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, and welcome to the Climate Realism Show number 105 by the Heartland Institute. This is your weekly hour long dose of counterprogramming to the climate alarmism that just dominates our media and our culture. My name is Jim Lakeley. I'm the vice president of the Heartland Institute, and I am your host today, our usual host.

Anthony Watts is on assignment this week. He's checking out the official temperature stations of the United States and exposing how they are set up to intentionally give false readings that are hotter than reality. And I'm sure that Anthony will have much to report on that trip on this show next week. With us today is our usual crew, minus Anthony, of course, h Stirling Burnett. He's the director of the Arthur b Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy at the Heartland Institute.

And as always, Linnea Lukin, a research fellow for climate and energy policy at Heartland. And also with us today is a very special guest, doctor e Calvin Beisner. He's the president, founder, and national spokesman for the Cornwall Alliance For the Stewardship of Creation. Cal is a longtime friend of everyone here at Heartland. He's a frequent speaker at Heartland's international conferences on climate change, and he is also the co editor of an important new book that we'll discuss today titled Climate and Energy, the case for realism.

Welcome to the show, everybody.

Appreciate it.

Alright. Well, before we get started, let me ask everyone watching and listening if they could help us out. Please hit that like button, share this show on social media, and hit that subscribe button if you have not subscribed to Heartland's channels yet. That is vital to make sure that this program and the topics we cover break through the algorithms that are set up to suppress content just like this. And if you're listening to this as a podcast only, please leave us a 5 star review wherever you're listening to it.

And, also, leave some comments in that review that really helps this show stand out in a very crowded podcast world. So now without further ado, I'd like us to get into one of the most fun features of the Climate Realism Show, and that is the climate the crazy climate news of the week. These are stories that Heartland folks have come across and shared, internally on our Slack channels because, well, they are crazy. And believe me, we could fill the entire hour of this show with nothing but the crazy crazy climate news, but, we do have other topics to cover. So, let's get rolling.

Our first item is a story from, NBC News in the Bay Area. And it says cloud brightening. 1st in the nation tech, or 1st in nation tech, aims to cool our warming planet. That sounds like nothing could go wrong there. Scientists are apparently testing a controversial idea in the Bay Area for cooling our warming planet.

In Alameda in Alameda, California, the group is using the 1st technology in the country to test ways to brighten clouds in an effort to cool the globe, and the project's being held on the USS Hornet. Terrific. The Navy's involved. Philadelphia Experiment, anyone? Alright.

Jessica Mergerado, who is one of the scientists from the University of Washington's Marine Cloud Brightening Project in the Bay Area, said Alameda provides the perfect cloud conditions over the Bay, and the goal is to mimic the effects of pollution in a cleaner way by using saltwater to brighten clouds, which scientists hope will then

Oh, boy.

Pull sunlight back into space to help, cool the Earth. Guys, I know that every, every cloud has a silver lining, but this might be taking it a little too literally. Yeah?

Well, granted the ship's name, you can't you can't expect any kind of a a sting associated with this, can you?

You know, I I I remember the you know, I remember a time not that long ago when environmentalists constantly said we shouldn't be messing with nature. We should not, you know, admit let nature take its course. Blah blah blah. And yet here, we are actively intervening in nature to bring about what? Cooling, by the way, which has been shown, which is known throughout history to cause more death and destruction and crop failures and all sorts of other bad things, but we want it cool.

And so what we're gonna do is we're gonna shoot pollution up into the air. Now they say, oh, well, it's not the kind of pollution we used to do, factories do. I guess it's different if you're doing it from a navy vessel. It's saltwater. Well, you know, does do does saltwater not carry pollutants that we regulate?

I suspect it does. I suspect that you got microplastics being shot up into the atmosphere because they're in the ocean, you know, maybe mercury.

This

is just another idiotic attempt to, for the government to spend more money to claim their controlling the climate. And I I suspect not only that that it will fail, but if it doesn't fail and and failure actually would be the best option here, because if they succeed, the world would become a darker, place, a place where crops are less likely to grow, the world will get colder, and maybe that would ring in the next ice age. I don't know.

You know, you hate to treat something like this with the kind of respect that would stand behind an actual substantive critique because, really, it's just so silly. But if you think about the the scale of this, we're shooting saltwater up into the air from one ship on one location of oceans that constitute 70% of the Earth's surface,

and

we think that this is going to contribute any significant effect to global average temperature. I can imagine that a little cloud seeding or cloud brightening might make a little tiny bit of difference in one little geographic spot. But the idea that it's gonna affect the world as a whole is pretty absurd, unless, of course, we're going to change the Biden administration policy and decide that we're gonna go for, say, a 20,000 ship navy and do this all over the the oceans of the entire world, then maybe we could make a difference. I'm not sure how that would affect the budget.

Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I mean, one of the things I think about is, you know, the irony is that a lot of these climate models that have been predicting climate catastrophe for the last 30 years and have not really ever been accurate, One of their weaknesses is that they do not take into effect because it can't predict the effect of clouds and how what cloud cover will be and

and all

of that.

And but now we're going to be fooling with mother nature. Wasn't there a a a slogan for a was it for parquet in the 19 seventies? Don't fool with mother nature. And here we are thinking that we can actually control the weather like it's like, we're some kind of, I guess, benevolent James Bond villain or something that we can affect the weather. Linnea, this seems, this would affect your generation the most.

Right? Because we're gonna ruin the planet this way, so you should probably weigh in.

Well, I'm I'm happy, that Calvin brought up that this is a very, like, limited experiment, and it really probably can't I don't know how much it's going to prove, and it has the same issues. Like, these these kinds of ideas all have the same kind of issues that I have with the, like, chemtrails theory stuff. And that is that the atmosphere is so colossal with such high energy content. And and it's it really is difficult to describe just how much, you know, like, air volume our atmosphere has, that in order to change it, you would have to put so much of this junk into the air that I mean, who knows what the what the side effects would be of something like this. And then I'm not gonna say that I think that all scientists who are into geoengineering are, like, you know up to no good or something.

But this stuff just throws gas on the flames of conspiracies and or conspiracy theories that are not particularly well founded, and it's it's just it's very annoying.

Before we before we leave this, let me say 2 more things. So there was a great comment over, from one of our listeners about desalination. I'm hearing stories in Hawaii and Mexico that there's not enough water. The world was 70 percent ocean. We know how to desalinate.

In fact, in Israel and South Africa, they have big desalination plants to make sure they have enough fresh water because not everyone has huge aquifers. So maybe a better use of the navies. I mean, I'm not sure it's the role of navy, but maybe a better use use of the government's, funding for saltwater stuff is to get big desalination plants going so we don't run out of water every year in California, and they have to ration water. The other thing, what really, you know, I don't know if it disturbs me because I just think it's so unrealistic, but let's say they really did start ejecting the saltwater into the atmosphere on a massive, massive scale. Does anybody else have concerns that when it falls back to the earth, you know, if the salt falls back to the earth, it will it will make vast portions of the earth, you know, bad for plants?

I don't know. But salty ground has not been known historically as a great place to grow crops or trees or anything else.

I don't think sorry, Sterling. I'd only push back on that a little bit because of the sheer volume that it would take. I mean, we're talking I can't even begin to estimate what kind of what kind of amount of salt it would take to, like, salt the earth wherever they're doing this. I mean, that would be unbelievable. I don't think I mean, that's like dropping a nuke on the ocean in every corner of the globe kind of stuff.

I don't

Yeah. Yeah.

Well, I was just you know, when when you start talking about salt and, you know, you know, they say raise the raise the building and salt the earth so nothing goes there again, you know, in a biblical sense. So, you know, we shouldn't really be messing with this sort of stuff. Alright. Let's move on to the next one here, which is also pretty funny and crazy headline from, Fox News. US Senate candidate goes viral for blaming New York earthquake on climate change and then deletes the post.

Green Party member of the US Senate, candidate, and she has no, chance of being elected. Although, you know, she wouldn't in her stupidity, she would not be, alone in the United States Senate, unfortunately. New Jersey's Christina Amira Khalil went viral after posting a theory to social media that the earthquake that rocked New York and New Jersey on Friday, a week ago, was caused by climate change. Prominent social media users mocked the post, which also received an x community note, fact check, providing the real reason for the event, which I think might have something to do with tectonic plates, but I'm not a geologist, so what do I know? Khalil took so much criticism for the post that she ended up deleting it and switching her account to protected mode so that the public couldn't view her post any longer.

I think that's probably a public service. So following that 4.8 magnitude earthquake that was felt by New York, New Jersey, and other north northeast United States, Khalil posted on x, quote, I experienced my first earthquake in New Jersey. We never get earthquakes. The climate crisis is real. The weirdest experience ever.

Well, I'll give her points for saying that was the weirdest experience ever. And by that, I mean reading that tweet.

Cal, why don't why don't

you start off here weighing in on this nonsense?

You know, it it reminds me of the the senator who asked a an an an admiral when we were planning to move some marines onto, Guam. Well, admiral, have you figured out how much the change in weight on the island, will affect it? Is, you know, is there a risk of the island capsizing?

I mean

That's right. Yeah. That was that was, Hank Johnson. That was Hank Johnson.

Yeah. This is probably, an illustration of why Bill Buckley said he'd be glad to be, governed by the first 200 people in the Boston phone book instead of by elected officials.

By the elites. Yeah.

Yeah. The elites. This this kind of idiocy is just really difficult to to get your mind around. I mean, what what happened to basic education? I mean, you would have thought that this would have been taken care of around about 4th or 5th grade.

Well, I'm told, you know, sadly sadly, this green candidate was not the only one to link the earthquake and even the solar eclipse, to climate change. Sunny Halston, I under as I understand it, she's a fairly educated person, educated, American, you know, university education. Now I think she's a lawyer by training. She was on The View. She's on a a cohost of The View.

They chose her to cohost The View. She's she was chosen for this. And, she says she goes, oh my gosh. The eclipse, the earthquakes, locusts. It makes you believe in climate change.

And, you know, even even her other cohost said, hold it. Hold it. Don't be stupid. You're embarrassed. You know, they basically said, you're embarrassing us on the air because all of these things have natural causes that we know about these causes, and and yet, you know, you hear people say that, and someone's gonna say, oh, she's right.

Oh, that other that politician said it too. It must be true.

And I never thought of that.

Yeah. And then you'll get all this stuff out there, and, it's hard to know what to say other than some certain people should not be given a platform, especially not on science, and I think we're gonna come to another one.

Yeah. We are. We we are. I mean, I think when Whoopi Goldberg is the voice of reason, you're in bad faith. That's all I gotta say about that.

That's right. That's right.

So yeah. I mean and so speaking of, morons in positions of power and influence in our culture and government, and speaking of somebody who, Sterling Burnett has good education credentials, this woman, got a bachelor's degree from Yale University. She got a, believe her legal her law degree from the University of Virginia. And, she gave a speech inspiring the youth, in a high school in her district in Houston, Texas

Yeah.

As they gathered to watch the eclipse. And so she thought she would take this opportunity to explain to the children what was about to happen and how it was going to be so momentous. And, actually, she also shared some very unique views about the composition of the moon itself. Andy, if you wanna hit that, SJL eclipse video.

And the sun went in a direction and then the earth. Now those provide unique light and energy so that you have the energy of the moon at night, and sometimes you've heard the word full moon. Sometimes you need to take the opportunity just to come out and see a full moon is that complete rounded circle, which is made up mostly of gases. Oh, jeez. And that's why the push the question is why and how could we as humans live on the moon?

The gas is such that we could do that. The sun is a mighty powerful heat. It is almost impossible to go near the sun. The moon is not manageable. What you will see today will be the closest distance that the moon has ever been in the last 20 years, which means that's why they will shut the light down because they will be close to the earth, which is an amazing experience and what we are supposed to experience, and I'm hoping we can, complete darkness.

That everything will be shut out. Oh, wow. That we don't have any animals around here to be able to, maybe we'll hear some dogs barking at what how they are impacted. But you will be able to tell because there'll be complete darkness. This is very serious.

So what you're here for is to see the complete darkness. When I blow the whistle, we're all going out on the field. And doctor Simmons, I didn't go too far away from the scientific explanation. Is that correct, hopefully?

Oh my god. Oh my god.

But the real impact I want you to have is how you are controlled by something outside of your human experience. That the solar system is bigger than us, though there are, solar systems, and there are systems that are smaller than the earth. Still, we're in a solar system, and we depend on the earth, the moon, and the sun. That is our existence. That is what creates, the, our our desire for creativity, our music.

What? Our weather, our rain, our snow, our cold.

It just gets better and better.

It's just

it's painful.

And so She is. I was

gonna say that it's painful.

She comes from my state.

Solar system working in And

she keeps getting reelected.

You are the science anchor of H ISP and the science

Where is remedial education when we need it?

Some of you are going into engineering. This is what engineering is, to see how our systems work.

Yeah. Please come over and shut her up.

Energy. Highway without energy. Highway without, the tools needed for the earth to be warmed, the earth to be cold, the earth to survive, and human beings to live on the earth. We have yet to know whether you can live on the moon. But I don't know about you.

I wanna be first in line to know how to live and to be able to survive on the moon. That's another planet which you're gonna see shortly.

You know? Wow. Yeah.

It's hard I love it.

It is hard to know.

Jim, you're muted.

Jim, you're muted there, buddy.

Oh, okay. Yeah. I had to mute myself because I'm coughing, getting over a cold while laughing so much. I wasn't actually going to play the entire thing because we played the whole thing on the In The Tank show, yesterday on our stopping socials and TV channel. But she's just on a roll, and she's going it made me think of the remember the gong show?

I I should've had a gong sound effect. Effect. She should've been gonged off the stage with that performance. It is hard to know.

It is hard to know. It it

they I cut out in that video. The admin an administrator came up and said, you know, we have future astronauts and engineers right here in our crowd. And I'm like, I thought, gosh. I hope not, because they're not being educated well enough to be an astronaut or, god forbid, an engineer. I don't wanna go over any of those bridges.

But, you know, yeah, we don't have an IQ test in, in congress, but, that's just this is kind of what we're up against. I think this is important because this show is about actual science education. And we are up against even members of Congress who don't even know the very basics of 8th grade, earth science in in and they're and then in charge. In fact, the last I'll I'll leave it to you guys. But the last thing is very important to note.

Sheila Jackson Lee was once the chairwoman of the subcommittee, on on space and NASA. She was in charge Oh. Of overseeing the space program in the United States.

The no. No. No. The Democrats may put her in charge. This this is what they think the height of science knowledge is.

She makes AOC look smart.

Yep. That's kinda difficult to do.

It is. But she does it. Managed it. But she does it. And it's hard to know which of the many idiotic claims she made in that single segment is the most egregiously foolish.

But I wanna know you know, it's funny because she says after it's over, she says, oh, well, clearly, I was talking about the sun. Well, hold it. You were talking about the sun, but you were talking about, a, you called the moon a planet, which it which it ain't. It's a satellite of the Earth. B, you said it's made of gas, and it's very powerful, and it blocks out the sun as if it's a a a a a conscious entity.

Could you say they do this, they do that? But you said it's gas, and I wanted to know what was Neil Armstrong standing on when he planted the flag? Because I I didn't see him sort of floating above this this amorphous gas. It looked pretty solid to me. How I know how this woman gets elected, because I know the district.

The people of Houston were smart enough not to nominate her as the Democrat or Houston mayor. They rejected her, but she's been in congress for years. And you would think she'd have a single staffer, at least a single staffer, who would say, no. You can't say this. Come on.

Let's let's Yeah. Let's reign this in. She doesn't have a single staffer that's smart enough to know that the moon is not a ball, a gas, a planet, that it has no consciousness. So I didn't just step in front of the sun and block that light.

I'd like to bring a little theological critique into this too.

Please.

I was struck by the extent to which she was willing to say, look. The sun and the moon, they control our lives. They control what you think. They control what you what you want. They control what you create and all these things.

Music. Yeah.

And I'm and I'm right. Arts and music. And I'm thinking to myself, you know, in Romans chapter 1 of the new testament in the bible, for those of our listeners who aren't familiar with that, right, the apostle Paul says, when people stop worshiping the true God who created the universe, they begin worshiping created things instead, and they treat those things as if they were god. Well, that's exactly how she's treating the sun and the moon. We're seeing here, the the result of the flight from the reality that the scripture gives us of the the, God of all created the the the God who created all things, and we're seeing exactly what scripture says happens.

Professing themselves to be wise, the people who do this become fools.

Well, you know

Golly. This is exactly what Paul said happens when people exchange the glory of the incorruptible God for images like men and birds and four footed things, and for that matter, sun and moon and planets and all of this. It's it's really tragic. And to me, it's a reminder that we owe to Christianity, to the Christian worldview, the development of real science, which began in only one place and only one time in world history, and that was medieval Europe, where the biblical worldview dominated, that gave rise to science not as, okay, an occasional inspired discovery here and there, but a systematic, disciplined program of investigation using hypothesis, prediction, and comparison with real world observations. But you, Sterling, you just pointed out that the fact that Neil Armstrong didn't just kinda sink down into the moon when he was standing there, that was a real world observation.

Right? That's inconsistent with her hypothesis that the moon is made of gases.

But maybe it confirms but maybe it confirms maybe it confirms the conspiracy theory that we never went to the moon. It was really a, you know, a movie lab out in Nevada.

That's it. You got it.

Yeah. Well, I wanna I wanna thank, we're gonna move on to the next story. But Peter Williams, thank you for the, the 9, £9.99, because you donated to see if you can send her to the moon. If you donate £20, we'll put on a rocket and fire her into the sun.

Look. But I don't

take £20 at least.

Don't you do all those?

Almost too hot to get near.

Almost too hot to get near. She'll find out.

She'll be the first one to report back on that. That's great.

Be setting up a a colony on the sun anytime soon. Yeah. She was actually so she got that right. She did. I just wanted to say, you know, she's she she rambled on.

She was talking about how powerful they are and how, it was date. She I think she said the word dangerous. She said, this is, you know, it's dangerous. And it made me think, well, you know, at one time, entire people thought things like this were dangerous. And what they did is they went out and sacrificed people, to bring the sun back after, or to thank the gods for bringing the sun back after an eclipse.

They they thought it was really momentous. And she sounds like she lives in that age still, but, of course, they do. Right? Because they the the climate alarmist are so fearful of climate change. They're willing to sacrifice entire generations and entire peoples in, other countries and some in our country to the climate gods.

You know, you must live without. You must starve. You must have disease because you can't have modern technology because that's what's killing us.

Yep.

Alright. Well, we'll move on to our next story here. It's from The Daily Signal. And as a former journalist, this actually was very troubling when I saw this, saw this news this week. Avoid false balance.

Associated Press style guide aims to silence dissent from climate alarmist narrative. Now the Associated Press style book is the bible, of the secular bible, Cal, of course. But it's the secular bible of journalism. It's used in every newsroom, at least when I was a journalist. It's on it's at the cubicle of every journalist in America.

It's basically used so that you know, how to write stories correctly, you know, what to what to include. It's it's morphed over time. Used to just be basically a a great grammar guide, but now it has turned into a Yep. You know, a an indoctrination guide as well. So it says here that most news outlets rely on the AP style guide, officially book, as the arbiter for grammar, spelling, and terminology in news coverage.

While AP puts forth its style guide as an impartial rubric for fair coverage, not anymore so much, but Impartial. White. Its rules are displaying conservative views from the outset, for sure. Take AP's latest round of updates released a week ago today. The updates include guidance on how to avoid, quote, stigmatizing obese people, admonitions to avoid calling people homeless because it might be dehumanizing, and warnings to avoid the term female since some people object to its use as a descriptor for women because it can be seen as emphasizing biology and reproductive capacity over gender identity.

Oh, science.

It it could be critiques for following the science, biology.

Yes. Yes. And so we'll just skip down a little bit here. Yeah. One of the largest sections of the updated style guide and by involves climate change.

A term that the Associated Press says, quote, can be used interchangeably with the term climate crisis. Quote, climate change resulting in the climate crisis is largely caused by human activities that emit carbon dioxide, methane, and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. According to the vast majority of peer reviewed studies, science organizations and climate scientists, the AP style goat in guide in tones. This happens from the burning of coal, oil, and natural gas, and other activities. Greenhouse gases are the major the main driver of climate change.

And, the AP insists that this is all true and that when, quote, telling the climate story, the style guide urges journalists to, quote, avoid false balance by giving a platform to unfounded claims or unqualified sources in the guise of balancing a story by including all views. For example, coverage of a study describing effects of climate change need not seek other side com comment that humans have no influence on the climate. That's about as much as I can take reading on this. Sterling, you've been in journalism as well. You know very well the the climate guide.

This is to my mind when I read this, this is basically just putting into the journalism bible what we've all experienced actually as climate skeptics who present our views to the media, what what we've seen been happening over the last several years?

I think no one should be surprised by this because the AP has become a bought and paid for shield for the climate, crisis community. Right? They admit it. They they held they held a public announcement. They put out press releases just a few years ago when 6 foundations were giving them 1,000,000 of dollars specifically to talk about climate change, to hire new people in foreign countries to up their climate coverage.

So, look, you know, Al Gore was sort of right. It's hard to, to find inconvenient climate coverage when you're being paid to find climate crisis, and that's what they're being paid to do, and they're doing it. And so they they haven't been able they still haven't convinced everybody that it's a crisis. And so, like you say, they put out their their journalistic bible to say, look, we still haven't succeeded in brainwashing and indoctrinating everyone. Here's how we go about doing it.

You you just don't allow any dissenting points of view.

You know, I would suggest that the APU, style guide editors need to consult the UN intergovernmental panel on climate change. Might be helpful if they were to read the entire working group one report of of, the 6th assessment. I believe that was 3,999 pages. I think that was the, page count. But here is what, Steven Coonan, who was undersecretary for science in the Department of Energy under the Obama administration, says about this very issue.

He says, you don't find the words existential threat, climate catastrophe, climate disaster at all in the 6th assessment report, you find the words climate crisis exactly once, and that's not a scientific finding, but it is in reference to the way in which, drumroll here, the media have amped up their coverage. Woah. I mean, it's it's as if he was prophesying. He actually said that 2 years ago in a, lecture for the Global Learning Policy Foundation. He was prophesying what the AP style guide was about to do.

Yeah. Yeah. Very good. So, Lynnea, do you have anything, to add to this, discussion for you?

Not just to this discussion, but also our good friend Peter has given us another 20, what is this currency again? Pounds. Pounds. And, so, yes, now we are financially obligated to send our representative to the, to the sun this time. So

Let's contact let's contact, Elon and see if we can get one of those rockets.

Yep. I don't know if he'd give us one, but we could try. So thank you very much for that. And, in regards to this, it's look. Like Sterling said, we cover it all the time over at, climaterealism.com.

We've known forever that the AP along with many other, including the Washington Post organizations in the media are, you know, actively paid to cover climate change, not just in general, but in a certain way. So it's really no surprise at all.

Yep. I there's just one more, is crazy climate, news of the week that I wanted to grab, this week. There's actually 2 more on my list, but we're we wanna get to, talking about Cal's new book, but that is, this one. Oh, I'm sorry. The other one after that one, Andy.

UN climate chief presses for faster action and says humans have 2 years left to save the world. Now I know a lot of our viewers are trying, like me, to keep track of how much time we have left to save the world. I mean, over the last 40 years, it's been 10 years, 5 years, 20 years, 10 years. I believe AOC said 12 years, and that might have been 2 years ago, so that would make 10 years now. But now the United the United Nations, climate chief says we have 2 years left to save the world.

And so that must be why, that must be why the AP has put this in their style book because if they don't help out in saving the world in the next 2 years, then we're all doomed.

But you have to act now because the sale ends Saturday.

You know? So I

mean, this is not science. This is showmanship. This is propaganda. You know, gee whiz. What's gonna happen when 2 years go by and we haven't yet saved the world?

Well, they'll because because it's a doomsday call. You know, they'll just commit suicide. And, no, what they'll do is they'll start over and, and predict another 2 years. We got the math wrong. Well, God you know, he whispered in our ear, and he said, you weren't listening the first time.

This is pretty simple math. If they get that wrong, how do you trust them on the climate models that are using extremely complex math?

Well, you know, I was sitting in my house this week when they said, and last week, when they said there were 2 days, there was a a 99% chance of rain, 95% chance of rain, and we got no rain those days. That was a day in advance they were predicting it, but they can think it could they predict a 100 years from now what it's gonna look like when they can't even get a day in advance right, probably Yeah. 40% of the time. It's it's crazy that people like this once again, she he's another guy of importance who has a platform, and he will be shown to be foolish, and no one will call him on it, but but people like us a couple of years from now. It's it's it's disgraceful.

These are the people we we have in power.

Before we get to the rest of this podcast, I I wanted to let you know about 2 fantastic live podcasts Heartland produces every week. We'd love for you to join us every Thursday at 1 PM EST, noon CST, live for our flagship in the tank podcast. You can watch on the stopping socialism TV channel on YouTube where you can participate in the show in the chat with other fans and also ask questions that we'll address on the air and put up on the screen. And every Friday, also at 1 PM EST and noon CST, you can go to Heartland's main YouTube channel. Just search for the Heartland Institute on YouTube for the new Climate Realism Show.

Heartland's climate team of Anthony Watts, Sterling Burnett, and Linnea Lukin cover the crazy climate news of the week, debunk mainstream media myths about the so called climate crisis, dig into energy policy, and much more. The show often features guests that include some of the leading climate scientists and energy policy experts anywhere in the world. There is no show like it, so become regular live viewers of both of these programs if you are interested in smart, lively, fun, and interactive conversations.

We hope to see

you there every Thursday Friday afternoons at 1 PM Eastern and Noon Central at the stopping socialism TV and the Heartland Institute channels on YouTube. Oh, yeah. We're also on Rumble. See you there.

Well, you know, this is a, so we only have 2 years. The the the upshot on this, everyone, is that now you only have we know we only have 2 years left to get a copy of Cal Bysner's new book, Climate and Energy, the Case for Realism. I hear a rumor. If you put in the promo code Greta, you will get 25% off, but, that is unconfirmed rumor. We'll have to see.

But, Cal, this this book, is a compilation. I believe you you and, another friend of this podcast and of the Heartland Institute, doctor David LeGates, compiled this book. I wonder if you can kinda set up for us, the reason that you and, David got together, to put this book together.

Yeah. Well, the aim was, really, I think, communicated well in the title of the book itself, Climate and Energy, the Case for Realism. You know, it seems like almost everything that you see in the media is either climate alarmism, you know, human induced global warming is not only real, but it's catastrophic. It's bringing on the 6th greatest extinction. It's an existential threat, all of that kind of thing.

Or you see and when you see this in the media, basically, you see it as, you know, ridiculed, Denialism. The whole thing is a hoax. There's no global global warming. There's no climate change. If there were, human activity wouldn't contribute to it at all and so on.

And they're really the only people who believe in this stuff are commies and and people who are pursuing one world government. Well, you know, there are commies on both sides of the issue. There are people pursuing one world government on both sides of the issue. There are there are democrats and republicans on both sides of the issue. And so we we don't really wanna just root everything in politics.

What we thought what we sought to do with this book, Climate and Energy, the Case for Realism, is to bring together the work of 9 different climate scientists, including some of the world's top, people like Roy Spencer and and David Leggate, frankly, as as well as, John Christie and Patrick Michaels who sadly died just about a month after he finished writing his chapter for us, comparing climate models with the actual observations in the real world. Plus economists, environmental economists, developmental economists, looking at the impact of climate policy, not just on climate, but also on human well-being, as we switch from the abundant, affordable, reliable, scalable energy that we get from fossil fuels to the, diffuse expensive, unreliable, non scalable energy that you get from wind and solar, what happens? Well, you know, for instance, you have a 29% increase in, gasoline prices in the US over the last 4 years. That's rather steep inflation there. You you have, bigger increase in electricity prices.

And that hurts people and, as someone who, who has spent a lot of his life writing on a Christian approach to economics, and is particularly concerned about the impact of any policy on the poor around the world, That concerns me. So our aim was to provide good, solid, empirical evidence for the position that I think is very similar to Hartland's position that, yeah, human induced climate change is real. It's not catastrophic. Probably the the the, effects of it are going to be more beneficial than harmful, and adaptation is a whole lot smarter than mitigation. That is, it makes a whole lot better sense for us just simply to adapt to whatever happens in the climate than to try to control the global climate.

And we simply don't have good reasons to be fearful about all of this. You know, sometimes I'll be asked, you know, why are people so fearful about sea level rise? Well, I used to live in South Florida. I was 8 feet above sea level, 15 miles from the beach, and I thought, oh, this is great. I'll have beachfront property and the price of my house will go way up high.

Right? And then I took the IPCC's figures on the rate of sea level rise and I applied them to my situation, I discovered, yeah, I'd have beachfront property in about 36 100 years. Well, too bad for my portfolio. But, why are people so scared of sea level rise? I finally figured it out.

They didn't grow up in Holland. They didn't grow up in the Netherlands, 60% of which, roughly, is below sea level and has been for 100 of years. And the Dutch have known how to handle that with dykes and seawalls. And, hey, at at an an average rate of 1 and a half millimeters per year or 7 or thereabouts inches per century, Any place else in the rest of the world can handle sea level rise. And we can handle whatever temperatures come.

Hey. We can thrive in every climate from the Arctic Circle to the Sahara Desert to the Brazilian rainforest if we have adequate income, adequate wealth. If you don't, and that's gonna be the result of the kinds of policies that are being promoted to fight climate change, well, then you can't thrive in the best tropical paradise.

Yes. Yes, very good, Sterling. I know that you've looked at this book and you actually it was your suggestion that we have Cal on and it was a great one. Why don't you ask some questions?

Well, you know, the first I want to go back to something, Cal said earlier. It never struck me until you spoke, Cal. It never struck me just how much the disaster, claims, the 2 years, the 10 years, the 12 years, just sounds like a sales pitch on TV. Get it now before it's too late because I

get these I

get these things all you you said you say, mattress mattress store, who our first our best sale ever, except they run the same ad every week for 20 years. Yep. If you don't if you don't get it now, you won't get it. No. We know that you're you can get it anytime you want.

It's not a sale. And in the end, just like those false advertising for this, never happened ever before, get it now. Buy in now. That's what this is. It's Yeah.

Because when they're wrong, you'll have it again the next week. You'll have it so, anyway, I I never realized just how close it did to mimic those ads until you you did that, and it's like,

wow. You know, The New York Times The New York Times has been covering this stuff a whole lot, of course, and they're totally on board with the climate catastrophes narrative. And the reliability of what they're saying about that is, I think, every bit equal with the reliability of the email that I get from the New York Times to my account, oh, about 3 or 4 times a week, telling me that I better act now because this $1 a week special price ends tomorrow.

Yeah. I've been getting those

emails for about the last 6 months.

You know, if this were true, I I should probably also believe that Nigerian prince keeps riding me, trying me to to help him get money out of the country to an account.

He wrote YouTube? Yeah.

He does. He's desperate. See, he's writing me. Believe me. So, Cal, to your book, you know, you you describe what you do in the book, but there are some good books out there.

Climate realists like yourself and our and and us at Harlan, we do sometimes have a hard time, almost an impossible time, getting in peer reviewed journals, But we've gotten some good books published. Now, you've got a good book out, and the question is, what niche does your book fill that you thought other books, you know what what did you cover that you thought other books weren't covering?

Great question. First off, I just point out that this book has been, it opened as a number one bestseller in both energy policy and environmental policy on Amazon, And it has stayed way up high like that in the almost a month now since it came off the press on March 19, or rather was released on March 19. And so even if we just simply look at that, where are people most interested in this? Well, the people who are interested in environmental policy and in energy policy. And the fact that it rose so rapidly to number 1 and number 2 in those two categories indicates that, there was a lot of interest that wasn't yet being served well, in that in that range.

Part of what we were also trying to do was to put together something that would, simultaneously be accessible to non experts, to layman, to people who don't have, you know, MS or PhD in any of the sciences, but who are really interested. And that's why every single chapter in this book starts off with a 1 page chapter summary that is written especially for laypeople, for nonexperts. And then the rest of the chapter written by an expert in the field, climate scientist, economist, energy engineer, energy, management specialist, whatever, Every one of these chapters, we told our authors, look. You have to write in a way that is understandable for lay readers. So I think what's often happened is that many of the books from the realist perspective have either been highly technical on the one side and therefore don't really, communicate too well to lay people or entirely popularly written on the other side and therefore aren't taken seriously by the technical experts.

This book combines the two methods. It avoids the extremely technical language that would just make the lay readers' eyes gloss over, but it has the good solid, empirical evidence that the technical experts want. So I think we've done a good job of, of addressing the 2 different kinds of audience and really inviting the laypeople through the chapter summaries to get a good grasp of the overall conclusions of the of the chapter and then move on and learn more so that then they are comfortable with the more technical discussion that sometimes happens in public forums.

Well, I personally do think

you read the needle quite well.

But, let me ask you so let me ask you this about the details the book. Just a couple of chapters, I I think are none of them are not important, but some of them are really of interest to me. And that is, the chapter by David about why you don't learn about climate realism from science journals or the mainstream media, and the chapter from the late Pat Michaels comparing climate models to the scientific method.

Yeah. Yeah. Well, David's chapter, on the history of climate change, really drives home one basic simple point. It's not about the science, and it never has been. What he does is he he rehearses the whole history of the controversy over human induced climate change starting back when the fear was of global cooling rather than global warming.

And he shows over and over again, in one case after another, ultimately, it wasn't science that determined the direction of public discourse and particularly of academic discourse and political discourse. It was always politics. It was always the desire to push a particular sort of policy. And you know, back when the fear was global cooling, the solution was always, well, we need to stop using fossil fuels because by emitting, sulfur dioxide and other things into the atmosphere, They're they're reflecting sunlight back into space so they're cooling the globe. We have to stop using fossil fuels to prevent global cooling.

But we know that people aren't gonna be willing to do that voluntarily so you have to give up control to us experts and you have to, give over decision making to global bodies instead of national bodies. And so the push is toward socialism and globalism, replacing capitalism and nationalism and the benefit of having, you know, a nation b to which you can migrate if your own nation is ruled by tyrants. You know? And then we get global global warming, and the solution turns out to be exactly the same. You have to stop using fossil fuels, and you have to give up your freedom and put us in control and put the control at the global level instead of the national level.

If anything indicates that it's not science, it's politics that drives this stuff, that does. So David does a wonderful job of of rehearsing all of that history. Pat Michaels, god bless him. God rest his soul. Wonderful man.

His chapter just does a great job of explaining why the climate models that are dominant in the field miss the mark so badly. I mean, we're we're talking out of a 120 plus climate models used by the UN IPCC and US Global Change Research Program and so on, out of a 120 of those, the average, simulate 2 to 4 times as much warming as actually observed over a relevant period. Only 2 of them, both of them coming out of Russia, are even close to the real world observations. And now if you were really doing good science, you would say to yourself, These two models seem to be really accurate. They they match up well with real world observations.

We should focus on their predictions. But, of course, they predict very, very, very little warming from added c 02 and methane and nitrous oxide in the atmosphere, whereas all the others predict lots of warming. So if you wanna scare people so that you get them to embrace your policies, well, you ignore those 2 Russian models that are reasonably accurate, and you focus on the others that are scary. That's the kind of thing that is, really just, destroying the reputation of science. So, you know, follow the science has never been good advice, never truly scientific.

Mhmm. But sadly, the failure of scientists to police themselves on this issue is undermining the public's trust in science. And that's one of the, I think, one of the most dangerous results of this whole thing because we need good science. Good science has brought us all kinds of marvelous discoveries and technologies. And as people less and less trust science, they're going to turn away from the good that it can do.

So, unfortunately, those of us who question catastrophic global warming are accused of being science deniers.

Well, clearly, Khal.

Exactly the opposite.

Clearly, Cal, the problem with the Russian models is that they're not sophisticated enough to correspond with the consensus, so we've gotta throw them out.

Right. Because

They they may reflect reality, but they don't correspond to the to the others that are the ones we're supposed to believe.

Yeah. Now Aristotle, of course, defined, popular vote or or any vote at all as a logical fallacy, you you know, appeal to to, the populace, argumentum et populum. He defined that as fallacy a long, long time ago. And, Hey. You know what?

I used to teach logic at the graduate level in seminary, and it still is a fallacy. And unfortunately, it seems like a whole lot of, climate catastrophes scientists never learned their basics in logic.

Yes. Okay. I'm sorry, Sterling. I hand it over to you, and you just stop. That's okay.

No. Well, I was I I've asked I I think Lanae should get a shot at some questions and maybe some reader audience questions.

Yeah. We've got a couple of audience questions. I do have a kind of a, well, a bit of a question. The the, so over in the Skeptosphere here, we bring up the idea that, you know, the economic arguments and the impact of these bad environmental and climate policies on, like, the 3rd world or the poor in general, which is something that your book, leans into pretty hard, especially the section written by, our friend, and I'm sorry I butcher his name all the time. Jayjayrayana?

Yeah. Yeah. And, so we make these arguments all the time, but why do you think that it's largely ignored in the mainstream? Do do people who are normally on top of, like, I hate to use the word social justice, but I mean it in the old way, not the, like, new modern way kind of, term. Those issues, people who worried about the poor and stuff before, they seem to just not care now when it comes to climate change and energy stuff.

Why do they just turn off their brains when it comes to climate change?

Boy, what a great question. And if we had a whole lot more time, I think I'd try to go into significant depth because, actually, I think you can draw a line from Thomas Robert Malthus in his essay on population in 17/98 to from to Charles Darwin and his theory of of evolution, taking place by the survival of the fittest in the in the, competition for scarce resources, to his nephew, I believe it was, Francis Galton, who wrote an essay on human potential that launched the, eugenics movement promoted by, Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood in America and by Adolf Hitler. Some people might have heard of him. Something some guy over in Germany, you know, back in the 19 thirties forties. But, all of this really rests on, sort of an elitist mentality that says the top of the pyramid of human beings, they're the ones we really, who who really deserve to survive and thrive.

And the rest, well, social dominance says we don't need to care much about them. And I I think that though most of these folks probably haven't consciously thought that through, I think that's the mentality underlying a lot of their attitudes that say, look. Okay. So we in the west got rich by using fossil fuels. Those lifted us out of poverty.

Those increased our our life expectancy at Earth from 27 or 28 years before the industrial revolution to 80 now. Look. The developing world, the poor countries around the world, hey. We've helped them grow to the point where they now have 65 year life expectancy. That's enough.

They don't need any more. They don't need fossil fuels. They should go straight from wood and dried dung as their primary energy sources to wind and solar. Never mind the fact that wind and solar are far more expensive because they're diffuse and intermittent and unpredictable than fossil fuels. You know, just let these these developing countries skip our path.

That's hard hearted, to put it mildly. It is abominable. It is, I think, socially or morally unconscionable. And you're right. Vijay Jayaraj, who has the advantage of being both a climate scientist and an energy management specialist, and having grown up in India in an agricultural family, he has the advantage of bringing all that perspective into this.

And that's why he calls all of this stuff climate colonialism. It is the rich west pushing its policies on the rest, not giving a damn, frankly, what happens to the people of Sub Saharan Africa who have no electricity and desperately need need it. And not caring that, hey, if we abandon fossil fuels as Bjorn Lomborg, estimates, you would almost immediately have the death of 4,000,000,000 people because they depend 100% on fertilizers made from natural gas or made using natural gas for their food. And pretty quickly, you would have the deaths of another 2,000,000,000 people because they depend on not on fossil fuels for steel, cement, plastics, all sorts of other things. Doesn't matter.

After all, you know, the optimal population trust used to say that the best total human population for the for the world would be, oh, around 200 to 300,000,000 people. Doesn't matter if we have to get rid of the rest of the 95 to 97% of us.

Yeah. Crickets crickets as to how that comes about. Right? They never wanna talk about what it would take to get there, but I wanna say it does come down to population. You're right about that.

And maybe that's why I'm gonna step into some sticky wicket here. But, there's this embrace of robotics and AI. I'm not sure how intelligent AI actually is, but I have seen the big promoters, the first promoters of AI, and they're out there saying, oh, you're probably going to have your communist utopia because no one's going to have to work because AI is gonna free them up. Well, how are they gonna get paid? AI is gonna print money so people starve.

And and the wealthy, the elite. I've always wondered, what do you think you're going to do when all the people who actually put the food on your table and do the hard work when they're gone, now they think, well, we got robotics and AI. That'll continue to grow food and provide and, plus, we won't have to grow as much food because there's only us left.

Yeah. You know, I I think there are some wonderful potentialities in AI and robotics and, already we've been using robotics for a long time. And it has really improved productivity per man hour of labor invested in various different things. That's that's wonderful. But the fact is that what drives all of this is an anti biblical, anti judeo christian notion of what human beings are.

For the population control mongers, every new person born into the world is a mouth to feed. And they forget that, as Julian Simon famously reminded them, attached to that mouth there are 2 hands and most importantly a mind, which is why every person on average is going to produce several times more than he consumes in a lifetime. Back in the 19 eighties when I was working on my book, Prospects for Growth, A Biblical View of Population Resources in the Future, The average American male produced 13 times as much in his lifetime as he consumed. The average American female produced about 8 times as much in her life time as she consumed, which by the way gave men a great reason to brag, right, until we remembered that the average American female also produced the average American male. So, no, the fact is we are made in god's image to be creative and productive as god is and to make more than we consume.

And that's why the long term inflation adjusted and most importantly, wage adjusted price trend of every single resource that we extract from the earth, whether it's mineral or plant or animal. The long term price trend is deeply downward. We're talking, you know, 98, 99% down from, say, 1800 to the present. It's because people are productive. So instead of instead of, you know, bemoaning population growth, we should be celebrating it.

The sad thing is I think that actually where we're headed demographically is for population decline. We're headed into what is described in one video on YouTube as demographic winter, and that's gonna be very dangerous because it is going to result in a superannuated population unable to provide for its own needs without sufficient younger population to provide for it. Now some people are putting their hope in AI and robotics to solve that problem. I have my doubts.

Well, thank you very much for that. We've got 2 of our audience members who have some questions here, which if we can kinda lightning round, we've gone a little bit, over time, but here we are. They're good questions. Okay. Calvin, can we use geothermal as a real alternative for green energy instead of wind and solar scams that fall far short and are detrimental to the environment?

Super quick answer. In the very, very few rather, restricted locations where it works well, yes. Absolutely. But they're very few. Not gonna power the grid.

Yep. And, Francis, you can look at, energy at a glance.com. I actually have a paper that I wrote on geothermal talking about, where it works and where it doesn't work. And it is a little bit more complicated than just, you know, poke a hole in the earth and make steam. So alright.

Next question. What realistic and practical things can people do to break free from the deliberate lies that the climate crisis is?

Oh, this is the far and away the best thing they can do. They can go to amazon.com and order Climate and Energy, the case for realism, or I'm sorry. Actually, even better than that, go to Cornwall Alliance dotorg. That's Cornwall Alliance dotorg slash donate. And as you fill out the donation form and make a donation of any size, simply write in there somewhere, please send Climate and Energy, and we'll send you a free copy.

A 100% of your donation will be tax deductible, and we'll just do that as our way of saying thank you.

Yes, ma'am.

So, that's for the month of April here as long as our supply lasts.

Yes. Well, I was I was gonna mention all of that as we get to close here, Cal. So, good for you to have saved me from doing all of that. I think we can, we can call it a day. I wanted to add to the stage.

It's a cartoon I saw, today shared with with folks. There it is. And you you had hinted on this, Cal. Why isn't China concerned about global warning? Because they have a communist government already.

So that is, well put, and I think it's it's, gonna be eternally funny and is eternally true. The the idea that no matter what is happening to the earth, the answer is always the same. Take away your freedom. Take away your money. Let government handle it.

If if that doesn't wake people up to the scam that is climate alarmism, I don't know what will. But, the

the whole thing is happening.

Yes. Yes. So, that'll do it for today. I wanna thank everybody, for watching and listening to today's program. Come back to the Heartland Institute's channel on YouTube and Rumble every single Friday at 1 PM EST to get the climate realism you need, the counter programming to the foolishness, the alarmism, and the lies that you see and hear in the mainstream media every day.

They cannot win on the facts, and we prove that on this show every single week. We also urge you to share the show with your friends and family. Let people know about the show, even bring them along for the livestream where we have a lot of fun. If you want to learn more about our guest today, Cal Beiser, you can go to Cornwall Alliance dot org. It is a nonprofit 501c3 just like the Heartland Institute is.

You can also find links to buy the book there. And as Cal mentioned, if you donate to Cornwall Alliance, you may, also get a free copy of his brand new book. Visit Heartland's fantastic and comprehensive website starting with heartland.org. We also have climate realism.com, climate ataglance.com, energy ataglance.com, and also download our new app, Climate at a Glance, which puts a wealth of climate realism and database truth right there in your pocket for all time. Thank you everyone for coming on the show today.

Cal, thanks for being a guest. Thank you, Linnea. Thank you, Sterling, for being a part of the show today. Thank you for watching and listening, and we will talk to you next week.