Climate Realism Gains Ground in Europe – Live from Budapest! - The Climate Realism Show #159
Download MP3Those words hurt my virgin ears. One of the most urgent tasks of our country is to decisively defeat the climate hysteria hoax.
Speaker 2:We are in the beginning of a mass extinction.
Speaker 3:The ability of c o two to do the heavy work of creating a climate catastrophe is almost nil at this point.
Speaker 4:The price of oil has been artificially elevated to the point of insanity.
Speaker 5:That's not how you power a modern industrial system.
Speaker 3:The ultimate goal of this renewable energy, you know, plan is to reach the exact same point that we're at now.
Speaker 5:You know who's tried that? Germany. Seven Straight Days of no win for Germany. Their factories are shutting down.
Speaker 2:They really do act like weather didn't happen prior to, like, 1910. Today is Friday.
Speaker 3:That's right, Greta. It is Friday. It is the best day of the week, and not just because the weekend is almost here, because this is the day we broadcast at The Heartland Institute. This show, the Climate Realism Show. My name is Jim Lakeley.
Speaker 3:I am vice president of The Heartland Institute. We are an organization that's been around for forty years, and we are known as the leading global think tank pushing back on climate alarmism. Heartland and this show bring you the data, the science, the truth, and when we're fortunate, some very awesome guests to counter the climate alarmist narrative you've been fed every single day of your life. There is nothing else quite like the climate realism show streaming anywhere, so I hope you will bring friends to view this livestream every Friday at 1PM eastern time. And also, share, and subscribe, and leave your comments underneath the video.
Speaker 3:All of these things that are very easy to do convince YouTube's algorithm to smile upon this program. That way the show gets in front of even more people. And as a reminder, because big tech and the legacy media do not really approve of the way that we cover climate and energy policy on this program, YouTube's channel has been demonetized. So if you wanna support this program, and I really hope you do, please visit heartland.org/tcrs. That's heartland.org/tcrs, and You can help make sure that we keep bringing you this show each and every week.
Speaker 3:Any support that you can give us would be warmly welcome and greatly appreciated. And before we get started, we want to thank our streaming partners at beingJunkscience.com, CFACT, what's up with that? The CO2 Coalition and Heartland UKEurope. So welcome to you all to the show and I hope you will follow all of these accounts on X and become a subscriber to this show on YouTube and Rumble. And let's get started.
Speaker 3:We have a big show today and we have a couple of very special guests. We have with us as usual, Anthony Watts, senior fellow at the Heartland Institute and the publisher of the most influential website on climate in the world. What's up with that? Sterling Burnett, the director of the Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy at the Heartland Institute.
Speaker 3:We have Linea Lukin, Research Fellow for Energy Environment Policy at Heartland. And of course, as always, Andy Singer, producer extraordinaire, working his tail off behind the scenes to make this the best looking show on climate anywhere that you will see. But we're very welcome to happy to welcome back to the show James Taylor and Lois Perry. James Taylor is president of the Heartland Institute and Lois Perry is director of Heartland UK Europe and they are coming to us live right now on your screen from Budapest, Hungary. Welcome James and Lois.
Speaker 3:Good to see you.
Speaker 1:Great to be here. Thank you Jim. Good to see you.
Speaker 6:Yeah, thank you for having me. So exciting.
Speaker 3:Yes, I know that there's a lot to cover with you guys. You've had quite a whirlwind tour of Europe over the last week and we're gonna get into that at the near the end of the show. But
Speaker 4:Did you
Speaker 1:notice Lewis' hat?
Speaker 3:Oh, yeah. What does your hat say, Lewis?
Speaker 6:Make Europe great again.
Speaker 3:Has that so you guys have been at CPAC Poland and CPAC Hungary. Is that where you got that wonderful lid?
Speaker 6:Yeah. I got it today. Somebody very kindly, a nice young man said, I need to get you a make Europe great again hat. And I said, I'd love one. And he plunked it on my head.
Speaker 6:So so, yeah, let's do this.
Speaker 1:It's not only a fashion statement. It's a movement. Believe it or not, there are quite a few people wearing the make Europe great again hats.
Speaker 3:Mega. Mega. Yeah, mega, mega. Yeah. And that's the theme of our main topic today is how, you know, there's a conservative movement in Europe.
Speaker 3:You may have read that in the news. And that there's resistance to net zero. And we're gonna be talking about that. You guys are gonna be talking about that for sure.
Speaker 1:Awesome. And before we get started, though, just just to alleviate any confusion you you may have. At the the bottom of the screen, it's not there now, but it was a moment ago where it had our names. Actually, she's Lois and I'm James. I know the screen says something different, but I wanna make sure before you get too confused.
Speaker 1:She is Lois. I'm James.
Speaker 6:Yeah. We're not we're not presenting at different genders. Yeah.
Speaker 3:Very good. Alright.
Speaker 4:Alright. Your pronouns be he and she. There
Speaker 3:we go. Alright. The fun has already started. Well, the most fun that I have on this show, and I think a lot of our viewers would agree, is we start off the show by covering the crazy climate news of the week. Hit it, Andy.
Speaker 3:All right, thank you very much, Bill Nye. All right, so our first item today is Do Autopen Climate Rules Count? This is an article from Fox News. So let's see. So we'll just take it here from the top and read from the story.
Speaker 3:Power of the Future, a nonprofit organization that advocates for American energy jobs, reviewed eight Biden executive orders that it says were significant shifts in domestic energy policy and said it found no evidence of the president speaking about any of them publicly, raising concerns that the orders were signed by Autopen and that he was not aware of them. You may have read about that in the news last couple weeks. Quote, these are not obscure bureaucratic memos. These were foundational shifts in American energy policy. Yet not once did Joe Biden speak about them publicly, said Daniel Turner, founder and executive director of Power of the Future and a friend of this show and of the Heartland Institute.
Speaker 3:The executive orders reviewed by Power of the Future include an Arctic drilling ban in 2023, a 2021 executive order committing the federal government to net zero emissions by 02/1950, an executive order maintaining, quote, clean energy, AI centers, and an offshore drilling ban executive order shortly before leaving office in 2025. Finding no evidence of Biden publicly speaking about the executive orders on climate, Power of the Future sent letters this week to the Department of Justice, EPA, the Department of the Interior, the Department of Energy, along with House and Senate Oversight Committees calling for an investigation to determine who made the decisions, drafted the executive orders, and ultimately signed them. Lynne, I'm gonna go to you, but I think first we can play a video that exemplifies the fact that, you know, it seemed Joe Biden did not really know what was going on under his name, literally under his name in his administration. Andy,
Speaker 4:can you play that video for us, please?
Speaker 7:And I said, mister president, thanks for the moments. You know, I this is very important. I got some big national security things I need to talk to you about that I heard and I think you know, and what do we do? And but first, real quickly, mister president, can I ask you a question? I cannot answer this to from my constituents in Louisiana.
Speaker 7:Sir, why did you pause LNG exports to Europe? Like, I don't under you know, liquefied natural gas is in great demand by our allies. Why would you do that? Because you understand we just talked about Ukraine. You You understand you're fueling Vladimir Putin's war machine because they gotta get their gas from him.
Speaker 7:You know? And he looks at me stunned with this, and he said, I didn't I didn't do that. And I said, mister president, you yes. You did. It was an executive order, like, three weeks ago.
Speaker 7:And he goes, no I didn't do that. He's arguing with me. I said, Mr. President, respectfully, could I go out here and ask your secretary to print it out? We'll read it together.
Speaker 7:You definitely did that. And he goes, oh, you talk about natural gas. Yes sir. He said, No. You misunderstand.
Speaker 7:He said, what I did is I signed this thing to we're gonna we're gonna conduct a study on the effects of LNG. I said, no. You're not, sir. You paused it. I know.
Speaker 7:I I have the terminal the export terminals in my state. I talked to those people this morning. You're this is doing massive damage to our economy, national security. It occurred to me, Barry, he was not lying to me. He genuinely did not know what he had signed.
Speaker 7:And I walked out of that meeting with fear and loathing because I thought, we're in serious trouble. Who is running the country? Like, I don't know who put the paper in front of him, but he didn't know.
Speaker 3:Now I'll just explain and clarify for our international audience, and we have a lot of international viewers of this show. That was house house speaker Mike Mike Johnson. He's third in line to the presidency, and he visited president Biden, and he had no idea what was going on about LNG exports. And apparently, a lot of other climate stuff too. Lynne, we we did cover this on In the Tank podcast a little bit yesterday.
Speaker 3:So, yeah, this is quite remarkable.
Speaker 2:Yeah. Well, and I spent some time this morning trying to dig up because I could swear I I had seen a clip before from Biden being, like, snagged outside of, you know, when he was walking outside of the White House or something. And they asked him about another one of his executive orders having to do with the offshore drilling pause or ban that he was working on. And he also denied that. And he also denied, if I recall correctly, some of the other orders that the what's the organization called again?
Speaker 2:I'm sorry, from the Fox News article. Can we pull it up? Thank you. Was all right. Well, that's okay.
Speaker 2:Anyway, power of the future. I was about to say powered, but that was something totally different. So power of the future mentioned a couple different actions and executive orders that Biden signed having to do with energy policy. And I recall multiple of those being ones that he had explicitly denied when he was put on the spot about them, not just from the Mike Johnson one. I had a heck of a time trying to find those clips, and I still haven't been able to find them.
Speaker 2:So maybe I imagine them, but I don't think I did. He really did seem to have no idea what was coming across his desk. And I don't doubt in the slightest that he signed either signed things or delegated to Autopen things that, you know, his staffer walks up to him and says, you know, here's this. Here's a short summary of what this is, sign it. And he just signs it without actually reading it or looking at it or knowing anything about it, really.
Speaker 2:And also his brain was oatmeal the whole time. I think it's a combination of things. I think it's that he's in decline greatly. Didn't actually read most of the stuff that he was signing and also lies. So all of those things apply in this scenario.
Speaker 5:Yeah. I wanna grab onto the last statement, lies. I I think he didn't know a lot of what he was doing. I think there's plenty of evidence of that. But there I think there's there's more than enough evidence to know that sometimes he just lied about things.
Speaker 5:You know, early in his administration, I think the second year, it slipped out that they were planning a natural gas, stove ban, appliances and stoves. And big caused a big stir. And immediately, he was on the air, and Kamala Harris was on the air saying, we're not gonna ban we're not banning gas stoves. Where did you get that? That's crazy.
Speaker 5:We never do that. And within days or weeks of them being very publicly on the air saying that they weren't doing that, they issued a rule that basically banned most guest host except for, you know, wealthy celebrity chefs. They can afford the most expensive ones, but, for most people, guest host would have been banned. And I don't think he didn't know that his administration was working on that rule. I think he just lied about it because it was unpopular and they were getting
Speaker 3:a lot of blowback. Yeah. I like the comment from Kaiwan f eight, the Costanza rule. It's not a lie if you believe it, right? Exactly.
Speaker 3:Who knows what he believed?
Speaker 6:Can I just ask a question? So who do most Americans believe was running things? If Biden didn't have a clue, if it was the auto pen, who who do most American citizens believe was running the show during that period? I'm just interested from a from an English perspective.
Speaker 2:Well, I can't speak for everyone, but my opinion is probably committee. Okay. I I think staff or committees more more than any, like, particular individual, but I know that some people believe differently.
Speaker 5:There is no 99 97% consensus on who was running the campaign.
Speaker 6:So, basically, the equivalent of our civil service, you're saying we're we're running the show and pushing their own agenda?
Speaker 5:I I've heard Obama holdovers were doing it. I've heard his wife was doing it. I even read recently that, Elizabeth Warren was doing it. So I don't think there's any, anyone is is certain. The only thing they seem certain about is that Biden wasn't running the country.
Speaker 6:Okay. Right. Understood. Thank you.
Speaker 3:I mean, Lois, your your question is, who do Americans think was running the country? Yeah. And I think most Americans think Joe Biden was running the country. A lot of Right. Okay.
Speaker 3:A lot of people actually believe the legacy media in this country, and so they were not told what was really going on. In fact, you know, the big controversy on the new book by CNN anchor Jake Tapper, you know, pretending that nobody knew that his his brain was porridge, but we now know because people told us. I mean, it's ridiculous. So there's a big swath in this country that are that are that just believe everything that's just fed to them, unfortunately.
Speaker 1:I'm just hoping it was on Tundra's Hooker Friends, but
Speaker 3:know? Unfortunately,
Speaker 4:it seems that president Biden has given a whole new meaning to noncompass mentors because, I mean, it's a shock to everybody that, well you know it's not a shock to some people obviously but it was a shock to a lot of people that he was so completely out of it that he had no idea what he even signed and then goes on to deny it and so I think now you know when you go to the encyclopedia or the dictionary you look up the phrase non compass dentist, you're gonna see a picture of Biden next to it.
Speaker 2:Yeah. Yeah. And Donald Kendall, also of the Heartland Institute, says that the David Hogg recently made comments publicly about who the, like, de facto person pulling the strings behind the scenes was. And I think that he said I'm trying to look it up quickly, but it's not going very well. Jill Biden's chief of staff is what David Hogg said, which is fascinating.
Speaker 2:I didn't even I actually did not know that Jill Biden had a chief of staff. I didn't realize that the floaters gets that, but I suppose it makes sense. But yeah. No. That's what apparently David Hogg said that it was actually Jill Biden's team who was running stuff, which
Speaker 1:One of the things that that shocks me and amazes me is the justification for this was, well, you know, your elected policy and, you know, who cares if the policy was good? Well, first, the policy was terrible, but let's assume for the sake of argument that you believe it was good. Joe Biden has the ability to hit the switch for nuclear war. Joe Biden is the person we're counting on to respond to an attack up to and including nuclear war. And in and of itself, that is reason for saying we have to have somebody competent and not in vanilla pudding land at at the helm whether you think that whether it's Joe Biden's chief of staff, whether it's some team of blinking at all or doing that, Obama people still, who is the person that has that ultimate ability to start or respond to war, including nuclear war?
Speaker 1:And nobody knows. And that's really the biggest problem in my mind.
Speaker 3:Yeah. And suppose and supposedly, the election of Donald Trump is gonna cause a constitutional crisis in this country. And we had four years of a president who wasn't really president and unelected, unaccountable staffers basically making all the decisions even to the point of the auto pen. I hope there's a I hope there's a congressional investigation into this. I, you know, probably would amount to nothing, but I think the American people are entitled to know the truth, And so maybe we'll get it this time.
Speaker 3:Who knows? Alright. Well, that was nice and positive. Let's go on to something even more positive here. Our second item here, don't shatter the climate.
Speaker 3:Now, I came across this today. This is from the Blue Sky account of a person named Julianne Wingate who seems like a nice person, a kind person that might be, you know, a little misguided and she is 12,000 followers on Blue Sky which is probably a lot for that little lefty social media. That's gotta be all of the over there.
Speaker 5:It's gotta be all of Blue Sky.
Speaker 3:Yeah. It's probably all of them. You're right. Yeah. And so I just wanna go through some of these things.
Speaker 3:I think it's it exemplifies kinda why this show exists. And so she she shares a Blue Sky post and says, don't shatter our climate. Do not shatter our climate. Exclamation point. She has a slide in here that says, here's the plot.
Speaker 3:97% of the world's scientists conspire to create an imaginary environmental crisis only to be exposed by a plucky band of billionaires, senators and oil companies. And then the responses underneath it are actually pretty indicative of this mindset as well. There's a cartoon, somebody shares a cartoon under there of, you know, a bunch of children sitting around a campfire. And it says, yes, the planet got destroyed. But for a beautiful moment in time, we created a lot of value for shareholders.
Speaker 3:Wow, that's pretty hard hitting. And then there's another response underneath that from somebody, what's that account name? Patcat13. All right, sounds great. It says, and he comments, Wealth and power addiction is the absolute worst, most costly disease there is.
Speaker 3:A drug addict will steal their own child's piggy bank for another hit and still go homeless. A wealth and power addict will steal all of our children's futures and leave us all homeless with an emoji of Earth. Isn't that nice? And then finally, one last one. This is an old saw that we've seen from time to time, And it's a cartoon about somebody being at a climate summit and laying out all kind of net zero goals and all of that.
Speaker 3:And somebody in the audience says, what if it's a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing? And so my point here, you know, first of all, shatter the climate. That's a new one. I haven't heard that. So points for creativity.
Speaker 3:But, you know, really what's being shattered here in my mind is that the only motivation of the Greens is to get a better and cleaner future. And that is just not the case. These green obsessed cultists are obviously and you see it all the time motivated to punish Western society and non commies for the freedom and capitalism that succeeded over the collectivists in the twentieth century. It is a common trope among these Greens that all of the profits of big oil need to be confiscated. In fact, it's only corporate greed and a desire for power that prevents us from a sustainable future.
Speaker 3:This is the messaging we hear all the time. But this is exactly backwards in my mind, you know, because if not for fossil fuels, if not for the industrial revolution, we'd all be living in medieval times for real. Life expectancy would be many decades below what it is now. Famines would be more frequent and widespread. Human existence would be more miserable in every single imaginable way.
Speaker 3:And going green, committing to net zero, would bring this all about actually. So, you know, we don't use fossil fuels because of greed. We use it because it is continuing the greatest streak of human flourishing in the history of our species. And so I guess this is kind of a long way and I'd love to get all of your comments on this, especially people in the audience. You know, this is a long way of saying, you know, the climate hysteria has two components.
Speaker 3:There's the doom component and there's the utopia component. The alarmists are wrong on both counts, but we often only focus on the silly doom component, especially in the crazy climate news of the week. But we should also remember that they have this naive fantasy that we can all create a better world if everyone would just do what they say and and give up their freedom. So that's it. I've had my say.
Speaker 3:What say you guys?
Speaker 6:Well, I'd say in The UK, we came up with the phrase that's probably been used in The US before, but I talked quite a lot about big green. You know, everyone talking about big oil, demonic big oil, but big green is actually a much more sinister prospect because whereas with oil, as you oil and gas and fossil fuels, as you as you correctly just stated, it it creates wealth. It creates safety. It creates security for people. Big Green is totally reliant on our money, taxpayers' money, to actually work.
Speaker 6:So we've got lots of examples in The UK at the moment of offshore wind farms and things like that. They pulled the companies have gone bust because the subsidies have been reduced and and various other things because without taxpayer money, there's no such thing as renewable industry. There's no such thing as green. So, yeah, I'd say that big green is a massive money laundering communist exercise. And, yeah.
Speaker 6:And that's that's that's why I'm fighting. So I'm agreeing with you 100%.
Speaker 3:We often do have agreement on this show. Well, not always, but sometimes. It's like we often do.
Speaker 5:You know, I I hate argument ad hominem arguments, arguments based on character or, supposed motives. You know, my training is in philosophy. You're supposed to look at the arguments themselves. But it is funny that they talk about, greed and power, destroying things, being aligned when I think of well, who has been pushing the green agenda? It's not poor folks in Africa.
Speaker 5:It's not the poor in the mountains of West Virginia or along the border in Texas. A guy named George Soros is pretty prominent. No one's ever accused him of being poor. Bill Gates, one of the wealthiest men in the world, pushes the has pushed the agenda. And and power brokers, these are these are power brokers.
Speaker 5:They are the ones that are pushing it, and it's not, I I don't believe it it's it's for the good of their souls. It's for the good of their pocketbooks. You know, Al Gore has made a fortune on the, the green news scam and climate alarmism. He he he was not a super wealthy man before he got into office, but after he sold his share of the television station and, you know, invented the Internet like he did and all the other things he's he's claimed, he's a pretty wealthy man today. These guys are not poor, and they don't represent the poor.
Speaker 5:They certainly don't, aren't overly concerned about average folks and whether they can pay their, light bills and their food bills. They showed that during the last election when they said, oh, well, so what if Turkey's gone up a little bit? We're we're saving the planet here. So that's just a a a, you know, a red herring.
Speaker 4:You know, one of the things that really bothers me about this particular tweet, if you can bring the tweet up again, Andy, is that they're talking about shattering the climate, you know, and it's it's crazy. They get this impression that the climate is fragile and it can shatter with just a gentle push off the table or whatever. And that's not the case at all. The climate is highly resilient. Mean, you look at how steady it's been over mankind's history.
Speaker 4:Yes, we've had ups and downs. We've had the medieval warm period, the Roman warm period, the little life age, all that stuff. But overall, the climate of the earth has been very, very steady and it just it's ridiculous that they believe that it's so fragile more ridiculous even that they believe that we can affect it and the other thing that's ridiculous about it is that whole 97% thing now we debunked that a long time ago not only on what's up with that but also with the Harlan Institute and Climate Realism but we have a new post up this week from our friend Chris Martz who really just took this thing to task this whole 97% consensus thing He just sliced it and diced it and made julienne fries out of. And the point is that when you go drill down into what was actually listed as that 97%, it was something to be on the order of 72 out of 76 scientists that responded in a way they liked made up that number. 72.
Speaker 4:Wow, that's a worldwide consensus, right? Oh, well, they're climate scientists. They're bigger than regular people. That's their whole viewpoint on this thing. And so it just goes to show that every time you really scratch the surface on this climate stuff, it comes up wanting for a lack of real meat and potatoes facts in it.
Speaker 4:It's just ridiculous.
Speaker 2:Jim, you're muted.
Speaker 1:What do you look, Scott?
Speaker 3:Gosh, I pulled a Jim right in the middle of my hosting. I did it again. Good grief. Alright. Yeah, just to tie a bow on it, you know, but it's just this idea that there's a utopia in our future if we would just stop using fossil fuels.
Speaker 3:That needs to be it's important to debunk that as it is all the other bad science and bad policy that is out there because it's just not true. Know, unimaginable misery would be the result if they got their world the way they wanted it tomorrow and that needs to be mentioned. Right. Lots to cover, so let's get on to another one. This one is a little bit more fun, I think.
Speaker 3:This is Climate Clergy Streams the Sads. This comes from our friend Charles Roder over at What's Up With That? And he writes, It's not often one encounters a spectacle so rich in irony and unintentional comedy that it practically writes its own parody. Yet here we are watching the quote weather and climate livestream WCL unfold a one hundred hour marathon of hand wringing and bureaucratic bereavement that makes the average opera look stoic. Launched with all the solemnity of a state funeral, the WCL is the alarmist's answer to QVC.
Speaker 3:Instead of selling miracle blenders, they're peddling fear and nostalgia for a heyday of bloated climate budgets and heaping spoonful of international self pity. The official pitch, a quote nonpartisan event dedicated to educating the public about the catastrophic consequences of proposed federal budget cuts to climate research. The reality, a long monotonous group therapy session for government scientists afraid their gravy train has hit a fiscal cul de sac. The pageantry of this livestream is nothing short of remarkable, Charles Roder writes. With a tone oscillating between funeral dirge and telethon, they've assembled a lineup of fairly funded forecasters, former agency heads, a token youth activist to warn of a future where hurricane forecasts are slightly less precise, unless of course, congress acts now to restore their budgets to previously unchallengeable levels.
Speaker 3:It's like watching a PBS PBS pledge drive hosted by Chicken Little and Greta Thunberg's Ghost Rider. Now, Anthony, this is posted on your website. What's up with that? Did you check this, did you check out this, this little telethon of misery? And perhaps you can even address again the idea that Americans are at risk unless every single cent that was previously spent on climate stuff is spent again.
Speaker 4:Now I did watch it for a little while. Also looked up the list of participants and the list of participants was a who's who and climate alarmism with the strange exception of Doctor. Michael Mann. Perhaps they couldn't afford his fee. I don't know.
Speaker 4:He's got to pay for those legal bills now. But when you watch this thing, these people are genuinely full of angst. They believe that we're on the road to hell in a handbasket when it comes to the climate and the future is dire and grim. And if we don't do something, we're all going to die. I mean, literally, the mindset of these people that are participating and watching this.
Speaker 4:It is a mass delusion of an epic scale going on here. These folks just simply are beside themselves trying to figure out a way to stop this. Unfortunately, they have no control over it, thankfully, because the money is being pulled out from under them. That was the whole thing. That was the whole reason that climate science existed.
Speaker 4:It started in June 1988 when James Hansen went before Congress and said, We have a crisis in the making here. Look at these graphs. These are these model projections. We're going to roast and we need to do something about it. Of course, the government immediately threw vast amounts of money at it, continued to throw money at it over the next few decades.
Speaker 4:And we ended up with a whole climate science industrial complex by the time Trump got ahold of it and shut it down a couple of months ago. And thank goodness he did because it was getting out of control as we had on one of our previous shows when Biden was on his exit tour. The auto pen signs orders to start sending money out to all kinds of organizations. And, you know, and then one guy commented that was doing this saying, well, we're throwing the gold bricks off the Titanic. We know the cause is sinking, but we're trying to prop it up by funding everybody we can before Biden leaves office.
Speaker 4:And, of course, the the auto pen was the reason for that. Biden himself had no idea what he was doing.
Speaker 3:Yes.
Speaker 6:Yeah, Jim. I'm just wondering how much of this is actual faith for people that have no faith or it's just like people desperately, desperately not wanting the gravy train and the subsidies to end. I think you have a combination of both. I think a lot of the young people are fanatical about it. Although Gen Z don't seem to be that fanatical at all about the whole climate stuff.
Speaker 6:They're they're a lot more hesitant, a lot more reluctant. They don't like the fact that things have been shoved down their throats whether it's gender ideology or climate alarmism. But I think the older people just don't want to see the money stop. They just don't want to see their, you know, their green money coming in. So what do you think?
Speaker 6:Do you think it's a balance of both or more one than the other? I'm interested to hear what you think.
Speaker 3:I think it's a balance of both. Actually, I would like James to weigh in here because the climate alarmism industrial complex is basically a government funded operation. Whether you're a pop up NGO planet and you get $2,000,000,000 put in your account when you had $100 in it yesterday, that's a pretty good scam. James, this idea that well, the only way you get money from the government is to perpetuate the climate crisis, you know, to call everything a climate crisis. You put the word climate in your grant and you get money.
Speaker 1:Yeah, absolutely. Looking at some of the gold standard peer reviewed studies. We're told if it's peer reviewed in a peer reviewed publication, it's a gold standard. And time and time again, you know, throughout the twenty plus years I've been in Heartland, I will do Internet searches to see what the latest studies are because I want I want the best and latest information whether it's something I would have expected or something I wouldn't have. And it's amazing how many times there will be some paper that has nothing to do with climate change.
Speaker 1:It could be some random topic but if they throw in a little section at the end about how climate change is making the problem worse or whatever, then all of sudden it gets published in this peer reviewed journal even though it's a piece of garbage, it's irrelevant, nobody cares, it's badly written and it gets published and in academia it's published or perish. So, the only way for many of these authors, scientists, garbage scientists to get their notoriety, to get their funding because they show they've been published is to put in some climate change angle And that's why in university settings, young young students, young associate professors who want to get tenure. If if they want to get tenure, if they want to have a future, even even some of our friends and allies who we work with, who are scientists at universities and the government, they'll tell them, hey, look, we want you to publish the truth out there. It helps what we believe in but on a personal basis, we can't really urge you to publish the truth because you'll be committing career suicide and that's a shame and that's that's the scientific industrial complex that by the way, Dwight Eisenhower warned us against.
Speaker 1:We we hear quite a bit about the military industrial complex that Dwight Eisenhower warned us against. But he also warned us against the scientific industrial complex that would be funded by perpetuated by and corrupted by government funding.
Speaker 5:It's you know, James is right. It's it's not just peer reviewed studies that throw climate in at the end. There are many peer reviewed studies that are misrepresented concerning what they are saying, whether whether they're skeptical or not. You'll have studies that are written that largely, have a skeptical bent. They cut they come to conclusions that are outside the so called mainstream that that climate change is not causing this particular problem or it's not in evidence, in this particular problem.
Speaker 5:And they're good studies. But then at the end, they say, but we're not saying that humans aren't causing dangerous climate change. We're just saying we can't find an inordinate little section of the world. So they have to add that addendum or they'll be accused of being skeptics and undermining the narrative, and that's not how science should work.
Speaker 2:Right. No. That's fine.
Speaker 6:Yeah. That's right. I mean, one of the things that I really pushed over in the British media over the last couple of years, is that the fact that the IPCC reports, if you look at the summaries at the front and then the press release of the summary of the report, they quite often bear no resemblance to the original IPCC report whatsoever. So you have people quoting, oh, it said this in this report. Why are you trying to challenge them?
Speaker 6:Well, actually, it didn't say that in the report. It didn't even say it in the summary. It just said it in the press release. And when you actually delve into it properly, it it they just they just bank on the fact that nobody reads stuff, that nobody delves into the detail. So there's so much misrepresentation.
Speaker 6:I totally agree with you, Sterling.
Speaker 1:Yeah. Getting back to what Anthony mentioned earlier, the initial so called survey of scientists that showed 97% survey of 76 scientists which is supposed to represent the entire world. And by the way the questions were not about the the extent of the so called climate crisis. It was simply as the earth warmed in the past century, have humans played some role? Well, mean, there are most I think skeptics would say yes to those questions and they get lumped in with the 97%.
Speaker 1:So to Sterling's point about how they misrepresent the studies that are published, one of the first follow ups of that first seventy six scientists survey that they tried to validate it with, what they did is they said, oh, well, first of all, these are people dogs in the fight. These were climate activists who they were they said, well, we we read and evaluated papers that were published in a peer reviewed literature and found out if they agree with us or disagree and in our opinion, 97% coincidentally enough agreed with us. Well then you looked at the papers that they cited some of them were by for example Willie Soon. If any of you know Willie Soon, Willie Soon does not believe in the climate crisis but they read his study to say that Willie Soon believes in the climate crisis and then most of the studies that they said agreed with them would be something like okay well according to the UNIPCC because of global warming we're going to have a 30% decrease in precipitation. So we looked at what would happen if 30% decrease in precipitation what effect it would have on forests.
Speaker 1:Well, they're not they they didn't make any independent finding that were causing a climate crisis. They're saying if we just take, you know, just for the sake of argument what some people tell us to believe so again, they they misrepresent the the media, the climate activists, misrepresent the literature that's out there. As skewed as is in the first place, that's not good enough for them. They have to then misrepresent the skewed literature.
Speaker 4:Yeah.
Speaker 3:Yep, 100%. Well, that's
Speaker 2:many such cases.
Speaker 3:What's that?
Speaker 2:I said many such cases. And the thing that's especially annoying is, as we mentioned earlier, the number of people who just tack climate change on to whatever study they're trying to get funded just as kind of like a little funding grab. It pretty much guarantees they go to the top of the pile in whatever field they're in. I think it was Sterling you talked about a while ago, a study on the effects of, deforestation on rainfall in, jungles in South America. And their study had absolutely nothing to do with climate change.
Speaker 2:It was all land use changes, but they mentioned in the in the abstract, human caused climate change is going to cause all these things according to the IPCC or whatever it was. And then they proceeded to talk about none of that for the rest of the study.
Speaker 5:I I was on stage with a climate scientist at a debate in San Antonio who was technically who who was set up as being on the other side of the debate for me. And he told me in the ride in from the airport because he said, was a little surprised that they that they did this. He says, you know, he he was an agriculture scientist. And he said, because I I really don't think humans are causing dangerous climate change, and my research doesn't show it. He says, I I but what I've learned is that when I put out a a funding proposal, a proposal for funding to groups, if I throw climate change in as a possible, danger that I'm gonna look at, I get the funding.
Speaker 5:So he did a he did a study. He did research on the decline of ice and snow on, some mountains in Mexico. And he actually had a hypothesis. It was that, they changed farming practices. They were farming higher up.
Speaker 5:They'd ruin the land below. They start farming higher up the mountains and slash and burn agriculture, and that was putting soot into the air that was falling on the snow and causing the melt, because the temperatures at the top of the peak had not changed. But when he sold it, he says, looking into the day you know, the climate dangers causing the shrinking of ice caps in Mexican, in Mexico and how it could affect farming. He got his funding, but then he came back with the the conclusion that it had nothing to do with climate change. So they have to know how to play the game if they wanna keep their funding.
Speaker 5:But even when they're honest, they get misportrayed.
Speaker 3:Yeah. Well, if they have to do a Jerry Lewis, Labor Day telethon to continue funding climate alarmism instead of taking it out of my pocket, I'm all for it. Let's move on. This is a really fun one and Sterling, you'll be teed up for this one. I titled it, Do Cows Dream of Electric Grills?
Speaker 3:Definitely get that joke. This is a lively piece that we found by a guy named Mike Miller over at Red State and he writes the headline of the piece is taxpayer supported PBS implores Americans to abandon fossil fuel grills. Mike Miller writes, we climate destroyers can't seem to do anything without the climate scolds trying to suck the fun out of every bit of life, either by attempting to guilt shame us or by shoving their climate friendly alternatives down our throats. Memorial Day weekend presented a perfect opportunity for the ever pretentious climate catastrophizers of taxpayer supported PBS to press Americans to kick their quote fossil fuel grills to the curb in favor of climate friendly electric grills. And this story that he quotes came from National Public Radio's Climate Desk correspondent Jeff Brady, who writes, Electric grills are climate are a climate friendly option to fossil fuel grills.
Speaker 3:Summer grilling usually starts with filling a propane tank or buying a bag of charcoal briquettes, but some people are ditching these fuels for a more climate friendly electric grill. Just before dinner, Stoyo Kaczow wheeled his electric grill across his family's backyard patio to an electrical outlet, plugged it in and hit the power button. I mean, you know, who doesn't start Memorial Day weekend that way? It really takes a picture, right? It's as American as apple pie.
Speaker 3:Alright. We continue on quote, you can choose whatever temperature you want. Ketchup says setting it to 500 degrees Fahrenheit on the digital display. See? So you see it's at 152 now and it'll take about fifteen minutes to get to 500.
Speaker 3:Wow, what great technology. On the menu that day were two family favorites. We're making some Bulgarian short ribs and we're gonna make some Vietnamese pork belly. She and said his partner, Don Nguyen.
Speaker 5:Also All American Foods, by the way. Oh, absolutely. Your Labor Day. Labor Day grilling.
Speaker 3:It actually sounds pretty delicious. I'd like to try that. So but anyway, they said that the the reason they switched to electric grill was for convenience. But that's enough from NPR's Climate Desk, which we can hope will be defunded soon. But a recent sir they did note in the story that a recent survey showed that 10% of Americans own an electric grill.
Speaker 3:Now, one, I don't believe that number. And two, anybody who surrenders their gas or charcoal grill to cook their summer food like a real American and as God intended and uses an electric grill on their back deck should be immediately deported. And they move in front of the line, front of MS thirteen gang members and also out you go. Sterling, I can't take this anymore, so, I'm just gonna throw it over to you. You are in Texas after all.
Speaker 5:I am in Texas, and they will take away my charcoal and gas grill when they can pry the spatula grilling fork and tongs for my cold dead fingers. Look. I I honestly didn't know there were such things as electric grills until I saw the story. And I'll comment on that, and someone said, oh, no. And then they showed me the George Foreman grill.
Speaker 5:And I said, oh, well, I have one of those, but that's an indoor that's an indoor substitute for a grill. Not really a grill, but sort of like a grill. It's a
Speaker 1:hot plate.
Speaker 5:Yeah. It's a hot plate with ridges and and a drain. And so maybe the 10% includes all those indoor grills. Right? But I looked into it.
Speaker 5:About 60% 50 to 60% of grills are gas grills. If if you know anything about Texas, we we like our natural gas grills. We also like our charcoal grills. I have both. I have a gas grill.
Speaker 5:I have a charcoal grill with an, an associated smoker. They, the other 30% are charcoal grills. About 10% are electric. Didn't know that. Or there there's some pellet grills, then there's electric.
Speaker 5:Like I said, I didn't know they were electric. The electrics are, I guess, useful if you live in a condo or apartment and you can't grill legally on your your deck. That that that happens. The condo I used to live in, but did not allow grilling on the deck. I will confess now twenty two years, they can't get me for it.
Speaker 5:I had a small charcoal grill that I did grill on the deck sometimes. But I looked into it. And so there are outdoor electric grills, and I kept thinking, okay. Do I want a rechargeable battery grill near my pool where water is being splashed? Do I want electric cord, an extension cord with with plugs near my pool where I might trip over it, drag the grill into the pool, or where the kids who play in my pool might do the same thing, or, you know, more importantly, electro you know, electrocute each other.
Speaker 5:And the answer to both those questions was no. I don't want those electric things near my pool, which is where I do my grilling and where a lot of Texans do their grilling. I just you know, they're really, really reaching for, the dregs. It's like, what can we go after next?
Speaker 6:Yeah. I must say until now. I totally agree with you. I think it's it's like an emasculating type thing as well because I don't know about The States. I'm sure it's exactly the same.
Speaker 6:But in The UK, the whole outdoor cooking thing is about an explosion of masculinity and caveman stuff, you know? And that and that is not about electricity and like, you know, like daintily or campy, like brilliant stuff on an electric grill. Yeah. And also, as you just said, Sterling, electricity, being outdoors, what if it starts raining? Doesn't really go together, does it?
Speaker 6:So yeah, I can't really see this whole thing apart from another woke attack on on something that's supposed to be for men, for blokes to do something quite cool and caveman y outside. Just just tell them to do one.
Speaker 1:So so my reaction upon reading that story, I I two of them. First of all, is this guy is soft. I mean, electric girl, really? I mean, if you wanna make a difference, just take your slices of tofu and put them on the solar panels directly put them on directly on the solar panels on your roof. Why do you need an electric grill?
Speaker 1:I mean, that you're just putting a middleman in there that's inefficient. Yeah. But secondly is I mean, these people are crazy. I'm I'm glad these people are so just ridiculously stupid as far as tactics go. If you want to win people over to your side, if you want people to get on board, I think probably the thing you don't wanna do is kick off the summer by saying, we're gonna attack the one thing that Americans love to do in the summer more than anything else, and we're gonna take that off your plate, and we're gonna shame you for that.
Speaker 1:What a bunch of morons. I'm glad this is perfect.
Speaker 2:I'm thinking there's there's also there's there's one thing that I very much adore my little Weber kettle grill for other than just generally grilling out in the summer and stuff. And that's during hurricane season. If it wasn't for my Weber kettle grill, I would not have been able to have coffee for, like,
Speaker 6:a week when I lived in Louisiana. Yes.
Speaker 2:And that would have been unacceptable. Completely unacceptable.
Speaker 3:Anthony, you're outside. Know it looks like that might be your back patio. Do you have a grill?
Speaker 4:You have an electric? Well, know, yeah, it's just this is totally ridiculous. And like you say, they suck the life out of anything fun, know, because of the climate. So in my view, instead of just talking about this, actions speak louder than words and that's what I'm gonna do here. Got my grill ready to go right here.
Speaker 4:I'm gonna add a couple of couple of hot dogs right on him, and I'm gonna open up my grill and throw a couple of hot dogs on. And I'm going to grill right now.
Speaker 2:This is Wow.
Speaker 4:I'm not gonna take this I'm not gonna take this lying down.
Speaker 1:The gonna be brought up for charges at The Hague. Watch out.
Speaker 5:NPR NPR knows its audience, and it's it's it's talking to, in this case, metrosexual males who have their who have their man
Speaker 1:purses sexual.
Speaker 5:Who who who have their man purses.
Speaker 6:Yeah.
Speaker 3:Yeah. Well Yep.
Speaker 4:Yeah. The other thing about a lot about electric grills, you know, if everybody starts using electric grills and electric cars and the grid shut down, you got nothing. But if you still got a propane gas stove or a natural gas stove, you're in business. You can have life for the next few days while they get the grid back up.
Speaker 6:Absolutely. It's like in The UK at the moment that all of the landline connections are being disabled and everything will be online. So you can have a landline phone. My my nan's got one. But but it will be connected to the Internet.
Speaker 6:But in the past, if the Internet went down, you still could use your landline if there was an emergency or something. And it's the same with what you're saying here. If you if you take away everybody's ability to be able to do things without electricity, if you lose your electricity, as, Ylena just just pointed out, you're completely shookered. You've got no one this you need to have a variety of different sources of energy communication, I feel.
Speaker 5:It's a great way it's a great way to control information. Right?
Speaker 6:Yes. Absolutely.
Speaker 5:You get rid of landlines or hardlines to computers, and you go only Wi Fi. And when the enter when the government doesn't want you to know something, the the system fails.
Speaker 6:Yeah. I mean, we've heard that when there was a week during the seven seven bombings in London, all of the mobile, network, they shut it off because they didn't want there to be any way for any more bombs to be remotely, you know, detonated. So if I hadn't had a landline at that time, I sorry, we're going slightly off topic here. But if I hadn't had a landline, I would not have been able communicate with my family to let them know that I was safe. So it's just about a variety of different sources of energy, communication.
Speaker 6:And it it's dangerous if one person or one organization and there's only one form of energy or one form of communication. But I'm teaching you guys to suck eggs. I'm gonna shut up now.
Speaker 4:There you go.
Speaker 3:Yeah. Well, I I just gotta say, I I I gotta hand it to to, Anthony Watts. He's very brave, live streaming him grilling hot dogs on the grill because there's probably gonna be people in the chat are gonna say, you're doing it wrong, Anthony. What the heck are you doing? It's a big risk you're taking.
Speaker 4:There you go. Hey. At least I didn't pull up Chuck Schumer. Right?
Speaker 1:Remember that? Right. You want a hamburger. Absolutely.
Speaker 3:That's right. That's right. All right. Well, as we say, we have a little meme up here saying that fighting global warming with barbecue sauce to help fight CO2 levels, I kill carbon producing animals and then recycle them into my diet with a picture of a snake. Alright.
Speaker 3:Well, at long last, we've had so much fun with the crazy climate news of the week. Now let's talk about the climate realism on the rise in Europe with our two special guests, James Taylor and Lois Perry, who are coming to us live from Hungary. So James, let me start with you. I know, know, CPAC Poland and CPAC Hungary have been going on for a few years. But just a few years ago it seemed, maybe before CPAC really started to reach out the conservative movement into Central Europe and Eastern Europe, that it seemed even countries that were kind of reasonable, right?
Speaker 3:They didn't have crazy policies. We're still kind of on board with the whole net zero thing. You know, they believed enough of the climate catastrophism, or perhaps they found it profitable to join the Greens in The UK and France and other places and directed by the WEF and all of that. But it seems for me from the reports you guys have shared on your travels this week that maybe the mood has changed and that eyes have been open about what a disaster net zero would be.
Speaker 1:Yeah, absolutely. So going back five or ten years ago and we've been going to Europe for a number of years, our friends at climate and energy. They have annual conferences, climate conferences in Germany. They invite us to participate. So I've participated quite a bit there.
Speaker 1:And talking with people there, talking with conservatives throughout Europe to get them to take on the extreme and idiotic green energy agenda has been hard to do because that's something even even the conservatives in Europe would say, well, you know, that's first of all, nobody will listen to us. We have no way of winning them over and second, you know, well, I mean, you know, this is something to look into. Well, just in the past few years, it's changed. People have understood because, okay, you start implementing more wind and solar power while you shut down coal power. You, you know, you're you're less and less using natural gas as well even though America has plenty to export and electricity prices have gone through the roof and people have begun challenging that.
Speaker 1:Moreover, people are beginning to look at the foundational underlying structure of the so called climate crisis. I mean, the whole basis for them saying we need green powers to fight climate change And it's amazing. Like I said, just five years ago, four years ago, three years ago, it would be very difficult to get anybody in Europe, including conservatives to engage on this. And what I found on this trip is that people are bringing up on their own volition. It's not that I need to prompt them with the climate change topic or the green transition as they call it here topic.
Speaker 1:They will say in and of themselves. This is climate change, climate craziness is one of the seminal topics that we need to hit, that we need to take advantage of this idiocy, both politically, but also again for the well-being of our people. And I don't need to prompt them on this. And for this, you know, it's funny. At the Heartland Institute, we don't endorse candidates.
Speaker 1:We don't endorse parties. We want to produce ideas, and we don't care who which policymakers come on board. But I have to say, you know, within that proper context, it's been amazing when when I look at The UK and Lois here from The UK. She's the head of Heartland UK slash Europe. Nigel Farage in Great Britain was the first person even when the Tories were saying, well, we're we're we're going to compete with the Liberals to see who can most effectively reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
Speaker 1:Nigel Farage had the courage to take that on and say, no. This is this is stupid. And moreover, the underlying climate science that supports skeptics, realists, Nigel is not afraid to bring that to public attention and it's wonderful to see now the rest of Europe seeing what Nigel saw. He was the leader in Europe and what we I think have been successfully promoting for decades which is climate realism. So yeah, the tide is turning and I don't think it's just a blip.
Speaker 1:I'm very optimistic about the future here in Europe.
Speaker 2:That's good.
Speaker 3:Go ahead, Lois.
Speaker 6:Yeah, I must say I totally agree and Nigel Farage did a speech a few days ago where he said that one of his first things that he'll do when he's prime minister in 2029 is to abolish all net zero policies. And he has publicly credited us with being the people that have advised him to to do so. So that's been a massive win for for the Heartland UK and Europe and for the for the Heartland Institute in America. Because it it is quite likely that he will win. I mean, he's polling at 32% at the moment.
Speaker 6:And as James quite rightly says, while we would never endorse any particular party over another, when you do have a party that's taken on board your policy suggestions and it looks like they're going to win, you can't help but be a little bit pleased about that. So if only because your policies are going to be implemented. But since we've been in Poland and since we've been in Hungary, we've been meeting at heads of political parties who have been, I'd say, a little bit today, he said, oh, you know, in in Poland people still a bit funny about talking about net zero and but they've got the confidence and the courage from seeing what's going on in America and The UK to actually say no. We're going to fight this. We're going to challenge the science and we're going to challenge the ideology behind it.
Speaker 6:And we've made some extraordinary progress in Poland and Hungary and some massive connections. And I'm flying out to Italy the week after next to meet with hopefully Georgia Maloney and very senior politicians on our side of the argument. So there's there's definitely definitely a feeling in Europe that they can take on this net zero zealotry and that they can win. And they're inspired by America and they're inspired by The United Kingdom.
Speaker 1:Yeah. And and another illustration. Two years ago, then prime minister of Poland, Matias Morvetsky, to his credit, he asked me to come to Poland to meet with him in a in a very small group of his advisers and me to discuss energy and climate policy. And that the fact that he invited me to come out and carved out time, it was more than an hour, which I'm told was unheard of to get that much time with him. But he he he wanted the best information.
Speaker 1:He saw the Heartland Institute is providing that. But when when really nuts and bolts were were you know put to the test here. He said look I agree with everything. That's why I invited you out here. I agree with everything you say.
Speaker 1:The problem here in Poland is that because of the EU, we can't do much of this change. We're we're trying our best to get information out, but there's nothing we can do. Well, fast forward just two years to now during my trip to Poland, I was invited to speak at CPAC Poland and meet with various people there. I met with with some very influential people at the top of the Law and Justice Party as well as Confederacya and they were bringing up on their own without me even prompting them that, hey, we need to take on this net zero garbage and we need to get the truth about climate realism to people and even if it's more difficult, even if the EU is trying to pressure us, we need to do that.
Speaker 6:They asked for our help, didn't they? Right. To do that.
Speaker 1:Right. And so two years ago, Matias Morvezki, the prime minister who really believed in what we're doing said, look. But there's nothing I can do. Now they're saying, well, you know what? We're gonna challenge that there's nothing I can do because the people are behind us and we have momentum on our side.
Speaker 1:We met with Tony Abbott, the former prime minister of Australia. We met with him. Was it yesterday or today?
Speaker 6:It was yesterday. Yesterday.
Speaker 1:And and Tony Abbott brought up on his own that he he thought there are two issues that are most important for conservatives and Australian around the world, and one of them was climate change and bringing climate realism, the truth out. And again, that's not us prompting him. So that, you know, these types of conversations would never have occurred just a couple years ago, but now they are. It's wonderful to see.
Speaker 6:Oh, there's us with Tony. Yeah. Yep.
Speaker 3:Yeah. We got we got a slideshow here. It's like, you know, you go on vacation and you put in your you put in the old slideshow and make your guests sit down and watch you go. But, yeah, you you talked to Tony Abbott and James, you had said to me in a message, you know, on your travels that, you know, that climate and pushing back at net zero, but, you know, pushing back at climate alarmism has now become and it wasn't the case in the past, that is now becoming something that's very important that the conservative movement globally understands that defeating climate alarmism is key to it's one of the key issues they need to push back on.
Speaker 1:Yeah. Here in Europe, pushing back on net zero was rare and pushing back on climate alarmism was unthinkable just a few years ago, and now that's no longer the case. Well, Go ahead, Sterling.
Speaker 5:Well, I I think it's even more than talk, though. It's it's more than y'all generating sort of allies and and gathering steam. You know, just last year, you didn't bring it up, but, you know, the
Speaker 1:Oops. Sterling has run afoul of big tech censorship moderators. Yeah.
Speaker 5:On a green energy bill, in the EU parliament was about to take place. They brought you over there. You talked. You gave them a talk. You explained the situation.
Speaker 5:The Hungarians changed their vote, and it was defeated. You're actually we're actually having an impact on policy. It's not just, oh, we're all starting to generate the skepticism and and being willing to talk about it. No. We're No.
Speaker 6:You're absolutely right. Yeah. And one of the things that they've asked us to help them fight back against is the is the green the green new deal, the green deal that the EU has presented to them, which basically for the Polish farmers, we we met with the union, the Polish Farmers Union called Solidarity, which is a massive political movement. And they said that they're being forced to to accept grain that's coming in from the Ukraine, which has does not meet any of their standards, which is which is very, very cheap and and which is flooding their markets, and they can't they can't compete against it because the regulations that are being put on them by the EU are so extraordinarily restrictive that they're losing they're losing control of their own markets, that they're having they're lose they said that they were able to protect their farms during communism, but they're unable to protect their farms from the green deal that the EU is presenting. And they want our help.
Speaker 6:Not just alliances and little chats, but they want our active help to fight against this. They see this as scarier than living under communism. They really do.
Speaker 3:Yeah, and like you said James, the topic of climate has come up organically or from them. In the past you've had to go to Europe and convince them that climate alarmism is a danger to freedom Europe and now they bring it up to you. You said that that was one of the two issues that Tony Abbott, the former Prime Minister of Australia, mentioned to you out of his own volition, that climate was one of them and multiculturalism was the other.
Speaker 1:Yes, aggressive multiculturalism. And that's not just Australia, that's in Europe where you see the the forced acceptance of people, you know, we all have a heart. We all want to alleviate the suffering of others. The problem is when you have this aggressive forced resettlement to people who don't share, who don't understand your history, who don't share your culture and your values and it makes it very difficult when they're when people like that are brought in en masse. So, there's a reason why people from Europe are not would not be permitted to massively settle in Saudi Arabia or even United Arab Emirates or Japan or wherever else and it's not due to racism.
Speaker 1:It's because they love their culture. But here, you know, those were the two issues. Climate, realism, and aggressive multiculturalism.
Speaker 3:Yeah. So is Net Zero on you know, I know that obviously Nigel Farage Net Zero is a big part of his agenda. All I see these days, Lois, is that Nigel Farage is going be the next Prime Minister of The United Kingdom because Kirstarmer is a disaster and he's just getting ripped ripped to shreds. Who knows? But is net zero gonna go down in Europe?
Speaker 3:Is it is it gonna be defeated in The UK and in Europe eventually?
Speaker 6:Well, one of the things that I was discussing with James earlier, and you asked me to mention tonight on the show, I was in Runcorn recently where there was a by election, and it was a a really big deal because it was a very strong labor seat. It had over 15,000 majority, which is huge. You know a huge majority. And reform and Nigel Farage's party won it. They won it by six votes.
Speaker 6:And for the I was covering the the by election for Talk TV which is Rupert Murdoch Station in in The UK. And for the first time ever, ever on the doorstep, net zero was a doorstep issue when when they were campaigning. The the people were bringing up the issue of net zero. They weren't having to have it explained to them. But they said that they felt that they were being ripped off by it.
Speaker 6:That they felt that it was you know it was a it was a a money laundering or a scam. The scam was the word that they used. They were bringing it up. And I think that that is a massive massive step forward. And that's a lot to do with Nigel and a lot to do with reform.
Speaker 6:But a huge amount to do with what what you guys have been doing in The US, Trump, and what we've been doing in The UK with Heartland UK and Europe.
Speaker 4:So
Speaker 1:so Lois, tell tell us all now. What does Nigel Farage say about, the new Brexit?
Speaker 6:He said that he announced it at our event, didn't he, in December. He said that net zero is the next Brexit. So there you go.
Speaker 3:It's to god's ears.
Speaker 5:It's also I think if net zero goes down, it will also be in part at least due to reality. I think There
Speaker 6:you go. Yeah.
Speaker 5:I think Spain and Portugal was a wake up call for some people over net zero ambitions. Oh, I think Germany Germany has been backing down on some of their stuff. They've recently agreed. It's it's interesting. They now say they wanna count, nuclear as clean energy.
Speaker 5:They shut down their nuclear plants, but they want nuclear elsewhere in Europe. So I I think it's reality, you know, of the electric power grid. Macron, how many how many riots can he afford, you know, taking to the streets? Can he afford to fight yellow vest taking the streets over, the cost of fuel? How long can he stand if that's going on?
Speaker 5:We've already seen governments change in Italy, and some other places. They haven't abandoned necessarily net zero yet, but they are more skeptical of climate stuff. And I I just think that's that's one, factor.
Speaker 3:Yep. Alright. You guys ready for questions yet? Let's go to questions.
Speaker 2:Alright. Great. Okay. Q and A section here. Okay, we have our first question is from Terry Barnes, who says, better question.
Speaker 2:Why did the countries of Europe subordinate their national interest to The US and sacrifice cheap Russian gas, which is the lifeline of European industry?
Speaker 1:I will I'll flip that on its head, and I will ask why is it that the Brussels elites who wag their finger at Russia and talk about how horrible it is and how America has to spend all their money and treasure to fight off Russia on the European continent when, by the way, Europe has a strong enough economy. They can feel their countries can feel their own armies. Why is it that that that they insist upon buying Russian natural gas, which they still do? Germany still wants to be buying all their gas from from Russia. We can provide liquefied natural gas.
Speaker 1:Yes, LNG, it it increases the cost when you have to, you know, go through the LNG process but as a recent paper that we published at the Heartland Institute shows, natural gas is far and away the most affordable energy source. In fact, it's less than half the price of the next closest competitor. Coal is the second most affordable. Even with the LNG process, still natural gas is much more affordable than wind power, solar power, whatever they're trying to replace coal power that they're shutting down in Poland for example. So, we have the opportunity to provide.
Speaker 1:America has more coal, oil, natural gas in any country in the world. Even exporting them, we can provide very affordable energy sources and the folks in Brussels who are pontificating about how horrible Russia is and and all the, you know, all the things that they'd like to do to Russia and wanna make sure America does it and then they go buy Russian natural gas because it's cheaper because they don't have to go through the liquefaction liquefaction process.
Speaker 5:I I wanna chain change the question a little bit too. It's just why leave the question up, please. I wanna read it. Why did the countries of Europe suburbinate their national interest? I wanna say to global environmental elites who caused them to shut down their coal industry, prevents fracking.
Speaker 5:They can provide their own natural gas. They can provide their own coal. They can keep their plants open. They can keep their nuclear plants open. Why are they subordinating their national interest to global interest out of the UN to, the George Zoros types, and to an erupt of voters in those countries?
Speaker 5:Look. The greens aren't the dominant party anywhere. Why are their concerns the dominant concerns of the leaders of the EU? So it's not they're sacrificing it to to The US or sacrificing it to Russia, though they are. It's why are they sacrificing it to these people who don't have average folks in Europe's interest in mind?
Speaker 1:Yeah. And if Germany wanted to, for its own economic condition say, look, we're going to overlook Russia's aggression, Russia's a tactics of attacking hospitals and schools and you know, whatever else and we're nevertheless, we're going to buy the least expensive Russian gas. You know, so be it but at the same time, we have you know, we have German politicians. We have Brussels that are so insistent that The United States sacrifice our treasure, our put our troops on the line, sacrifice quite a bit to defend Ukraine when you can make a very good case that Ukraine is is the victim here and and should be getting assistance but why is it that America should be doing it? Germany doesn't do it and then buys Russian natural gas.
Speaker 1:By the way, Jim, thank you or Andy. Thank you for putting up the chart with the prices. That was from our affordable, reliable, and clean study that we put out. And this is is data taken from a 2022 peer reviewed study. This is, look, if you're going to if you're going to power your grid with these very sources, let's say, let's just power it with natural gas or let's power it with coal.
Speaker 1:Let's power it with biomass. And we're going to apply the full system levelized cost of electricity. In other words, if you're gonna have to if you're gonna put in place all sorts of new wind turbines or solar panels, they cannot be built like natural gas or coal power plants can be built almost anywhere right near cities. For wind power, solar power, you have to build all sorts of new transmission lines. They're very expensive because the wind doesn't typically blow or the sun doesn't shine best near Detroit.
Speaker 1:So here's how much it would cost and you can see natural gas is far and away the most affordable energy source. Coal is easily second most affordable and look at wind and solar power for people who say, you know, we often hear this in the media, the propaganda. Oh, wind and solar are now cheaper than conventional energy and they never sign any data. They never sign any studies and just like with global warming, when everyone knows global warming is we're all going to die because of it. You hear it enough.
Speaker 1:They think that they say it enough. People will believe it. Wind power is seven times more expensive than natural gas. Solar power is more than 10 times as expensive as natural gas. It's right there.
Speaker 1:You can find the study on our website, heartland.org.
Speaker 2:Alright. Awesome. Okay. We have this good question from, Michael Johansson who says, will a tour come to any of the Nordic or Scandinavian countries? Do you guys plan on going up north?
Speaker 6:I don't know, boss. Are we going to the Scandinavian countries?
Speaker 5:James Taylor in Norway. Lie.
Speaker 1:We'll we'll take a look at that. We have some good friends out there who do a great job. Clintel does a fantastic job. But they count as Nordic Scandinavian?
Speaker 2:Yeah.
Speaker 6:Yeah. Think. It's about. I think. Yeah.
Speaker 1:But you know but we we work together as friends and allies. And yeah tell you what. To keep sending in these questions and support, and maybe we'll take the tour there.
Speaker 6:The grand tour. Alright.
Speaker 2:Awesome. This is from one of our Rumble viewers, DJ Bo, who says, will EU climate policies cause more countries to bail from the union? And who do you think will be first?
Speaker 1:It's interesting talking with some of our Polish friends and and about their frustrations with the EU. They say, look, Poland joining the EU has been more beneficial than harmful. Being a part of that entire economy, getting the benefits and integration, and then, even, you know, with or without NATO implicitly kind of the collective security. But people are getting more and more fed up with how you have the Brussels ruling class. Yeah.
Speaker 1:Socialist elites that are dictating to Poland and other countries. Pretty much the same policies and the same manner that the communist did behind the iron curtain.
Speaker 6:Except worse. They're saying in some way.
Speaker 1:Yeah. So, there is talk and they say for the first time, there is legitimate talk about a Polish exit, about other countries in Eastern Europe. Yep. You know, we don't come. We're coming up with the acronyms.
Speaker 1:But they there's a real chance for that. And if it happens, it's going to be the Brussels elite shooting themselves in the foot because they think that, you know, they they have the arrogance that they can do whatever they want and it doesn't matter what these, previously independent countries think.
Speaker 3:You muted Linea. You pulled a gym.
Speaker 2:Yep. I sure did. It's because my dog is barking again. This show happens to air at the exact time that, like, the mailman does rounds in my new normal. So it's just awful timing for my very annoying dog.
Speaker 2:Okay. So let's see. This is a question. I'm not sure. I'm gonna pitch this at Anthony because I'm actually not sure if any of us know the answer to this question, actually.
Speaker 2:Our friend Chris or Archie's mom asks, our friend Chris Packham has said that the seas around The UK are five degrees warmer than in the eighties. Is this true?
Speaker 6:If Chris Packham said it, it's always certainly untrue.
Speaker 2:Thank you, Lois.
Speaker 6:Okay. But that's sorry. No,
Speaker 2:you're right. What do you think, Anthony? You're muted.
Speaker 3:You're muted as well.
Speaker 2:We're all doing that today.
Speaker 4:There we go. I'm sorry. Yeah, temperature fluctuates on the ocean significantly over years and so so what? You know, it might be warmer this year, but next year it might be cooler. So what?
Speaker 4:It it's not anything relevant. There's no real trend involved that we can pinpoint off The UK that's of many relevance.
Speaker 6:Chris, sorry. Could I just sit there? Chris Packham ran away from me the other day. I had the House of Commons, and he saw me. So I was going to a dinner and he was walking down, he was walking down.
Speaker 6:He had a meeting with a minister or something, and he saw me and actually ran. He actually ran away.
Speaker 1:I'm not surprised. You can't compete with your intellectual health.
Speaker 4:You're a
Speaker 1:menace. But, you know, how many people in The UK do you think on just some given random day say, you know, I'd really like to go to the beach, but the water is just too darn warm.
Speaker 3:I wish the water would
Speaker 1:be colder, and then I can go in the water. So I you know, even if that's true, five degrees. Oh my gosh. The the the end of the world is coming. Another 10 degrees of warming, and we might actually have water temperatures that we can go in and enjoy the beach.
Speaker 2:That's right. Okay. So this is actually this is a good this isn't quite a question, but I wanted to pull it up anyway because we actually have answers to this, which is from K1 who says climate change routinely ranks way down the list of priorities in every poll in The US. I wonder if it's any different in The UK. And in fact, at climaterealism.com, we have an article titled Thanks Guardian for reporting that Europeans are also unwilling to make huge lifestyle changes.
Speaker 2:And in that one, we're talking about a YouGov poll of people across Europe surveyed between 3,000 people in Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden and The UK. A majority of Europeans surveyed said that they were either fairly or very worried about climate change. However, just like in The United States, those numbers dropped right off the second you started asking them about what they're willing to do about it. The Guardian reports that the more a measure would change their lifestyle, the less they support it. They're very into ideas like planting trees and using fewer single use plastics.
Speaker 2:But when they were asked to do things like changing their meat or dairy intake, which I'm sure would be very unpopular somewhere like France, It crashed off pretty hard. Let's see. The elimination of meat ranked 10% of people in Germany said yes to that. 19% of people in Italy. For some reason, we have two for Germany on this article.
Speaker 2:I'm not sure why. 17%. Oh, right. Limiting the number limiting the number of children they had and or limiting meat eating. Both Germany and Italy ranked highest in those categories of like approving of it.
Speaker 2:But it's still a tiny minority compared to the number of people who said, heck no to all of that.
Speaker 5:What you don't understand about that question is that the Italians were saying that they wanted to limit the number of German children.
Speaker 6:The
Speaker 5:Germans were saying the same about the Italians.
Speaker 2:Yeah. No. And then there is another at what's up with that? There's a UN poll that was conducted like ten years ago where people around the world also ranked climate change dead last among all of the things that they were concerned about. So, no, it's basically not different anywhere.
Speaker 5:Well, I think Lois has something to say on that. The former organization she was with, she ran, they did a poll.
Speaker 6:Yeah. So we we did, the the last set of polling that we did, showed that, for the for the first time ever, basically, the the the significant number proportion, majority of those expressed an opinion strongly either way agreed that they didn't believe that climate change was if indeed existed was man made. So our polling showed that we managed to tick the balance of of those that believed in man made climate change. But also the first set of polling that we did a few years before showed that the majority of people that expressed an opinion either way this was a YouGov poll wanted an a referendum on net zero. Though you don't want a referendum on anything unless you want the the status quo to shift or change completely.
Speaker 6:So yeah I mean it's as I say on the doorstep in Runcorn during the by election people they they they don't it's not that they they they don't care about climate change. They don't they don't they don't want net zero. They think they think it's a scam. And this is this is new. This brand new.
Speaker 6:They think it's a scam. They think they're paying a lot more for their energy and that people are siphoning off profits through renewables and green subsidies and that they're being taken for a ride. So yeah the Overton window has well and truly shifted 100%.
Speaker 2:Absolutely. Oh, this is an easy question from our friend Albert who says, where can I find the complete audit and findings that Anthony Watts did on all the weather stations in The US?
Speaker 4:Well, you can go to climaterealism.com and there's a link on the sidebar for the report that we did in 2022, the most recent one. You can download it and distribute it however you like. Use it for a slideshow, whatever. All the facts and photos are in there and you're welcome to use it.
Speaker 2:Awesome. Okay. This one's a bit more energy related from Andrew Goderich, who says Canadian oil sands described to Ann Coulter by Ezra Lavant as fair trade coffee of the world oil industry. True or false? That's kind of hard framing, Andrew.
Speaker 2:But without more context, I really don't know why he's saying that it would be the fair trade coffee of the world oil industry, that it's not using slave labor or something to extract then. Yeah. But that would be correct for all North American oil and gas products. So I don't really know. Do any of you know more of the context of that?
Speaker 5:Yeah, I don't get the question.
Speaker 2:Nope. Okay. Then we will move on.
Speaker 1:If Ann Coulter were as prominent as she used to be, we would all know that.
Speaker 2:All right. Kwan says, when are people going to realize that the locus of power resides in Davos, not Brussels? James, got any comment on that or disagree?
Speaker 1:Yeah. No. I don't disagree. You have in Davos. That's where you have all of the woke millionaires, billionaires.
Speaker 1:Billionaires. The governments that are subservient to such elites, you know, like the Biden administration, like Obama. You know, for them, it's, oh my goodness. If if Bill Gates is for this, you know, this is my star power. If Jay Z says something he likes, this is our star power.
Speaker 1:So, Davos is is where these kinda self professed or people who have the goal of being the ruling class without being elected and then run around democracy put together their ideas and unfortunately, the the leftist media, policy makers, the government institutions that are largely run by the left, the deep state. That's where they look to. That's that's the cutting edge of what's coming down the pike from the left. So the locus of power doesn't reside in Davos and or Brussels. I think it begins in Davos, and then it gets implemented in Brussels.
Speaker 1:And from time to time here in The United States, they work together.
Speaker 2:Yep. Oh, this is a good question that just popped up. From Val Knight Lily. Any predictions on what the global elites will do when they realize majority of people in the West no longer believe in climate catastrophism?
Speaker 6:Another pandemic.
Speaker 1:Well, in in my talk at CPAC Poland, I felt compelled. Normally, I'll I'll talk about climate and energy. And I was on a panel on stage that we did talk about that. So that was good. But for my keynote address where I got to choose the topic, what I talked about was how you know, it's amazing that you have the the leftist globalist elites that'll call anybody who challenges them the modern day fascist, the not modern day Nazis, the totalitarians.
Speaker 1:But what you see time and time again, for example, free speech. It's the left that wants to censor and criminalize people who engage in what they refer to as hate speech or disinformation. In other words, anything that the left doesn't agree with. It's the left that's taking away our rights to freedom of assembly. Just last year, they shut down a public forum with Nigel Farage, a leader of the most popular party in The UK, and Viktor Orban, the democratically elected president or prime minister of Hungary, and they called it, you know, dangerous for public safety.
Speaker 1:It's the left that has prosecuted Marine Le Pen and said she can't run for power in a democracy. She cannot run for, you know, for the leadership of France. True. They have in Romania. They've said that the two most popular candidates, one after another, cannot run for election.
Speaker 1:In fact, they canceled an election because they're about to lose. Yeah. Donald Trump would be sitting in prison right now and for the rest of his life, if not for the election coming when it did. So what it boils down to is this, the the globalist elites, the socialist ruling class, they will stop at nothing. Nothing to keep their grip on power and to aggressively impose their vision, their totalitarian vision.
Speaker 1:It's amazing. They talk about the the growing grassroots conservative movement as a modern day Nazis and fascists and and totalitarians. They are the ones that engage in that time and time and time again whereas the grassroots conservatives are the ones standing up for freedom. And I'll tell people in Europe, I'll say, look, they'll they'll label you that. I know it's not true.
Speaker 1:But also always keep in mind, freedom is primary. Freedom comes first. That's what defines us as conservatives or as libertarians, the freedom movement. And unfortunately, the global elites, they will, without hesitation, impose whatever totalitarian tactics they can to, to advance their agenda and and their hold on power. It it it's it's
Speaker 5:frightening. Yeah.
Speaker 4:The global
Speaker 5:the global elites are using news, news speak from from Orwell. Right? Freedom freedom is slavery. Because I've been called a fascist. I've been called a Nazi.
Speaker 5:I've been called all sorts of things. No one's ever called me a communist.
Speaker 2:But
Speaker 5:I always point out when I'm called that, I said, in in what sense? I don't believe in the government controlling speech. The fascist did. I don't believe in the government controlling the economy. The fascists did.
Speaker 5:I believe in advancing freedom and individual choice. The Nazis did not. In what way am I the fascist or the Nazi and not the people that are calling me that? It's the very opposite. It's it's it's a topsy-turvy world, and it's like I said, it's it's, it's news speak.
Speaker 1:Yeah. And one point to make, it it was the Nazi is short for the German National Socialist. Socialist. Workers party. Socialist.
Speaker 1:Adolf Hitler, how he became a Nazi, started Nazi movement shortly after World War one. The German army assigned him to go and eavesdrop on a meeting of the socialists in Munich that they thought might be a threat to the government. Adolf Hitler attended and he was mesmerized. He loved what he heard. He became a socialist.
Speaker 1:He quickly rose to leadership in the socialist party. What he did was for his hatred of the Slavs, he did not wanna be subservient to Moscow where the international socialist movement was. So he created the German National Socialist Workers Party. They deliberately referred to each other pointedly as comrade. They when when Hitler and Stalin made a pact to invade Poland that started World War two, it was because they had the mutual interest of taking down the capitalist nations of the West.
Speaker 1:And the only reason why hit well, two reasons really why Hitler turned on Stalin, one is because he, again, he did not he he hated the Slavs almost as much as he hated the Jews. And so he could not stomach working with and giving equal share, equal power, equal amounts of land to Stalin. Second, just his own narcissism and and and wanting to take over the world. The Nazis were at their heart socialist and they remained that way to the end. They controlled the economy.
Speaker 1:You could not create a business industry, cannot function without the Nazis approval. It was state governed state run. Whereas conservatives is exactly the opposite. It was a Nazis that banned free speech. It was it was the Nazis that censored free speech just like today's leftists are doing.
Speaker 1:It's a Nazis that criminalized opposition parties and said people cannot run for office. Again, it's what the left is doing. When they try to make that claim and even many conservatives fall victim to this. Well, we have to be careful though about these European conservatives because they're the modern day fascist. They have those fascist Nazi roots.
Speaker 1:And in Europe, you know, it was just forty years ago. Well, now I guess it's, you know, eighty years ago. Just eighty years ago that these they were saying the same thing. No, they were saying exactly the opposite. Don't let them defame the modern day grassroots conservative movement by labeling them as such.
Speaker 1:And I can say it's not just that I emphasize it when I speak here, but I don't need to emphasize it because when I talk with policymakers from Austria, from Hungary, from, you know, what's called the German right, from Poland, freedom is a word that they are using more than any word I can think of. Yeah. They are fighting for freedom, and that's what the conservative, libertarian, blending together that is now the free market, the bulk of freedom because it's not just the free market. That is the freedom movement in Europe.
Speaker 2:Awesome. We love a James Taylor rant when we can't get a James Taylor as And
Speaker 3:I'll just mention that James did give a fantastic speech at cinectpolin and you can find it at Heartland's YouTube channel. It's very easy to find there.
Speaker 2:Alrighty, here's a science question for us real quick. Pop this up on the screen from Nude, who says, do you agree that current Antarctic ice growth is due to more rainfall? Could it be that Antarctica foreshadows a coming cooling?
Speaker 4:It's not you mean snowfall.
Speaker 2:Yeah. I don't
Speaker 4:think there's really any
Speaker 2:that often for rain.
Speaker 4:Yeah. It gets some rainfall up on the northern part of the peninsula on occasion, but most of the time it's snowfall. And so, yeah, that's the way ice builds, you know? You get more snowfall. It compacts and it comes down and it adds more ice.
Speaker 4:The snow turns into ice. That's how glaciers grow all over the world. The thing is that precipitation patterns vary widely and so although we're getting a gain right now, the next decade, we might see a loss. It's natural variation. It's not climate change.
Speaker 5:I would I would add. I I have some questions about that study. Not that there's some gain going on, but all the headlines were, this is the first time in decades. This is the first time in decades. Oh, decades.
Speaker 5:The the Antarctica has been declining. Well, I'm sorry. NASA put out a study in 2015 that showed there was net ice gain on Antarctica, for for two decades, when warming was supposedly occurring, that the Eastern part of Antarctica and the mainland, the the center of Antarctica was gaining ice even as the peninsula and the Western, Antarctica was losing ice, but more was being gained. And that was NASA in 2015. So it wasn't decades ago that this was happening.
Speaker 5:It was a decade ago. And you had a decline. You had a shift, and now it shifted back.
Speaker 2:Yeah. And and with regards to foreshadowing a coming cooling, it's just like the global warming stuff, I would say. It's it's people are, making too strong of claims, I think, with very little evidence. I think Anthony would agree with me on that.
Speaker 4:Yeah, it's difficult to predict the future. It really is.
Speaker 2:Yeah, especially correctly, right?
Speaker 4:Yes. Not like Yogi Berra said it's difficult to make predictions, especially about the future.
Speaker 5:Right. Okay.
Speaker 2:This is a great question from Climate Bell who says, the pandemic from start to finish taught us the characteristics of the establishment beast and how to defeat it. Can we teach that to the masses? This is for anybody who wants to jump on it.
Speaker 4:One hopes.
Speaker 5:I've always I've always said, you know, my whole life, I've seen the government grow. So Sometimes incrementally, sometimes by huge margins, great leaps forward, but I've never seen it truly shrink.
Speaker 1:No. And I would like oh, go ahead. I'm sorry, Sterling.
Speaker 5:And and I've always argued. Look. It's a it's an incremental educated process. You have to teach people the virtues of freedom and liberty, and that's not a short term thing, especially when they're being indoctrinated daily in public schools.
Speaker 6:Yep.
Speaker 1:So the, you know, the tactic, regarding COVID and using that as an excuse to extend the government's reach and control our lives and, shut down dissent. There's a lot in common with what happened during COVID with how the establishment left is treating climate change Trying to utilize that as a bludgeon for us. And we have produced a video. You can find it if you do an internet search for you've been lied to. And the video is actually going quite viral.
Speaker 1:Especially put together as well as it was done by Andy Singer. They're in the background here today but check it out and it's short, it's pithy, but it does present just how the two are related in the sense that this is the way that the, the leftist elites have tried to take away our freedom.
Speaker 2:Yeah. And I would say, you know, to to a certain point, I'm not entirely sure that we beat the establishment beast from in the during the pandemic. We certainly held ground on a lot of in a lot of areas, but it was pretty bad. I mean, people seem to forget already that they were, like, filling in skate parks with sand and stuff. Yeah.
Speaker 2:Sure. It was pretty crazy.
Speaker 5:That they were that they were telling people despite a pretty clear injunction of the first amendment of the constitution that they couldn't go to church on Sundays. You couldn't get to at your church and worship freely.
Speaker 6:But I feel that if if the pandemic hadn't happened and people hadn't started questioning the science in inverted commas that actually maybe we wouldn't. I'm not saying that I wanted it to happen in any way whatsoever, but I'm just saying that people started questioning all the sciences settled after the pandemic, including climate science. I found that people are much more open to hearing about climate scepticism, challenging orthodoxies, challenging things where where you're not allowed to talk about things because it's settled and you know, if you do, you're a denier or an anti vaxxer or whatever. But it did open people's minds up to to challenge things more generally. And that I feel has opened up the net zero debate.
Speaker 6:I really do.
Speaker 2:Absolutely. Alright. Very important question from Kwan. Ketchup or mustard on the hot dogs, Anthony?
Speaker 1:Mustard. Attaboy. With jalapeno peppers, I hope.
Speaker 4:Yeah. That's if I'm hot dogs. I'm sorry. That's just sacrilegious.
Speaker 2:We only have a couple more questions here in my feed. We've got one from our friend Bob who says, what do the various AI websites offer on the reality of climate change? Has anyone really explored that? I know a lot of people say Grok is good, but I don't know.
Speaker 4:Yeah. Well, what's up with that? We use three different AI models. We use Grok, we use ChatGPT, and we also use Perplexity to help us with research. These AI models don't speak for us, what they are good at is doing research for us, finding out, you know, give me a series of scientific articles that talk about CO2 saturation, for example, and it will go find them much faster than I could ever do it.
Speaker 4:So those are really useful for research. So when you ask them to do things like that they come back with accuracy. If you ask them opinionated things such as is climate change a crisis? Well we just had a post on that it walks up with that. Groth by the way is neutral on the topic, and that's because Elon Musk directed it to be that way.
Speaker 4:But the other two, they come back with, you know, climate change is a crisis. You have to do something. That's their opinion that's built into the way that the models were created. So if you want a honest AI to ask questions about climate change, use Grox.
Speaker 2:Yeah. As one of our commenters here said, Val says AI shines as a tardive search. That seems to be right to me, too. Asking it for, like, whether or not something other than very basic things are true or not seems to be a waste of time because it will kind of be wishy washy. And it depends on what they're pulling from, too.
Speaker 2:The like Google search AI, I would not depend on for almost anything ever. It's been like extreme or even the one that pops up at the top of the screen on brave, I would not depend on for anything because it is very wrong and it seems to hallucinate is what the word that they use for it. Like, just if it can't find things with the words that you use to describe it, it will just make something up that sounds kind of right and quite incorrect. So always, always, always double check the sources that it links to because often, it'll just make something up and then give you a source. And that thing it made up is nowhere in the source.
Speaker 2:It made up a statistic on, the number of earthquakes The US has had so far this year that I saw this morning, and it just pulled it out of thin air. And I kept trying to get it to tell me where it got it from, but it was like, I don't know. You find out.
Speaker 5:Now got me scared because that does sound like the machine actually thinking.
Speaker 6:Well, I'm I'm just going out
Speaker 5:and grabbing data that's out there. It sounds like it's actually making stuff up, that sounds like a human being.
Speaker 2:Well, it's not. It's just that it's a computer, like, trying to answer it's answering your question even if it doesn't have information to answer it from.
Speaker 5:That sounds like people. I hear people like that all the time. What do you think caused the car your car to explode?
Speaker 1:Am feeling much better, Dave. I am completely confident in this mission.
Speaker 2:Here's a question from a viewer on X. Rants from Alaska asks, do you guys have thoughts on the BBB about the climate cuts? So this would be the big beautiful bill that just passed the house.
Speaker 3:The more the better.
Speaker 5:It it it it it was a it did not go far enough, but we'll take any gain that we got.
Speaker 2:Brilliant. Nothing else? We don't have any specific favorites from that one? I think we do. We we
Speaker 6:We did
Speaker 5:all the saw on it last week, didn't we?
Speaker 2:Yeah. We did. Actually, yeah. Rants from Alaska, you can watch. We had we had our main topic, I think, last week was on it.
Speaker 2:As Sterling said, it probably didn't go far enough. It seems to kick the can down the road quite a bit on a lot of it, but maybe it wasn't built to do that this time. Anyway Yeah. I'm hearing the music, so I think I'm being kicked out.
Speaker 3:Yeah. It's like the playoff
Speaker 6:That's Jim. That was very subtle.
Speaker 3:Wow. Yeah. Thank you, Andy producer extraordinaire for doing that. It's it's it's like the Oscars. They play the music and you gotta go.
Speaker 6:Well, we're off to an event now, aren't we? Where are we going, James, with the team?
Speaker 1:Yeah. There's a CPAC event. I forget the name of the restaurant. It's it's in my text messaging, but it's the big fish that we were invited to. So we're feeling
Speaker 6:And I'm gonna remove the hat.
Speaker 1:No. There
Speaker 6:you go. Oh, no. Actually, no. I'm gonna put gonna put it back on.
Speaker 3:Once you start with a hat, you gotta keep the hat. That's just
Speaker 6:where Yeah. No. I'm gonna have to do some tonguing and some stuff. So, yeah.
Speaker 3:Yeah. Those are hair rules. So, okay. I wanna thank James Taylor and Lois Perry, our very special guests, for coming to
Speaker 4:us live Safe
Speaker 3:travels back to The U. S, James. Safe travels back to The U. K, Lois. Thank you for on.
Speaker 3:You, Andy, the producer in the background, plus our intern, Ian. Thank you, Sterling. Thank you, Anthony. Thank you, Lanea. And thank you, the audience, for being here with us today.
Speaker 3:It was such a very lively and fun show. Always visit climaterealism.com. Go to climateataglance.com, energyataglance Com. Those are fantastic websites to learn a lot more about climate and energy issues. And of course, always visit heartland.org.
Speaker 3:And thank you again for being on the show, and we will talk to you next week. Bye bye.
Speaker 6:Bye bye. How dare you?
Creators and Guests
