actual data, you see the trends are going the other direction. Summers used to be much hotter in the United States than they have been over the last 60 years. If you go back for 1960, the US regularly suffered tremendous heat waves, and I'll be getting into that. But first thing I wanted to show you is, let me put this on full screen so I can see it. The first thing I would I I asked, AI yesterday who I was, and he said I'm a political activist, not a scientist, not an engineer.

They described me as a political activist. And then they went on with all this nonsense about I've been accused of cherry picking data, misinterpreting scientific findings that do not withstand scrutiny. This is all nonsense. And, you know, they want to bait me. The alarmists won't debate me because they know they'll lose.

So what they do is they just make, these assertions with no backing to them as a way to try to get people to not listen to me. And, the AI has picked up on this because that's what they were trying to do when they when they got their training, which was mostly done before the middle of last year. That's what that's what they were trying to say. So I so I had a little chat with the AI after after it told me this and got it to admit that my real name is not Steven Goddard. My real name is Tony Heller, and that there's lots of top scientists who agree with me and that it's not acknowledging them, that it's not even a fair representation.

And, of course, it apologized to me and admitted it was wrong. But if I go back and do it again today, it'll say the same thing. So, but, anyway, so the history of data tampering, with at at NOAA seems to large and NASA seems to largely go back to this paper from James Hansen in 1999, 25 years ago, where he we've got the US temperature graph on the left here, and it showed cooling from around from the late 19 thirties, through the end of 20th century. And Hanson was lamenting the fact that United States, which has by far the best temperature record in the world, was complete, wasn't warming like he wanted people to believe. So he did the obvious things.

And so this is his this is the NASA's 1999 US temperature graph showing the cool image of 1935 as the hottest year. 1921 is the second hottest. This is I think this is 1930. Sorry. Probably 1933, 1931.

And then they and then 1998 was cooler. They didn't like that. You know, the answer didn't like that. So he did the what just what he'd expect a government agency to do, and he just altered the data. This is what the NASA temperature graph looks like now.

Now 1998 is warmer than 1934, and he's turned this cooling trend. I'll go back. The cooling trend, which was shot in 1999, he turned it into a warming trend despite tampering with the data. And that was sort of the beginning of this whole problem with data tampering. So this is the this is the actual measured average summer afternoon temperatures in the United States.

You can see that the 19 thirties were very hot. And then since the 19 sixties, it's been cooler. I mean, there were some other bad heat waves like 1988 and in the 19 fifties. But after after Noah tampers with the data, it looks like this. This warming trend was created, which doesn't actually exist.

This is the actual measured thermometer data from the United States Historical Climatology Network. But people don't see this. On the NOAA website, you see this fake warming trend, which was created by data tampering. And we're gonna go into a little bit of detail about that here. So this is from the last national climate assessment.

Heat waves in the United States. It shows very clearly that heat waves were much worse in the United States than they have been, over the last 60 years. In 19 thirties, the intensity of the heat waves was higher. The warmest temperature was higher, and the length of the heat waves was longer. So this isn't controversial.

The the idea that US suffered much worse heat waves, during the 19 thirties and 19 fifties. But but they've tried they've done everything they could to erase that and keep it from the public view. The press is constantly saying we're having the worst heat wave ever, and it's simply not true as I'm I'm gonna show you in a minute here. Okay. So this is the average summer maximum temperature in the United States, the raw temperature data.

And the this I found this slide particularly interesting. This is the percent of of United States historical climatology network stations, which reach 95 degrees Fahrenheit sometime during the year. So in 1931, almost 93% of the country reached 95 degrees Fahrenheit sometime during the year. And since then, it's plummeted. That number is plummeted.

Now it's closer to 65%. So the amount of the country which gets very hot has greatly reduced since the peak years of the 19 thirties with recent years being among the coolest on record, which is the exact opposite of the fake story, which the press and academia keeps telling us.

I want can I interrupt for just a second, Tony? Because I wanna stress this, that that graphic is so powerful. If you look at it closely, you will see. You said among the lowest snow. At this point in time, the summer temperatures, I guess, above 95 degrees, the percentage of of the US, is lower than in any time since we've been recording it.

It's lower than in any time since we've been recording it from, the late 1800 to 2020. That's crazy.

Yeah. 2014, had the least extensive heatwave coverage in the United States history. This is all NOAA data. This is NOAA's daily temperature data I'm using, to generate this graph. Any anyone who goes and downloads their data and calculates this, if they if they do it properly, they will come up with the same result.

So this is the percent of days above 95 degrees Fahrenheit. In 1936, which was the hottest summer, I think can can you make that full screen again? Yeah. Sorry. I'm my screen is kinda small.

I'm having trouble seeing it. So in in 1936, during during the entire year, almost 10% of days in the United States were over 95 degrees Fahrenheit. Whereas in recent years, it's been, like, half that. So once again, it's another indicator. See, we had terrible heat waves in 19 thirties.

Actually, going back earlier, 19 twenties, 19 thirties, 19 fifties. But for the most part, over the last 60 years, the United States has not had really bad heat waves with some notable exceptions being 1980. There was a terrible heat wave in a lot of the country in 1988 and down in Texas. It was it was very hot in 2011, 2012. But once again, we've seen we can see that the heat waves, the the frequency of hot days in the United States used to be much higher than it is now.

Alright. So now I'm gonna move on to the actual data tampering, which is going on itself. And this is pretty shocking. This is the amount of alterations which Noah is doing to the US temperature data. The years before 2,009 are adjusted downwards, and the years after 2,009 are adjusted upwards.

So temperatures from the 19 thirties, they're knocking about 1 degree Fahrenheit off the temperatures. And,

this this

is for the average temperature, not just the maximum. And then, in recent years, they're adding on to it. So there's about 2.5 something like 2.5 or 3 degrees of data tampering going on to create that fake warming trend. And now what I'm gonna do is take the same graph and plot it. Right on this graph, I've got date in the x axis.

Now I'm gonna move on and put carbon dioxide on the x axis, And you can see what they're doing. This is really pretty scary. They're the y axis shows the alterations, the amount of tampering, and the x axis shows carbon dioxide. And it's very good correlation, r squared of 0.92. So what it looks like what they're doing is they're altering the data to match the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

So they're tampering to make the data match their theory about warming, that COT is causing warming. It's completely corrupt, rotten science, which no legitimate scientists would ever get away with. And and here's and here's sort of the bottom line with the data tampering. NOAA has been losing temperature data for the United States, for in a pretty rapid rate for the last 40 years or so. Back in 1980, about 10 per 10% of the data was fabricated.

What they do is in their final adjusted data set, if there is no data available for a particular station in a particular one, they just make it up. They use a computer model to fabricate the data for that station. There's 1218 stations in the network, and every month, they will in their final adjusted data set, they report a temperature for that station, whether it was actually a thermometer there or not. The station itself may not even exist, or they may not have any data for that one. So they've been but they've been losing data, and the current percent of data, which is fake, is now more than half.

So half of the data in the USHCN network doesn't even come from a thermometer anymore. It comes from a computer model. So why would they be upset about Heartland's implementing a high quality network of of thermometers when they're losing their own. The whole the whole process of how they generate US temperature graphs is completely corrupt. There's nothing real about it.

It's a fake story, which was started 25 years ago when James Hansen got upset that the US wasn't worming. And so they developed this whole bizarre methodology to fool the public into believing the United States is warming when it actually isn't. There's no evidence for it. The US isn't warming, and heat waves, summer heat waves have definitely declined over the last 80 to 90 years. Alright.

So now I'm gonna show you some specific examples of how hot the United States used to be. You know, the the South Dakota's record for most days above 90 degrees Fahrenheit was 96 at Hot Springs, South Dakota in 1936. It was extremely hot, and you'd see they had a huge number of 90 degree days. Alright. Next one is this is the longest stretch to above 90 degrees recorded at Texas stations.

In 1921, they had a in in St. Ol, Texas had a 157 consecutive days over 90 degrees, which is pretty mind boggling. I mean, it's it started, like, May 7th, today. I'm sorry. May 7th and ended in the middle of October over 90 degrees every single day.

Now that's a heat wave.

We call it summer, Tony. We call it

summer.

What's We call it summer. In Texas, we call that summer.

Yeah. Except it started in May and ended in October, which is

In in Texas, we call that summer. Yeah.

And same thing in Wisconsin. Their record for longest stretch of 90 degree days also occurred in 1921. Aliso had 21 consecutive days over 90 degrees, which is pretty bad for Wisconsin. And so the the this part of the story gets really interesting. What was going on in 1921?

There was the largest solar storm of the 20th century occurred on May 15, 1921. It brought disrupted communications and brought, the Aurora all the way to this new to the Mexico border. And this is from the New York Herald. There was a record heat wave in 1921. It extended all over Europe, Asia, and as you see, it brought, you know, millions of people, were on the on the brink of starvation.

This is Lake Morad in Switzerland. It dried up. This isn't you find articles like this all over the place. Save the children was very active warning people about millions of people who were dying from the sea wave. But if you look at NASA temperature graphs now, it's gone.

The heat of 1921 has disappeared. And it it was a tremendous heat wave which lasted almost the entire year as you can see from the Texas data. And if we go back to the, sorry, we if we go back to the original NOAA, our NASA graph from 1999, sorry, 1921 was the 2nd hottest year on record in the United States. That data has all been erased. They've they've they've erased the heat wave of 1921 and many other years because it didn't suit their agenda.

I've been studying this for 16 years, and it's just insane all of the history which has been erased. And I'm gonna show you a little bit more. It's been erased too. Okay? Alright.

So 1901 was another oh, what did I show you? Oh, this would I'm sorry. I said this graph was Wisconsin before it was Michigan, that had the 21 consecutive days in 1921. Now if we go to, 1901, Wisconsin is when they had their longest stretch of 90 degree days. They had 21 consecutive days over 90 degrees in 1921 and and 1901 at Broadhead.

1901 had horrible heat waves in the United States. Here's an article from the New York Times. Heat brings death and much suffering. The 19 01 July 19 01 heat wave was one of the worst in US history. And this occurred when carbon dioxide levels were below 300 parts per million.

It was even killing a lot of horses in New York. Alright. Now let's move on to Virginia. The longest stretch of 90 degree days in Virginia was 33 at at Purcellville in 1911. That's where Chris Martz lives, if you're familiar with him on Twitter.

He's a really good young person, who's leading the charge to get young people educated about climate. With 1911 was an incredible heat wave, not just in the United States, but around the world. In the 1911 in May 1911, Maine recorded temperatures over a 100 degrees. I mean, if you can imagine the history of that happening in Maine now. New England had their worst heat wave in 1911.

The hottest July 4th on record, was occurred in 1911. Thousands of people in in New England died in that in that 1911 heat wave, and many of them were reported to have committed suicide to escape the heat. Also in in France, 40,000 people died in the heat wave in France in 1911. And if and if you look at Michael Mann's hockey stick, 1911 is the according to Michael Mann, 1911 was the coldest, one of the coldest years of the last millennia. So where did that heat go?

There there was tremendous heat waves which killed people all over the world. But according to Michael Mann, it was it was literally one of the coldest years of the last millennium, which is absurd. They're they're just flaunting their nonsense right in their faces. Alright. Here's the longest stretch above 90 degrees in Nebraska.

It's 55 in Beaver City in 1953. There was a tremendous drought in in during the 19 fifties, which covered about half the country, and there was horrible heat waves associated with it as well. Illinois' hottest temperature was 1954. I think it was a 115 degrees, something like that, and they were associated with this terrible drought. Once again, this has all been erased from, you know, official government temperature graphs.

South Carolina, the, most days above the mode most days above 90 degrees, and one year was a 156 at Aiken, South Carolina in 1902. That's a lot of 90 degree days. It's almost half the year. And that was in 1902 when carbon dioxide levels were below 300 parts per million. This is the most days above 90 degrees in Vermont.

It was 28 at at Cornwall, Vermont in 1949. In Arkansas, they had a 103 consecutive days over 90 degrees Fahrenheit in 1930. The summer of 1930 was by far the hottest in Washington DC. They had something like 12 or 13 days over a 100 degrees in Washington. That's number.

1933 1930 was an extremely hot summer around the United States. People don't know about this because we're constantly fed these lies that heat waves are getting worse, when in fact, the exact opposite trend is occurring. Alright. This is Arkansas, the most, in 1925, Arkansas, Berkeley, Arkansas at a 131 days over, 90 degrees Fahrenheit, which is 1925 was a very hot year in the southeast. I think that might have another statistic for you.

Well, yeah. Right. He also has to show you that the worst heat wave in south in Southeast United States history was in early September 19 25. And that was also the year of the worst tornado in US history, the tristate tornado, which killed nearly a 1000 people in, Illinois, Indiana, and, I think, Ohio or Missouri. Not sure what the other state was.

So 1925 was a brutal year for extreme weather and heat, and it was the worst heat wave on record in Southeastern United States. It occurred in September. It wasn't didn't occur in July or August. That heat wave was, peaked in September. Alright.

This is, most days most 90 degree days in Illinois was a 100 in Harrisburg in 1953. Once again, associated with this tremendous drought. And as I mentioned before, Illinois had their hottest temperature the following summer in 1950 54. It's the longest stretch of consecutive 90 degree days in Illinois was 62 at Sparta in 1934. 1934 was the worst drought in US history.

2 thirds of the country was experiencing severe to extreme drought, during the summer of 1934. Okay. Looks looks like that's the last slide. So so I was I was trying to give a sampling around the country, to show that heat waves used to be much worse in the United States. Incomprehensively worse than they are now.

We've we've been having relatively mild summers in the United States over the past 60 years. People don't know that because they're fed this constant stream of misinformation from the press saying heat waves are getting worse. We're gonna burn up. You're gonna need your bomb, you know, your shelter. Like, those people are selling to protect you from it.

You know, the the the real danger that we have, a lot of people used to die from the heat in the United States. Like, in the in the heat wave of 18 96, several 1000 people died in New York City because they didn't have air conditioning. They didn't have fans as people living in tenements. Poor people living in tenements were dying by the 1,000, because they didn't have the affordable energy. They didn't have the air condition.

And these people keep saying that the way to protect people from the heat is to turn off the air conditioner, to make the electricity unaffordable, which will have the exact opposite. It will end up killing people. So everything that they're promoting as a solution to their imaginary problems is actually going to make the problems much worse. Like in Phoenix, I I I went to Arizona State 50 years ago. Very few people lived.

Not that many people lived there back then because air conditioning was just starting to become available. The population of Phoenix has exploded since then because everything's air conditioned now, so you can be comfortable, and it makes it possible to live there. Maricopa County is the fastest growing county in the country, and they and they keep saying, you can't live there. You're gonna die. Everybody's gonna die.

But but what makes it a livable place is the fossil fuels. It's the low cost energy. It's the air conditioning. So everything these people say they're doing, their social justice is the exact opposite. They're making electricity too expensive for poor people.

They're making vehicles too expensive for poor people by forcing them into electric vehicles. And I I've got a $5,000 truck I bought off Craigslist. If I wanted to buy one of, you know, Elon Musk trucks, it would cost me 20 times, 30 times that much. How is, you know, how is that justice to make things unaffordable for poor people? It's great.

It's completely nuts what these people are doing.

Yeah. Yeah. 100%. Tony, that was fantastic presentation, and it's especially timely now as we keep hearing about the and you just brought up Arizona, the heat dome, you know, that people are going to die. As you point out, it's it was in the past when it was when these record heat waves were happening that people actually did die because we did not have the modern society that is fueled, by fossil fuels, and and air conditioning saves lives, not reducing our carbon emissions.

That's not going to have any effect on the weather. It's one of the things that we hit on this and you hit on this all the time too. The idea that carbon dioxide is some kind of magic thermostat that if we just adjust the c o two levels, we can control the the global temperature. And the idea that reducing our emissions is going to have any effect on the weather, be it heat, cold, snow, rain, drought, floods, I mean, all that stuff. It's, it it there's no signs to back that up at all.

Yeah. The in fact, Arizona's two worst heat waves occurred in 1986 and 1905. At Parker, the that's the only time they've ever recorded times they've ever recorded 7 consecutive days over a 120 degrees. The the last time was 1905. You know, Phoenix has a unique problem in that it's the city is gone.

It's a and it's a massive urban heat island, which tends to, you know, make it very hot there now. But if you look at its smaller communities, more rural communities like Parker, the the worst heat waves and Arizona's worst heat waves occurred in the past. And even Phoenix's records, if you look at when their record temperatures occurred, they haven't reached a 120 degrees in Phoenix since 1995. It's been almost 30 years. The last time Phoenix hit a a 120 degrees.

So, you know, they're they're constantly conflating urban heat island effect with with climate, and then they use it as an excuse to implement all kinds of insanity. But pretty much everything you hear about Phoenix, weather is absurd.

Well, they yeah. I saw a story yesterday about I think it was a Trump rally in Arizona, and they were you know, people were having some difficulty in the heat, and it was a 112 degrees. And I saw the 112 degrees, and I said, that sounds like summer in Arizona.

Yeah.

That's why they that's why they built a baseball stadium with a roof on it.

Yeah. Yeah. Right. Yeah. My freshman year at college in at ASU in 1974, I played on the soccer team.

And we'd go out and practice every afternoon at 3 o'clock. Every you know, this was September. It'd be 105 degrees, 107 degrees, and we just go out and play soccer. You know what I mean? You know, we practice for the team is, and that's just the way things were.

My fraternity house didn't have air conditioning. We had a swamp cooler. And nobody thought anything of it. I I was just really happy. I grew up in cold weather in Northern New Mexico.

I was thrilled to be in the heat in in Arizona. Right? Didn't have to freeze all winter long. 1974 was sort of the peak year of the ice age scare. Winters were horrible during the 19 seventies.

Went down to to feed actually, I have a funny story about that. I went with my father to visit the University of New Mexico campus at the end of March. It was cold, miserable day, weekend down there, and I hated it. Next weekend, I flew down myself to to Tempe, to go check out the ASU campus. And, I sat down on the plane.

They had had the Western Athletic Conference sports banquet, spring sports banquet the night before in Albuquerque. Sat down and played, I'm surrounded by all of the top basketball players, from the Western Athletic Conference, in my row, like Lionel Hollins from, who was who was ASU star. So I got to talking with him, and and he so Lionel Hollins offered to take me to the campus to check it out. So there I am, a little little scrawny high school kid, row rode into campus in a in an open convertible with the stars of the basketball team. And I get there, it's like 80 degrees.

The grass is green. There's all these women sunbathing out on the lawn. So I called up my parents and said, oh, yeah. Looks like they've got a really good program here at ASU. I didn't know anything about their program.

I said, I'm doing this. I I I wanna live in this warm climate.

Yep. Alright. We're we're gonna go to q and a now, and I wanted to, mention that usually you can leave in a super chat, you know, throw us a few bucks, help support the show, and we put your question at the top of the queue for, for for for doing that. We actually have a lot of fans in the United Kingdom who'd like to give us, British pounds, which is kind of fun. But for some reason, the super chat function on this stream is malfunctioning.

It's not working. So people cannot support the show financially, with the click of a button. So, actually, I would encourage you to go to heartland.org and hit the donate button at the top if you wanna support this show and and all this kind of work. But, we'll get to the questions now, and it's, Linea, why don't you run us through what we got? And if you have more questions, we'll just, we'll keep taking them as much as long as we can.

Just go ahead and put them in the chat.

Alright. Sweet. Hi, guys. Alright. So we've got some good questions.

I've got this one, I'm not sure we'll have a good answer for it because I don't think anyone here is particularly well versed in this topic. Someday we'll do a space weather episode, but, here's engineer guy. He says, recently saw a posting in the news that scientists have discovered sun behavior being impacted by planet alignments. What have you heard or seen? I haven't heard or seen that, but I wouldn't be shocked.

I mean

Well, I know I know know

Although the planet's mass is so much bigger than any of the planets, I'm not sure.

Well, I mean, I I suspect that they're all lined up. It does affect gravity a bit, but, I don't know anything about it.

This would be a doctor Soon question, I think.

Well, they certainly the the eccentricity of the Earth's orbit has to do with gravitational, pull from other, other planets as the position relative position of planets changes. It affects Earth's orbit by quite a bit, and that's a key factor in what's caused climate change over, you know, 1000000 of years or 100 of 1000 of years, probably largely a cause of ice ages. There was also I mentioned 1921, the tremendous heat waves around the world. And it was very popular theory back then that what was causing the heat waves was both solar cycles, how much activity was going on in the sun, but also the Earth's position in the solar system is that there there were dust clouds, which we passed through Who should I? A balloon restaurant is It would affect the weather.

And so that this was a very popular theory among scientists a 100 years ago. It's unfortunate that they got away from doing actual science like that and started focusing on this nonsense about carbon dioxide. I mean, it it looks like it looks to me like it I've done a lot of research. It looks like people client people interest in climate were doing actual science a 100 years ago, and that's all gotten lost now. You know, it's all just nonsense.

Thank you. Here's Alan. He says big tech needs a huge increase in energy to supply power to AI and data centers. Even Larry Fink understands that so called renewables can't generate enough and aren't reliable enough. So in this kind of clash of ideology, who wins?

And we've talked about this a couple times, but, Sterling, do you wanna take a bet?

No. I I really don't. There's we're we're gonna use big tech. We do need huge amounts of energy. In fact, we're writing a bit about that.

And they need they're admitting they're admitting now. Zuckerberg himself admitted, Larry Fink has admitted, that they need reliable energy. They need dispatchable power. And you know what's not dispatchable and reliable? Wind and solar.

The things that they've been pushing. The things that they say everyone else should be using. Oh, but why don't you keep that coal plant on for our server station or our data center to run AI, or to run our battery plant in Kansas? That literally happened in Kansas is they're gonna build a $4,000,000,000 battery, EV battery plant. So you got green a green energy battery plant for electric vehicles, and they had to keep a coal plant open that had already been it's closed.

It's gonna be closed next you know, within days. No. No. No. We're gonna keep that open to run that battery plant.

Devoted the energy specifically to the green tech. In Maryland, they've done the same thing. They waived environmental rules. So a plant there said, we're gonna pull out if we can't keep a 168 diesel generators available to run when your power system collapses. And, the legislature says, oh, no.

No. No. Go ahead. Use those diesel generators. Very efficient form, very nonpolluting form of energy compared to a natural gas plant, for instance, or even a coal plant.

So, technology requires more energy, but not just any kind of energy will do. Reliable energy is what it needs, and, that's not provided by wind and solar. So

You know, last month, about half of the days during May, about half the days in the United Kingdom, they had almost no wind power. The air was very still. You know, I was checking it every day. A lot of times, the wind was generating 2 or 3% of their electricity. And then at night, solar would be producing 0.

So what are they planning on, Yeah. What are they planning on doing shutting down 97% of the country because the wind isn't blowing? It's insane. And then in Scotland, they've destroyed so much countryside to put up these wind turbines, and it's for useless power, which isn't reliable, which is gonna affect people's quality of life. Like you said, they don't want them traveling.

They don't want them traveling. They don't want them going anywhere on vacation. It's like they're they're they're they're trying to create a dystopian hell. It's not the climate that's gonna create the hell. It's it's the governments which are gonna create it with their absurd rules.

Right. And, Tony, we've got a question here directly for you from our friend Albert, who I believe is from South Africa, but don't be mad at me if I'm wrong about that one, Albert. He says, Tony, am I right that snowfall globally is increasing looking at places like Japan, Sweden? Even Utah looks like snowfall in the mountains is increasing. Is there a trend?

I'm not sure if I know enough about it globally, but certainly in the northern hemisphere, the amount of winter and autumn snowfall has been increasing since the 19 sixties. Rutgers University has a website where you can track this, and there's been, particularly in autumn, there's been a very large increase in the amount of, in in snow coverage, which is the area covered by area of land covered by snow in the northern hemisphere, which tells us something very interesting. It tells us that the cold air from the Arctic is spreading further south during the cold sea, during the autumn and winter than it did before. Well, places where it used to rain, say in November, now it's starting to snow. So it's it's so it's not only is the amount of snow been increasing, but it's good proxy for temperature that temperatures have been decreasing during the winter and autumn as well.

So that's a really good question. And if you look at the skiing history, say, at at Lake Tahoe, they've had a lot of all of the record seasons for snowfall in California have occurred over the last 15 years, 2011, and there it's been a few since then. This year, they had a phenomenal season. So, yeah, I think I think you can make a case that for both the depth of snow and the aerial coverage of snow, the amount of snowfall in the northern hemisphere has been increasing. Obviously, in the southern hemisphere, it's a little harder to figure this out because there's not that many places which get snow in the southern hemisphere.

But in northern hemisphere, a lot of the land is close to the pole, so, it it's it's easy to to detect that. I mean, he's absolutely correct.

Thank you very much. And it it is worth pointing out that there is a slight trend downwards in the spring of of snow extent, but that is not a bad thing, I think, because it just means that, well, springtime comes earlier.

Actually, I think there's it's a little more sinister than that. But so a lot of during the winter, that's when the snow falls. And then when the spring comes, and it's melting, and we've got pollution from China, has been getting putting set on the snow, causing it to melt earlier in the spring. So it's not necessarily a climatological thing. It could just be that the snow is darker.

James actually, James Hansen used to be talk about this a lot, that it's actually pollution that's causing the decline in in spring snow cover.

Black carbon

soot. Yeah.

Here's a question from one of our friends, Stan Goldenberg. He has been on the show a couple of times. He is our our hurricane friend. He says, Tony, can you be a bit more specific on the fake data? Isn't some of it from calibrated satellite data?

No.

All of the, data used in the United States' historical climatology network is either from a thermometer, a ground based thermometer, or in their final adjusted set from a computer model. They don't use any satellite, data for that particular dataset. And same same thing is true with, I think, with the global historical climatology network. It's all ground based thermometers.

Okay. Here's a question from Gilbert Geiss. He says, what are your thoughts on the latest ClimbWorks summit?

I don't have an answer on that.

I don't even know who the ClimbWorks summit is. So

Yeah. I'm not sure what exactly this one is referring to. If it's referring to the the latest, maybe, IPCC conferences, I don't if if, Gilbert is still in the chat, if he can add a little bit to that question, we'll come back to it. Okay. Here's a question.

I'm sorry. My Spanish is not good enough to attempt to pronounce this word. He says, what about the movements of the mass center of the solar system? There is a correlation between the position of this point mass center and the climate of the entire solar system.

Yeah. That and that's what I was saying. Back a 100 years ago, this was this was mainstream science that people who are trying to understand the climate were very focused on on exactly that sort of thing. But, unfortunately, it got to the point where all of the funding was for pushing carbon dioxide and methane is driving the climate. And so any real science like like that has been swept swept away.

And now all we get is this nonstop nonstop stream of nonsense about greenhouse gases, which have little or nothing to do with the actual climate. So it's important. You know, if you go back a 100 years, probably could have been involved in an interesting conversation on that topic, but it's it's not supported financially in academia, so it doesn't get discussed anymore.

Yep.

And we've had some people run and look up for us what, the ClimateWorks Summit is, and it's, yet another, you know, decarbonization conference. There's so many of these darn things from different groups and sometimes the same groups putting them on over and over again.

No. They're getting money for it, so why not put on a conference, you know? It's it's, it's a Shoot

some of that over here.

It's a good junket for the industries. They get sent on a junket somewhere. They tout their wares. Someone's funding it, and, it's nice work if you can get it.

Yeah. Carbo carbon removal summit. I hope they, hope they walked or took donkeys or something.

Yeah. It's fair

to carbon. I just oddly, it's it's completely absurd. We, you know, the greatest expansion of life on Earth occurred 540,000,000 years ago when corals and shellfish appeared in the ocean. CO two levels were 15 times higher than the RNA. So it it did having higher levels of c o two is not bad for life.

It's been shown to be very good for life. And and there's no catastrophe to be expected from. If you believe all the propaganda from their computer models, we're all gonna die. I mean, we're gonna burn up and have a terrible drought in forest wells, burn everything up. But the but the reality is that we have 500 40000000 years of earth history to show us that life thrives at higher levels of c02 and how they've managed to avoid the the reality of, you know, discussing the real world is is one of the most bizarre things of the story for me.

Alright. So we've got one more question here, and it's also from Stan. And he says, aren't some cities getting hotter due to the urban heat island effect? That is man made temperature change.

All cities are getting hotter due to urban heat island, even noncities. You know, the the thermometers used to be out in the countryside, and then as the towns around them grow, now we've got asphalt. We've got snow removal. We've got people with heating and air conditioning in their house, which are pumping out waste heat into the environment. All of these all of these things are causing temperatures to go up, and it's not just in cities.

We see it in in rural areas as well. I'm I'm a cyclist. I ride my bike everywhere. When I used to live in Fort Collins, you know, you know, which was outside of the city. And when I go downtown, it'd be much warmer downtown.

So you don't need it doesn't have to be a huge city like New York. It's pretty much everywhere in the country, which has grown, is suffering some urban heat island effects.

I wanna chip in I wanna chip in real quick. So it it it there's no question that humans affect temperature change as measured, it's the question is climate change, the regions, weather, trends. And, of course, we can even on a small scale do that regionally depending on, you know, deforestation affects the climate in a region. Burning trees dumped with the soot landing on snow affects the climate and moisture content. There's no question that humans can affect temperatures and climate.

The question is, are they causing global climate change and a catastrophe from said same? And that's a different question. Right?

Yeah. And and Stan put makes a good point here where he says that his favorite Anthony Watts chart is the one for Las Vegas showing that the increased average daily temperatures are from an increase in the daily lows and not the daily highs. Well, and we found that as we've been pouring over the state summaries that the U. S. Federal government puts out from, I think it's NOAA that puts them out.

It might be a NOAA and NASA project, but in almost every single case, they'll have 3 charts. They'll have one that'll show the average temperature, one that'll show the daily highs, and one that shows daily lows. And in almost every single case, the daily highs are not getting worse. It's the daily lows that are getting higher. And so it's not that, you know, it's getting hotter during the daytime, it's that it's getting hotter during the nighttime.

And that's almost entirely, I think, can be attributed to urban heat island effect. And Tony lived I also lived in Wyoming for a bit in Laramie. And even in a town as small as Laramie, when you're up there in the mountain west where, you know, humidity is super low and so you don't get that kind of moderating effect from humidity between sun and shade, the difference between outside of town and downtown in terms of temperature is extremely noticeable. I mean, the difference in temperature between walking under a tree and walking out from under the shade of the tree is super noticeable. So, obviously, all these things have an effect on temperature.

And I also wanted to say, you know, when when it comes to the temperature stations, I find it you know, the the NOAA scientists will say or the NASA scientists will say that it's okay that there's been an urban buildup around their temperature stations because they use a, like an algorithm to account for it or something. But as someone who's spent some time as, like, an experimental scientist, you'd think that you'd wanna limit that kind of necessity as much as you can in order to get good raw data. I mean, if your raw data is trash and you know it's trash, then the most scientific, you know, scientifically sound thing to do, I think, is to get better raw data.

I I wanted I've got some statistics on this. In 9 1936, the daily average daily temperature range in the United States was, 27 degree. Well well, actually, in December, it was 28 degrees. There's been a steady decline. The daily average temperature range in the United States is down more than 2 degrees since 19 thirties, and this is probably largely due to this urban heat island stuff which we're talking about.

Yeah. Yes. Excellent. Well, that music means, it is time to close the show. Tony Heller, I wanna thank you so much for being on the Climate Realism Show, presented by the Heartland Institute today.

This is this was today by far our largest audience. A lot of them a lot of them came in because of you, and thank you for sharing that on your Twitter account. I really appreciate that a lot. How can people learn more about you and read more of your stuff? How can they follow

you? Yeah. Well, I do most of my communications on Twitter. It's just at Tony Heller. I put a lot of information out on Twitter.

Sometimes I'll do a 100 posts and a day with charts. It just and historical stuff. So that's the best place. Next best place is probably my YouTube channel, Tony Heller. And then I've got my web page, billclimatescience.com.

I put a lot of stuff out there. I wanted to mention something specifically, a project that I'm working on. I've obviously got a lot of data available, and that's because I'm I'm very proficient programmer. I took my first programming class 50 years ago at ASU. And so I've generated a lot of software, which helps me get put this data together.

And, we're currently in a commercial venture where we plan to make this available, not only for climate, but to for anyone who needs, really high quality graphing graphing and data visualization software. And we're putting a front end an AI front end on it. We're gonna be making some announcements about this soon, but I think people are gonna find it extremely useful. They'll be well, see, when I when I could hear a claim, I guess, when he claims that this is the hottest, I remember, I can immediately go in in a matter of a few seconds, check it out, and then post on Twitter that they're lying. Right?

And I'm the plan is to make the software, generally available so that anybody can go and and quickly check it out. And and and all and the way the way it's gonna work, ultimately, you just say to it, you'll just talk to the to the your browser and say, well, what was the hottest summer in Illinois or what's the longest stretch of 90 degree days in Illinois? And it'll pop up a graph showing you so you won't have to type anything, you won't have to know anything about the database, It'll just be a, you know, a a large language model interface to it, and I think it's gonna really change people's perceptions.

That's fantastic. That's fantastic. We'll have you back on again for sure, and that's a good topic to talk about when it's ready to go. Thanks again, Tony Heller, the great Tony Heller for being on the show today. Thank you, Linnea Lukin, research fellow at the Heartland Institute, doctor h Sterling Burnett, director of the Robinson Center on Climate Environmental Policy at the Heartland Institute.

Thank you very much, Kili Jukala, for producing in the back end. Can't do that without you. Be sure to visit, Heartland's climate sites, climate ataglance.com, climate realism.com, energy ataglance.com, and also, what's up with that, by Anthony Watts. Thank you all for, watching and listening. We really appreciate it, and we will talk to you next week.

Bye bye.

He's a lying dog faced pony soldier.