Heartland Daily Podcast

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

We are in the beginning of a mass extinction.

The ability of c o two to do the heavy work of creating a climate catastrophe is almost nil at this point.

The price of oil has been artificially elevated to the point of insanity.

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

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

You know who's tried that? Germany. Seven Straight Days of no wind for Germany. Their factories are shutting down.

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

That's right, Greta. It is Friday. It is the best day of the week, not just because the weekend is almost here, but because it is the day the Heartland Institute broadcast the Climate Realism Show. My name is Jim Lakeley. I am your host.

I am also the vice president of the Heartland Institute. You know, there's nothing else like the Climate Realism Show streaming anywhere, so I hope that you will like, share, and subscribe, and leave your comments under underneath this video. All of these very easy to do actions help convince YouTube's algorithm to smile upon this program, and that gets it shown in front of more people. And a reminder, because big tech and the legacy media do not approve of the way we cover climate and energy on this program, the Heartland Institute's YouTube 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.heartland.org/tcrs. You can also pull out your phone and scan that QR code right here on the screen, and that can help us make sure this show happens every single week. Any support you can give is warmly welcome and greatly appreciated. And we also wanna thank our streaming partners today, that being, our friends at, junkscience.com, CFACT, Climate Depot, what's up with that, and the c o two coalition. So, let's get started.

You know, we have a lot to go over today. I I almost completely threw out the usual format of this show, but we're gonna try to fit it all in anyway. But we have a lot of stuff to do, so let's just get to introducing our panel. We have with us, as always, Anthony Watts. He's a senior fellow for the Heartland Institute and publisher of the most influential climate website in the world.

What's up with that? We also have h Stowing Burnett. He's the director of the Arthur b Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy at the Heartland Institute, and Linnea Lukin, research fellow for energy and environment policy at the Heartland Institute. Welcome, guys. Happy Friday.

Happy Valentine's Day, as a matter of fact.

Yeah. Well, Sterling and I tried to be festive, but you guys you guys didn't even try.

Well, Jim Jim's got his, statutorily required, flannel check shirt for the winter.

Yes. It is quite cold here in Northern Illinois. Woke up to about five degrees, and now it's, 14 degrees. Oh, nice and balmy. That's our high for today.

And I know that we have a big polar vortex coming. So, winter, after being very nice in the Upper Midwest, is now becoming very normal in the Upper Midwest. Before we get rolling, and, I will apologize to our audience here getting to start here. Andy, our regular super producer, is, taking a day off today, and our backup producer, who is normally available, is also not available today. So I'm gonna be trying to host and do all the good production stuff at the same time.

Linnea is handling the comments as usual. Before we get rolling, I wanted to, see if you guys saw this today. Let me see if I can share it on the screen. Yeah. So this was, today.

I didn't really it needs to be there we go. Zoomed in a little bit. So, today, Friday, our new vice president, JD Vance, gave his first big international address. And, it apparently was a a real great address, and we're gonna be looking forward to seeing it, I think after the show, because he talked about a lot of things and was very, very strong pro America and the kind of talking to the European elites have not gotten in quite a while. And so, but one thing that relates to this show that caught my eye, was that he took a shot at Greta, who we kinda take a gentle jive at at the beginning of every show.

And, so, you know, the European Union is really complaining, and they wanna go after Elon Musk, and they don't like what is happening here in The United States. And, JD Vance said this. He said, trust me and I say this with all humor. If American democracy can survive ten years of Greta Thunberg's scolding, you guys can survive a few months of Elon Musk. But what no democracy, American, German, or European, will survive is telling millions of voters that their thoughts and concerns, their aspirations, their plea their pleas for relief are unballot or unworthy of even being considered.

And, basically, that was him talking about the idea of free speech, which is, which is pretty important. So, you know, boom. Gauntle throne at the at the European elites.

Yeah. Well, I mean, I know he, he took some good jabs at, Germany during that speech because they have been actively suppressing one of their, right wing parties, and it's not even a far right party. It would it would probably almost barely count as conservative in The United States. So it's it's pretty bad over there, and he rightfully, took him to task for it.

Yep. Alright. Well, there he is. Anthony Watts is coming back. Could have been an emergency.

These things happen. Alright. Welcome back, Anthony.

Sorry about that.

No worries. We're a live show. These things happen. Alright. Well, we can, get started.

Like I said, we have a really big show to to we have a lot of stuff to go over, especially our main topic of, well, our new EPA administrator, Lee Zeldin, trying to claw back from the, gold bars that were thrown off the Titanic as was said by a, a departing a departing EPA, guy for for Joe Biden. So, we are going to go ahead and get started with our show. And, man, I don't have a producer. I'm gonna have to hit the button myself. Here it

is.

Alright. So thank you, Bill Nye, for our crazy crazy climate news of the week. Our first, our first item will be, this I don't know. What what do you guys sent this to me this week? It was pretty funny.

But, apparently, there is, controversy, I suppose, over over the proper forest management in the state of Washington. And so, of course, when anything good is going to happen, direct action is required by the environmental left. And so, well, they decided to do a coyote die in to protest this. And here we go. So so, guys, I know that's a little that's more than a little silly, but, you know, this, you know, this is what happens when you put theater kids in charge of anything.

And, do any

of you guys think this actually has any effect on the on on the world and on policy?

I think yeah. I think it has this effect. It it it, turns people off to their message. As I commented earlier in the week when I saw it, I know coyotes. I have shot coyotes.

These are not coyotes. And if they think that logging, which is what some of this forest plan actually allows, if if they think coyotes like out of control wildfires any more than any other wildlife does, that destroys their habitat, that destroys their dens with their young, you know, that that kills them if they can't get out, then they're just stupid and dead wrong.

Yeah. This comment from, Samot. I'm not sure how to pronounce that. I had the same first reaction. I said someone needs to get animal control in there because if they wanna if they wanna larp as coyotes, they can they can larp as coyotes on their way to the, wildlife rehabilitation center.

I actually I only give them about, you know, seven out of 10 for this one because nobody's wearing, like, a furry outfit. You know? So it really Yeah. To me, I don't think they really commit, so I'm just not gonna do what they want. You know?

It would be it would have to be a faux fur outfit, mind you.

Yeah. But this is this is environmentalism personified right here in this video. This one video pretty much says everything about environmentalism today, whether it's on the climate side, the trees, the water, the bugs, animals, whatever it is. It's all about emotions. It's not about logic or facts.

When I was a kid when I was a kid, and probably still today, I I don't have any children, but, you know, tantrums were thrown. And you fall on the floor and you go, no. I don't wanna I don't wanna I don't wanna. And, now my my parents had a swift answer to that, which to grab me by the arm and swap my butt pretty pretty good, and and the tantrum ended pretty quickly. So that's what these people need is, swift butt kicking and being locked in a public being locked out of public meetings.

Yeah. Well,

Sterling, I I think you should go out and do that. Well, you know. Well,

I I I like how the adults in the room decided, alright. Enough. We've had enough. We're out of here. This is this is dumb.

I'm out. And as one of our commenters pointed out, this is how you actually lose the argument. Whatever point you're trying to make, it you're you're such an absurd person that you're not gonna be listened to. In fact, it is you're incentivizing the person to take the opposite way and not get your way. So, anyway, keep it up, guys.

Fantastic news. Alright. Second item for this week. This comes from, this was well, we all had this idea. We keep an eye we keep an eye on this.

Oops. Did I put the wrong put the wrong no. I did put the wrong thing up. So we don't need this up right now. Pardon me.

Just one moment, everyone. Alright. So our second item is that, Paris. Has Paris fallen? Have they done the, have they done a Paris has fallen movie?

They did they did Olympus has fallen. They did a Paris has fallen. Okay. I thought that They

did they did back in, you know, like, I think sixties or seventies. They did one called has Paris fallen, which was, you know, about, the Germans and and, people saying, you know, have have they taken over Paris as as it, so I don't know if they've made

a new one. Those those those recent,

Those current action movies. Yeah. I don't

know about that. All and all this stuff. Anyway anyway, it doesn't matter. Paris has fallen. Now, Sterling, you wanted to hit on this, briefly.

So, you you know, you had mentioned, to me this week that almost all the countries in the Paris Climate Agreement didn't even bother submitting their emission cuts, commitments by the latest deadline. And then this comes on the heels of two studies that CNN reported on. One was in Nature Climate Change that said there was a 60 to 80% chance that the Paris threshold of 1.5 degrees Celsius has already been breached. And second, that James Hansen is saying that we've already blown past 1.5 degrees c and that we're likely to get to two degrees c and higher the next couple of decades. So, Sterling, you know, I ask you, has the world just given up?

And, is that a good thing? Yeah.

You know, I don't care about the science crap that Hansen's spewing or the, the other or the other study because we breached it. It's been breached, folks. 1.5 wasn't actually the target. It was two two p zero.

We're having all sorts of technical fun today.

Sure. We are having a great technical fun today. Somebody's this

guy's chewing off.

Go ahead, Sterling.

Yeah. But, the important point here is that a variety by by a variety of measures look. Paris was a failure from day one. The ink wasn't dry. When I predicted, it was a failure.

It did nothing for China. It did nothing for India. They were growing emissions, and nothing we could do in the West would reverse that. And, even the people at the time said, well, this is sort of a paper tiger because all the reductions are voluntary. Everyone submits their own voluntary, and then they're expected to do it, but it had no teeth.

And guess what? I was right. I don't get to say that often enough, but it I'm saying it today. And, you know, we have had everyone talk about Paris. Oh, Paris.

They're they're they're failing to meet Paris. Okay, folks. We've had climate agreements, including a treaty, since 1990. Twenty something years of climate agreements. We had the initial agreement that said, we will reach nineteen ninety levels of carbon emissions by the year February.

We had the Kyoto Treaty that said we will reach 7% below nineteen ninety levels by the year, I think it was the year 2015. Yeah. Twenty fifteen. We've had other dozens of agreements has been signed, much pontificating, many speeches, very public. Everyone, not just Paris, every treaty that's been signed, every agreement they've inked, not a single part has been met.

Funding mechanisms haven't been funded to the degree they said they would fund. Emission cuts haven't been hit. The Paris agreement's no different. Kyoto failed. The first agreement failed, which was actually a treaty.

We signed it. They haven't hit one. Paris is just the latest in a long string of failures, which tells you they really don't take it that seriously because the world hasn't ended despite, at every one of these meetings, them saying, if we don't do it by x date, it's too late. Well, they set goals in Paris to have emissions reductions by 2020. Nobody's met those emission reductions.

They were supposed to, every five years after that, submit goals for making stricter emissions reductions. And this year, 2025, 10 out of the 200 nations submitted their updated emissions goals. And of those nations, none of them met their emissions goals in the last round. So, oh, we're gonna be tough this time. Oof.

We we know we missed, but we're meeting our commitment to set new emissions goals that we will subsequently not meet.

You're muted, Anthony.

I got him. I I unmuted him. Anthony, we missed your joke. You're muted.

No. Actually, I think it's a problem. How about now?

Yep. We can hear you go. Can

hear you. Okay. Great. Yeah. That when I got that errant Skype call coming in, it switched the audio around.

So I'll, not happen. Anyway, I've turned off Skype, so that won't happen again. But, what I'd like to point out here, and Chris Marks points this out, that, yeah, this 1.5 degrees centigrade target was really picked out of thin air, and it was just a convenient target to choose for something that was attainable supposedly. Right? You know, they could have just as easily chosen two degrees centigrade, but they thought this one was one that they could capture the public's imagination with.

You know? And then remember all the stories that we were seeing in the press about what's going to happen when we get to 1.5 degrees c. You know? All these bad things were supposed to happen to the climate, to the to the globe. You know?

We're gonna get worse tornadoes, worse hurricanes, worse everything. Weather is going to be more violent, all that stuff. But the opposite has happened. Weather has become less violent. We've had less tornadoes.

We've had less hurricanes. You know? And so all of the the pronouncements they made based on this 1.5 degree arbitrary limit have not come true. And now they're they're pushing towards, you know, two degrees centigrade. Well, it's really gonna happen at two.

We were wrong about 1.5. You know, it's always moving the goalpost with these people. The other thing is is that that 1.5 degree c breach only happened because we had a combination of a double whammy spike between a a bunch of extra water vapor injected into the stratosphere by the Hunga Tonga volcanic eruption plus an El Nino. Those two things combined, they gave a big spike. Well, guess what?

It's coming down now. The latest UAH satellite data showed that the temperature is dropping globally. So what are they gonna do when it goes back below 1.5 degrees centigrade? You know, they're gonna look pretty dumb.

What they're gonna do is take credit. They're gonna say, oh, if we hadn't put all those emissions reductions in the, you know, that that we've done, we wouldn't have, halted the rise in temperatures. In the end, you know, you've written about this repeatedly, Anthony. If you look at the longest history, of consistent temperature data, We've exceeded two a long time ago. So, 1.52, set your supposed made up because global average temperature is made up.

There is no thermometer you stick in the Earth's mouth and say, oh, yep. That's the temperature, and this is where it should be. It doesn't exist. We make it up. That was breached a long time ago, and future temperatures will be breached, and the world won't end.

DJ Beau makes a great comment here on Rumble. He says, of course, Paris failed. If they don't fail, they can't make new agreements to fail at. That's right. We kinda chuckle at it, but I think that's actually just correct.

That's you know? Yeah. It's the same with every, government agency. Right? If they don't have a new problem to solve, then their problem is over, and, they're over.

So they have to come up with a new problem to solve.

Yeah. I I agree.

I I was at that Paris Cup, and they did pull 1.5 degrees c out of the air. Some people wanted 1.7. Others wanted 1.3, and they pretty much just compromised at 1.5. And, you know, there was all this discussion. It's like there's no scientific basis to it at all.

It's this arbitrary plucked out of the air, as Chris said, political number that is used to, you know, set a standard so that, you know, that can't be achieved, but is plausibly achieved. I guess that's what they were going for so that they can control all of our energy and lives. Mhmm.

Yeah. I would point out that in The United States, when we look at the data from the Climate Reference Network, we've seen spikes of temperature as high as four to five degrees, and nothing has happened. You know? The The United States hasn't winked out of existence due to the spike in temperature.

No. Indeed. Alright. Our our next item up on here is going to be the one I brought up accidentally too soon, and that is our EV failure update. We like to to, you know, check-in here from time to time, see how things are going.

And this is a story from Breitbart, so on how well, it explains itself. So BMW has a conservative approach to EV adoption, investing in platforms that can accommodate internal combustion, hybrid, and electric powertrains, and is now paying off as the company navigates the uncertain transition, say the least, to electronic to electric vehicles. Joachim Goler, a BMW board member, recently acknowledged the uncertainty surrounding the shift to electrification stating, quote, I think it would be naive to believe that the move towards electrification is a one way road. It'll be a roller coaster ride. This sentiment underscores the importance of BMW's diversified approach, which includes continued investment in modern combustion engines.

That's a regular gas power powered car to you and me, plug in hybrids, alongside the rollout of new electric models. BMW's strategy has positioned the company well in terms of the global EV market share. In 2024, the automaker sold a record 426,594 EVs worldwide, representing approximately 17% of its total sales. Surprised by that, actually. When combined with hybrid and other electrified vehicle sales, this figure raises to around 25%.

This balanced mix has allowed BMW to meet EU emission targets without resorting to heavy incentives to drive EV sales, another very important point. So that approach by BMW, and you have to applaud them, is a lot smarter than Ford. They announced that they expect to lose $5,500,000,000 on EVs this year. By the way, they lost $5,000,000,000 in 2024, '4 point '7 billion in 2023. Do you see a trend here, guys?

And the board CEO, Jim Farley, said this week that thousands of jobs are at risk now if Trump cancels all of the EV subsidies in the Inflation Reduction Act. Now, Linnea, I guess credit to BMW for trying to form a workable business plan in the face of the EU and The US, trying to direct the auto industry's future, not in a way that the market wants or cares about, but, you know, just the way it wants. And that it seems to me that Ford has has just been gobsmackingly stupid. Did they really think, really think that the American people are gonna subsidize billions and billions in losses forever?

Yes.

Yes. They did.

Absolutely. They did. And they don't have any reason not to because the, US government has bankrolled, our major car manufacturers making massive mistakes with their investments before. So there's no reason for them to not expect that that would happen, especially since at the same time the government was pushing all of these emission standards and everything that were going to make it more difficult to produce combustion engine cars legally, in the first place. Right.

So, yeah, they had no reason. And I'm I'm probably the least hard on EVs out of this panel. I think, in general, I think the technology is improving. I think that, there's no reason why we shouldn't be, you know, investing in it just because it's a it's an interesting technology. I don't think, I should be investing when it with my tax dollars.

Of course. I don't think that I should be forced to pick up the tab for people's lifestyle choices, especially since right now, EVs are still mostly a luxury lifestyle choice. It's kinda crazy to be contributing to helping people buy luxury goods. The, yeah, the BMW thing is interesting. It was a good plan.

I think Toyota has also been doing the same thing. They've been focusing a lot more on their hybrids, which one seemed to be a better technology in general, and two, they seem to be a lot more popular. I remember my mom I I recall that my mom had a had a hybrid at one point and she liked it. She did went back to combustion engine because I think it was expensive and frustrating to replace even the hybrid battery. But it's a it's a it's an interesting situation all the time, all around the, the companies that are doing the worst on this, I think, tragically, are companies that have a history of, you know, spectacular vehicles like Jaguar or what is it, Jaguar for our British friends.

They, they, they've recently rolled out, like, concept art for new EV line. I think they're talking about going all EV. I think it's gonna be a major mistake for them. I don't think they'll ever recover from this. Something in my eye.

So, yeah, it's it's an interesting situation all around. I hope that, the Trump administration just nukes the CAFE standards and stuff so that we can get a little bit more market realism into the car market, but we'll see.

The, the EV thing is driven entirely not by technology, but by government support and subsidies. Ford, was taking its marching orders from the federal government. The the truth is you will save thousands of car makers car, workers' jobs, auto workers' jobs if you move away from EVs because people, by and large, don't want them. And when government support stops, sales will largely stop. You have, I believe it's Rivian, but it may be Fisker.

Yes. Fisker does still exist despite bankrupting twice.

That's fair.

That recently received another lifeline from the federal government under Biden. They have they have failed repeatedly, and Biden says, oh, let's just throw another billion dollars down the black a couple of billion dollars down the black hole because we like the technology even if the public doesn't. Well, the carmaker should be like an Ayn Rand character. They should say, you know what? We make a product for a profit.

That means satisfying the consumers. We simply aren't gonna make EVs. Not that we're gonna make not that we're gonna accept these government subsidies. We're not gonna make them because we lose money. And if the government wants to say, you can no longer buy a g well, we've mandated it, so you can't sell GM or the government would collapse if they could no longer sell cars in this country.

They certainly wouldn't say, okay. Well, we'll just import all our cars. You think Trump will allow the import of all those cars and the the bankruptcy of every automaker? No. Do you think Biden would have really allowed that?

No. If they just said no. We're not gonna do it. We're gonna follow what the public wants, not what the politicians want. They they would they wouldn't have lost all this money if they hadn't gone down this path, thinking somehow the government support would be enough to make them profitable.

The the the technology you know, Lynnea is right. If people want the technology, that's fine. But not only should we not have to pay for it, we shouldn't pretend that, that that it would exist otherwise. I'll I'll tell you privately. My mother well, not privately.

I'm online. My mother served as scuff law. She has had a, a, hybrid for, about a decade and a half now, and she liked it. And the battery went out about two years ago, three years ago. And she found out how much it was gonna cost to replace the battery, and now she runs it only on gasoline.

She can't get it inspected, so the inspection is a little out of date, folks, because they want the batteries in it and it running. But the point is so she's running on a very efficient a very inefficient gasoline engine in a hybrid. These things are messes. Bus manufacturers are going under. Truck manufacturers are going under.

If the market doesn't support it, then it shouldn't be forced onto the market. Anthony?

Yeah. I guess, really, it boils down to this. EV or not EV? That is the question.

Alright. Boo. A boo.

No. No. No.

And so Perhaps that was perhaps Anthony's wittiest comment. That was all the time he's been on here.

That was top half for sure. Okay. Alright. Let's move on to our to our third crazy climate news item of the week. And it's really not crazy.

It's just something that we do, around here a lot, and that is, climate fact checks. Did I get the right thing up? Okay. And, so we oop. Here we go.

Climate fact check of January. So so the Heartland Institute, our friends over at, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Steve Malloy over at Junk Science Mhmm. We put together if you go to climaterealism.com, we put together every month a climate fact check. And, we just released the January 2025 edition of the climate fact check, and its purpose is to, well, we scan that's what the kind of the purpose of the entire Climate Realism site. We keep an eye on the news.

We see climate lies, and we, and misrepresentations, and we correct them. And so in January, it says here, counter narrative reality versus counter reality narrative. It was a busy January keeping track of president Trump's first steps towards dismantling of the federal government's climate leviathan. It was also a very cold January, and that's what this edition of climate fact climate fact check will cover. So per the relatively unmanipulated NASA satellite satellite data, January 2025 is estimated to have witnessed a substantial drop of 34, point I'm sorry, 0.34 degrees c from last January with with respect to the made up metric, as, Sterling just mentioned, of average global temperature.

This is despite that atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased from about 422 parts per million in January of last year to 426 parts per million in January 2025. That that four part per million increase in c o two is worth about 70,000,000,000 tons of emissions. Therefore, 78,000,000,000 more tons of c o two in the atmosphere resulted. And in January, that was 0.34 degrees Celsius cooler than the previous January. So that is an idea of kind of what the climate fact check is here.

And, Anthony, on this, I know Sterling, you're the one who posted this on our on our website. But you can see there and let me see if I can I can add to the stage a, a chart that looks a little a little easier to read? There we go. So, you can see here from this chart that January 2024, you know, point zero eight degrees Celsius, above the anomaly, and then boom. You can see that January 2025 is a big dip, from there.

Anthony, you wanna take us through, some of this?

Yeah. It's basically a transient response in the atmosphere to two events, like I said before. An El Nino, big one in The Pacific, combined with the extra water vapor, the most powerful greenhouse gas ejected by the Hunga Tonga Volcano up into the stratosphere where billions and billions of tons of extra water vapor were injected into the atmosphere. Now we talked about this months ago that this was gonna start coming down and boom, here's here it is.

Mhmm.

You know? That basically, what what we've got here is we've got a better track record talking about this and all these peer reviewed numbskulls out there that that are saying, you know, it's, you know, danger danger, Will Robinson and all this stuff. It's just basically the atmosphere doing what the atmosphere is gonna do when it's when it's pushed a little bit. So, you know, the Earth self stabilized here. And this is a good point about not having runaway greenhouse effect.

We get this big push from water vapor, you know, and El Nino combined. And what happened? Well, we didn't go into runaway greenhouse like they talked about years ago. The earth stabilized itself. The earth is a self regulating mechanism for temperature.

Absolutely. Absolutely. Very good points. You know, I was gonna pop up the, you you had written about it this week. This story here said no to CNN because I was gonna ask, you know, I thought 2024 was the hottest year on record and all that stuff.

And so you say no. CNN and BBC twenty twenty four wasn't the hottest year on record when all available evidence is considered. You know, that's yet another fact check that we provide here at climaterealism.com and the Climate Realism Show. Why why was it not? What what what's the extra data or the what's the fuller picture that does not make 2024 the hottest year on record, Anthony?

Well, you know, it's all kind of things going into this. You know, first of all, the the the claim is coming from Copernicus. Now this is a a, a modeled temperature system coming out of Europe where they're using, you know, what they call resampled data. And so it's not exactly an absolute temperature measurement of the Earth. It's it's more of an estimate than an actual measurement, and so there's that.

And then I will point out the fact that, you know, we've had these other two things happen, you know, the water vapor from the Hunga Tonga and also for the El Nino. So you combine that, along with the fact that we've got so much bias in the surface temperature measurement system. You know? It's just basically not surprising at all that they would make these claims. But when you look at the UAH data, it's not as high, the the satellite data.

But, of course, they don't like to look at the satellite data. Here's the craziest thing. NASA, Goddard Institute for Space Studies won't even recognize the satellite data. In fact, Gavin Schmidt, the guy who runs it now after James Hansen retired, would not even appear on stage with, doctor Roy Spencer who runs the satellite record because he wouldn't he didn't wanna acknowledge its validity. So NASA, who does satellites, won't even acknowledge the validity of a satellite temperature.

How crazy is that?

I'm I'm not I don't I don't think Gavin's still there. Under Gavin, what they did was not just not acknowledge it. They have a whole unit set up at, Alabama Huntsville that managed, NASA satellites, that calibrated them, that that that set them up, that that, made sure they were in good order. And under Gavin Schmidt, they jettisoned all that after decades of investment and said we're gonna use a private party satellites. Why?

Because the private party started to skew their satellite data to adjust it upward.

Yeah. That's our SS.

That's the RSS feed. But in recent years, even the RSS feed has come down. So, you know, NASA's NASA's stuck. They are trying to massage the data, basically, with a with a meat cleaver. And and the people who are the, keepers of the data, they're saying, well, even we can't be stretched that far.

Sorry. Even even we can't go along with you. And so my suspicion is that NASA's got about to go back when the contract's up to UAH because RSS is not giving them what they need.

Right. Right. And, you know, there there was there's so much climate and energy and environment news to cover this week that a leading contender was that Elon Musk's Doge team, headed into the offices of Noah this week, and that employees at Noah are are shaking with fear, of what may happen to them in their careers and and to all of this stuff. So, we are keeping an eye on that. That might be a good topic for next week, but, it's a new day.

And we're hoping and, watching that science and not politics will start to, be the pre the predominant thought process in in some of these, very important federal agencies. So

If if you have any sense of of mercy or humanity, you hope that Noah's main buildings are not very tall and that all of her windows are locked and can't be opened when Noah goes in there.

Yeah. That's true. Alright. We'll leave that we'll leave that there. I wanna get onto our main topic today, which which, the more I looked into this this, this this week, the the angrier I got.

I'm not trying to I'm not trying to induce global anger or even anger just in our little circle of friends here, but goodness gracious, I got a little upset. So as you may have heard, actually, because it was covered here on this show, not, too long ago, and that actually was on December 6 that we covered the undercover Project Veritas, expose in which an EPA employee under Biden, whose responsibility it was to shovel money out of EPA to all these NGOs and all these things that were that were happening. They were happening for years in our government. But the American public was completely ignorant of it. We had no idea this was happening.

And so, you know, he talked about, you know, throwing what he considered throwing gold bar gold bars off the Titanic before, you know, a real captain came in and took the wheel. And, well, we have some good news on that front. You may have seen this video. I've I've clipped a little bit little bit of it, but this is our new EPA administrator, Lee Zeldin, and, he's not gonna take it anymore. Let let me roll this video for everybody.

An extremely disturbing video circulated two months ago featuring a Biden EPA political appointee talking about how they were tossing gold bars off the Titanic, rushing to get billions of your tax dollars out the door before inauguration day. The gold bars were tax dollars, and tossing them off the Titanic meant the Biden administration knew they were wasting it. Fortunately, my awesome team at EPA has found the gold bars. Shockingly, roughly 20,000,000,000 of your tax dollars were parked at an outside financial institution by the Biden EPA. This scheme was the first of its kind in EPA history, and it was purposely designed to obligate all of the money in a rush job with reduced oversight even further.

This pot of $20,000,000,000 was awarded to just eight entities that were then responsible for doling out your money to NGOs and others at their discretion with far less transparency. Just under $7,000,000,000 was sent to one entity called the Climate United Fund. I'm sure you and I now have some of the same questions. How do these organizations decide how to allocate funding? How much money have they given out so far and to whom?

Are there any former Biden EPA staffers who are now working at these entities? The financial agent agreement with the bank needs to be instantly terminated, and the bank must immediately return all of the gold bars that the Biden administration tossed off the Titanic. EPA needs to reassume responsibility for all of these funds. We will review every penny that has gone out the door. I will be referring this matter to the inspector general's office and will work with the justice department as well.

The days of irresponsibly shoveling boatloads of cash to far left activist groups in the name of environmental justice and climate equity are over.

Yeah.

Yeah. We should be so lucky. And I apologize to the viewers and the listeners. The, audio was apparently kind of low. I didn't mean it to be that low.

I thought I boosted it, but thank goodness I put captions so that you could all read what was going on there. But you may have you may have heard there that and I actually had to listen to this twice because I thought this can't be right. This can't be right. That, that they they gave 7,000,000 doll billion billion would it be? I'm sorry.

This is like like I said, I couldn't believe it. $7,000,000,000 to one outfit, and that outfit is called the, climate is called Climate United. And I actually went to their website. I have it here on screen. It reads, leveraging its $6,970,000,000 reward from the Environmental Protection Agency's National Clean Clean Investment Fund.

So that's the gold bars that were being shoveled out of, off the deck of the Titanic because this grant was awarded in, November after the election. Climate United is launching this new innovative program to provide up to 30,000,000 in technical assistance and planning support for community led projects that increase energy independence, resiliency, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and pollution, and save money. Pre development grants of up to $300,000 will be awarded over the course of multiple application rounds. The first round of Climate United Next grants will support clean energy products in native communities and will be open to nonprofit organizations, state and local entities, Indian tribes, and institutes of higher education. And the deadline to apply for the first round of Climate United next grants is 02/24/2025 with the announcements planned for late February.

So we missed out, guys. We missed out on this. Now let me what's really remarkable about this and something I you know, a little bit of research I did, Climate United was founded in 2023, and they instantly get access to literally billions of our taxpayer dollars. And I looked at their, twenty twenty three nine ninety form. They had, total revenues in their first year of, 555 I'm sorry, $557,000.

And then by the end of the following year, they're awarded a grant of $6,700,000,000 with no record of good governance or even competence in this field. That is insane, people. That is insane. Now this is a long setup, but you guys are gonna get to go crazy because I get to go crazy now. So

I have You know, it's it's it's Go ahead. Projection on the left. You know? The pro they're always saying about us, you know, like, these these these folks over at, you know, some of these different outfits that slam us all the time. Oh, they I never you know, the Heartland Institute, they're the evil ones.

They're getting millions of dollars from big oil. Billions.

Billions.

Oh, you

know? We're they're getting billions. Right?

Literally billions.

Imagine what we could do with a million dollars. We don't even have that.

Right. It's it's it's crazy. And so here I have on the screen our our friend, Stephen McIntyre, and you probably a lot of our listeners and viewers, and I know everybody on this panel recognizes that name. He, along with, Ross McKittrick, exposed the fraud. I that's what I said, Michael Mann, the fraud of the hockey stick, with with without a doubt.

He notes that the Climate United Fund, in in which Biden appears to have parked 6,970,000,000.00 of our dollars, is a coalition of three five zero one c three organizations, Calvert Impact Capital, Community Preservation Corporation, and Self Help Credit Union. That's perfect. They are helping themselves, as Steve Malloy joked on x, to our money. He looked very quickly at the financial statements, did, Steven McIntyre, at each of these three participants. Calvert impact shows a 2023 balance sheet of $520,000,000 portfolio investments and a hundred and $54,000,000 in cash.

Now if they have that kind of money, why aren't they spending their money to do all of these good these good things for the environment instead of taking $7,000,000,000 of our money? And this is just one entity that got funds. Who knows how many there are? And and and how many shell groups are out there to make it get making it hard, to track the money. And I just wanna go ahead.

You're I got more, but go ahead. I got more good stuff.

Criticism is totally unwarranted because these people are saving the planet, and that's all that matters. You know,

they're they're saving nothing, and they're they're filling their pockets.

I want yeah. I wonder what the overhead is like at these NGOs.

Well, now you you you know you you now know what the overhead is like. Charity Navigator would give these guys a zero, a a a negative star. How do you know that? 6,700,000,000. They're gonna spend 30 or what it was either 30 or 300,000,000 helping, people get clean green homes.

What happened the other $6,697,000,000 that you received? That's like the overhead there is, like, 99%. It's it's it's we're keeping it for ourselves, but we're gonna give a little, you know, we're gonna give a little bit to the to help the poor and the natives, put solar panels on their homes. But we gotta steward the rest of that, you know, for for climate change over time. Wow.

Yeah. That's that's that's gall, man. That's gall to receive $6,700,000,000

and say you're gonna spend less than 1%. The the idea that it is remotely appropriate to give $7,000,000,000 to one NGO that incorporated two not even two years ago is so absolutely crazy. It's like you would you would have to if there was a smidge of an instinct for good governance in The United States, somebody would raise their hand and go, are we sure about that? I mean No transparency. Literally just went into business, like, on Thursday, and we're gonna give them $7,000,000,000.

And, again, this money, they make their little announcement of what we're gonna do, apply for your grants. Is there any oversight about that? Is anybody auditing this? Is anybody saying, hey. You are now dispersing $7,000,000,000 of our tax money.

Is anybody watching and wondering where it's going, who it's for, what is happening? No. There's no auditing of any of this. So which is why all this kind of nonsense has to stop. One more example that kind of, you know, made me go crazy.

It's not at the scale of $7,000,000,000. It's only $20,000,000. So everybody just calm down. This is fine. Right?

So $20,000,000. Our friend Steve Malloy at Junk Science on x, alerted me to this. There's a nonprofit called Democracy Green. Democracy Green was was formed in twenty in twenty eighteen, according to its website, but it only actually got its proper five zero one c three nonprofit status, which the Heartland Institute has had since 1984, so forty years. They only got their five zero one c nonprofit status.

They only bothered getting around to it in 2023. It doesn't have a nine ninety form on its website like you can find on heartland.org. And it but it recorded no it reported no income at all at all in 2023. And then the next year, the very next year, it gets a $20,000,000 grant from e from Biden's EPA to pursue, quote, unquote, climate justice. That is insane.

That is wasteful. This this outfit, nobody knows what they're doing, why why they're doing it. You know, their they're, they're they're things that like, you you can read it up on the screen here. Let me see if I can bring it up full fuller screen so it's easier to read. Yeah.

It says, as we stand on the brink of transformative change for our communities, this grant of $20,000,000, from US EPA represents not just funding, but a profound commitment to justice, resilience, and sustainability. And this, they apparently got $20,000,000 by pitching to EPA a, quote, unquote, clean water is safe water initiative. Well, no kidding. Clean water is safe water. You you're supposed to give someone $20,000,000 because they can write that sentence.

I mean, this is, guys, this is the tip of the iceberg of the amount of graft that the environmental left gets, from us, the taxpayers. We we there we give no consent to the use of our tax money, our hard earned money for this sort of stuff. And then as as Anthony, as you pointed out earlier, the converse is true of organizations like the Heartland Institute and CFACT and CEI and, you know, other, you know, climate realism groups. We are not swimming in in endless millions and dollars, maybe even billions of dollars of money. All of the money, all of the money in any real sense of the term, goes to the environmental left.

And they've been using it to suppress our speech, to to impose, terrible policies in The United States and around the world. And now, thank you, Elon Musk is exposing this for the first time in detail to the world. I'm my rant's over. Go ahead.

Yeah. So no transparency, no accountability because they didn't draw up contracts. You know, normally, when you have a contractor, you say, oh, well, we'll give you this money, but here are the things you have to meet, and we're gonna do do your audits. Biden didn't go through any of that. They they just shoveled it out the door.

They didn't have time to. This isn't the first round they've done it. They did it last year as well, with with groups that had just formed. One of them was working out of their, like, their mother's basement or his bedroom. He'd had $2,500 in income the previous year.

Got hundreds of millions of dollars. It's it's it's madness. And as much as I expressed concern last week, like my dog is expressing now Your

your dog's more upset than you are. Yeah.

Well, she sees somebody somewhere in the horizon. The, about Doge and the treasury, whatever else whatever else you say about Elon Musk and Doge and what's going on there, they are complaining. The dems are complaining about, what Doge is doing, not about what Doge is finding. And the largest, the benefit the the biggest benefit that will come from Doge is all the transparency, all the truth that is coming out. We have had inspectors general who have reported on this crap before, and they were routinely ignored by congress.

He has the megaphone, and he's put it out there, and it's gonna be hard to ignore. So, you know, kudos to Doge for that, exposing this crap. I hope they can claw back that $20,000,000,000. It's not a done deal. I hope they can claw well, you say done deal.

If it's in your pockets, go to court and see if you can take it back.

That's right.

You say done deal, I say the courts will have a say in that.

Yeah. Every Monday that was sent out illegally, so it should be a legal matter to get Well,

right now, you say sent out illegally, they will say there's a congressional there was a inflation reduction act that had this spending, and Biden spent it under the inflation reduction act. I mean, look. I just don't think it's gonna be as simple as we all hope. Whatever's money is in that bank, maybe they can get that back, but, they spent $7,000,000,000 to somebody. It's it's in their bank account.

And what they'd say is possession is nine tenths of the law. So let the lawsuits be filed. We'll see how much we get back. I hope they can claw it all back. Anything that's not spent.

We already know they've stopped spending on the EV, charging stations. That's a blessing. We spent billions of dollars on EV charging stations and got 58 whole chargers at about 16 stations around the country. What a what a waste that has been. Most expensive charging stations, ex in existence.

So Doge is is doing the the country a service, whether it's democracy in action, whether it's being legal, you know, done done properly. I can't speak to that. What I can say is they're showing they're opening people's eyes to just how badly their government function and misspends their hard earned money.

Yeah. Well, I mean, what more could you could I add? I I just what people should realize about this is is that this isn't like a new thing that just started under Biden. This isn't just a new thing even that started under Obama. This has been how our government has worked for decades.

There's billions and trillions of dollars at play, and it just goes

I don't know.

It goes somewhere. It it just evaporates into the wind as far as we're concerned. I mean

Except I think to one extent, you're wrong. I think this last batch of funding that Biden just at the the gold bars they were shoveling Titanic, it wasn't done in a normal way.

No. This was particularly egregious. But I'm saying in terms of the overall, like, where do our tax tax dollars go, especially when it comes to, you know, the the climate related funding we've been talking about on this show for a long time, the fact that it's very likely that a vast majority of climate spending is actually just like, thinly veiled money laundering for people's personal projects.

Yeah. Yeah. I mean, what when when the Biden administration says we are going to invest in climate justice, people are like, oh, alright. Whatever. This is what they're doing.

They're sending millions of dollars to non to non governmental organizations that seem to be entirely funded by the government, which does not actually make them then a non governmental organization. But, you know, outfits that literally propped up yesterday.

They

did it's in it's in it's unbelievable. Look, we're in the nonprofit world. It is unbelievable to to establish a five zero one c three nonprofit one year, and then the next year have 30,000,000, 20 million, you know, then in one case, $7,000,000,000 in your pocket. It's impossible. The the the five zero one c threes that actually operate under the charity of the people, take a you know, work very hard and and cherish every dollar that is donated to them.

These groups, they just get your money from the taxpayer. And who knows what this group, you know, climate democracy you put the word democracy in your five zero one c three and there's a democrat in office, good for you. You're probably gonna get some government money. But democracy green just pops up out of nowhere and gets $20,000,000. I mean, I don't mean to pick on them.

Alright. I do mean to pick on them because they are a great example of how this scam works. What what could they possibly do? What expertise do they have to properly spend 20, $20,000,000 to make the water cleaner in in rural North Carolina? Let's be I've never heard of

water treatment plants over there or something.

Let's be clear. Republicans are should be on the record right now. We should hold them accountable. This is getting exposed. Any Republican that defends this spending, that doesn't say we're clawing this back, we're stopping it.

It will never happen again at this stage. They're on the other side. They are your enemy. They're not your friend no matter what they say when they run for election the next time. Oh, I'm a conservative.

They're not conservative if they don't end this craziness. Now, you you you just can't have that kind of, of of madness. I was gonna say something about the 20,000,000, but it was like it's like just no accountability. I can't imagine what they would, spend this on, except conservative used to rail used to rail about the welfare, mother who drove the Cadillac and had the the cell phone. Small potatoes, folks.

This lady is the is the biggest you know, not just this lady, but the other group, the the 6,700,000,000. You think they're gonna be driving, subcompacts? Their offices aren't expanding dramatically. They're getting all new upgraded computer systems. They're you know, these are the welfare mothers of the modern age.

It's all green. And if and if we're not gonna if if conservatives aren't willing to attack that, you know, when they went after these little, you know, these these these poor people in the slums who had a a Cadillac, a large screen TV, and a cell phone, then the Republicans are just illegitimate as well.

You know, listening to all this, I wanna say this has been the most rant tastic episode ever.

Well, I am the archbishop of Ranterbury, I believe. Yeah.

I don't know.

Give you I'm gonna give you one of those hats after your comment last

night. Hat.

Alright. Let's go let's go on to q and a, Linnea. We're, we're already running a

little late, but we have

a lot of comments.

Sure thing. Yes. We sure do. I'm gonna put this up here for a second. This is from David Voigt who says, do we get to judge the rants from today's show?

Yeah. Maybe we can put up some kind of meter or something. You know? Rant o meter.

Yeah. Okay. And then this comment that just came up from data 12 on, Rumble. I thought he was this question says, how many artifacts are recorded with University of Wyoming located from the state of Wyoming? How many millions?

One to 2,000,000? And, I wasn't really sure what you were talking about at first, and I was about to get excited because I thought you were talking about, like, the University of Wyoming's, fossil museum. And I was gonna say they're almost all from Wyoming. But the millions doesn't make any sense at all. And then you clarified.

You said how many of the artifacts show global climate change? I'm not sure what artifacts we're talking about. Are like temperature artifacts? I I don't really know. You might wanna clarify this question a bit more data, and we'll get back to you.

Let's go to questions from the beginning of the show. As always, we have at least one grand solar minimum question. He says Ted Clark says, please address the upcoming grand solar minimum. I think, Anthony, you can take that one. But I think, basically, the answer is gonna be we don't we don't really know when the grand solar minimum is gonna be.

So It it I mean,

it's a fact that it hasn't occurred. And so it's it's a non thing. It it it doesn't exist yet.

Yep. So we can't really it's it's very, very it's a way more difficult to predict space weather than it is to predict earth weather, and that's already pretty hard. So alright. Brian says, do you think the c the the CRs will be remonetized anytime soon given the way that the government has gone, I assume. I think that's asking about us.

Are we gonna be remonetized, Jim?

Oh my gosh. The no. I don't I don't anticipate it. You know, we're gonna keep applying, but I you know, it would be nice. It's not even just look.

We didn't make hardly any money, like, on Super Chats. We do appreciate everyone who did give us a Super Chat back in the day when we were monetized. That's not really the most valuable part of being monetized. Being monetized puts you kind of, like, on the upper levels, you know, on the top shelf of shows and channels. Because if you're demonetized, the algorithm thinks that you're not as good or maybe shady.

And so, you know, that's why we were demonetized. It was because we were making so much money or anything like that. It was to get us off of the preferred part of the algorithm, and so that's why we wanna get back to it. And we will keep applying, but, you know, you you you keep you keep trying and it doesn't work, and you start to not try to get your hopes up. So

You gotta you gotta remember you gotta remember that, where we were demonetized, which is YouTube, isn't owned by Musk. Right. That's owned by one of the people who's not caving immediately and as much to the Trump administration or working with them as much. YouTube is owned, I believe, by Bezos', Google.

Bezos does own Google. Bezos is Amazon, but it's it's owned by Google. Right?

Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. And we're on Rumble. You you could we're you know, you can, you know, put a few a few coins in the in the tin can for us on Rumble if you like. But, you know, YouTube is where most of our viewers are, and so we like to get that fully up.

We'll see.

Yep. Yeah. And Charles Rotter says, how's Rumble doing? Rumble is Rumble is okay, Charles, for the, you know, 100 people that use it. It's it's, you know, it doesn't have quite the base built up yet for this kind of content.

Who knows? Maybe it will in the future. For now, YouTube and x seem to be where it's at. So we're gonna stick around on all of the accounts that we can, for as long as we can. Alright.

Here's a question from our friend Chris in New Zealand who says, question regarding Paris. What sanctions, if any, will USA suffer due to withdrawing from Paris? New Zealand Government is fearful that we will suffer somehow if we withdraw.

Well, gosh. The UN will say bad things about us. That's about it.

You gotta remember, Paris had no penalties. Paris had no, there there was no legal mechanism to enforce it. It was the Paris agreement was go back to your countries, develop your own climate goals in line with keeping it to 1.5, but it was all voluntary. And so you can't be punished for not meeting a voluntary goal.

Yep. Absolutely. Thank you very much. Okay. I'm gonna hit this question from David Voigt again, who says, didn't we have worsening tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, and wildfires?

No. Any any additional information? So no, guys. Despite the increase in media cover, a lot of this is gonna be a media coverage kind of artifact that we're seeing when it comes to how it feels like hurricanes and tornadoes and earthquakes and wildfires are getting worse. They're actually not, you know, when you look at the data.

So, no, climate change is not causing an increase in these events. And also geoengineering is not causing an increase in these events. They're not increasing.

What geoengineering?

Well, what I'm saying, Anthony, is that that there's there is a there is something that's floating around out there right now where people are saying there's an increase in these extreme weather events because the government is doing it or because some

Oh, yeah. I don't know.

I don't know. Doing it.

Crazy cloud.

But but what I'm saying is if if that was the case, you would see it in the data, and it's not in the data. So Right. No. It's it's just not happening. Alright.

Let's go to Chris. Oh, we already got one from Chris. Hang on. Sorry, Chris. We're gonna get someone else before we get to you again.

Alright. Above us only, Skye asks, how much of it of the heat from El Nino and stuff last year, was absorbed by the oceans? And, also, I think, solar and

talking about carbon dioxide or money?

Well, who knows? I think this is

throwing the bars off the Titanic. Right? You know? How much of them drove by the engine?

I think I think this question above us only, Skye can, clarify in the comments if he's still listening. But, yeah, because that

would I would be out, folks. When you make a comment, it may be obvious to you, but it's not obvious to us. So please elaborate just a little bit.

Yeah. Because we can only get to these kind of towards the end of the show. I try to bring them up if if I can live, but it's a lot easier for us to do it during q and a. So if you can add just a little bit of context to your question when you put it in, that helps. But I think that this comment came up while we were talking about the the extreme the, climate fact check section, with last year being a good little spike on the temperature chart.

So, Anthony, you got anything for this?

I'm sorry. I don't have the context to answer. I I really don't. I'm not trying to be facetious. Oh.

I don't know. Here's above us only sky is clarifying the c o two. If there's how much c o two was is gonna be absorbed by the oceans?

Alright. The oceans are the big kahuna of c o two sinks on the planet, and they are outgassing right now because the the planet is getting warmer naturally. We've had a natural variation that occurred since around 1850. Planet has gradually gotten warmer, and so there's been some outgassing of c o two from or not some, a lot of outgassing of c o two from the ocean. And the reason for this is because the warmer it gets, the less c o two solubility there is in water.

And you can prove this to yourself, if you, want to take this risk. Get yourself a soda pop bottle and put it in your car under the sun, and then try to open it, and it'll right? But if you do the same thing and put it outside in the winter where it gets down to, like, you know, below freezing and open it, it's not gonna do anything. And that's the whole premise of c o two solubility.

The other the other thing to think about, though, is is that as the outgassing has occurred, the earth has greened, and, even the oceans are in some places getting, you know, more fecund with, algae and microalgae and, you know, the systems of life in the oceans that start start at the smallest, levels, and then the food chain starts. And some of that is captured back in the oceans, but the outgassing should assuage some of the concern about ocean acidification turning the oceans into an acid bath because if c o two is being emitted, then, it's not being absorbed in the oceans and turning them, you know, alkaline.

Right. Okay. Yeah.

That's what I was looking for. Thank you.

From Slark to Bartfest, we have, can we look forward to Gore and Carrie in handcuffs after Doge investigates climate funds?

Unless those guys have actually thrown some money out illegally or done something underhandedly illegally, probably not because all these guys are generally are just blow arts.

I'm I'm not even sure if they were found to have done that, that Trump would, prosecute. Remember, he he's letting Eric Adams off the hook. He's, letting Blagojevich off the hook. He was convicted of of doing this stuff and and admits you know, has has ultimately admitted he did some of that stuff. So Trump is not doing political prosecutions.

I don't think that he would do it for, Gore and Kerry as much as I'd like to see it if if they did something wrong.

He let Hillary off the hook. So, you know, he's not Yeah.

Yeah. I mean, you know, he's he's not unlike the people that have gone after him, he's not an overly vindictive guy for people in power.

Yep. Yeah. And and to those, fans of his who are a little bit vindictive, they're pretty frustrated with it too.

Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Well, look. He's got he's got, he's got the former senator from, from New Jersey going, I hope Trump will now issue me a pardon.

Right? You talk about gold bars off the Titanic. He had them in his closet. Yeah. But, he's he's angry with their pardon, and I won't be surprised if he gets one.

Alright. Let's get a few more in here.

Okay. Let's, let me look for some having to do with our okay. Here's a good question. I'm gonna hit Chris again here, because this is a good question actually, that I've seen come up quite a bit recently. Why is NASA interested in global air temperatures at all?

Well, NASA runs a lot of our well, they run our satellites. They run our space program. NASA has a a whole lot of satellites up having to do with, Earth monitoring, different types of Earth monitoring, remote sensing systems. Anthony probably has a bit more detail to add to this, but they do collect this kind of data all the time anyway. So I think the problem comes in where they're trying to interpret or skew the data that they're collecting in order to push narratives.

They're they're interested in global air temperatures because they're basically testing our satellites on the Earth so that they can use that data to look at other planets, other bodies in space and be able to make comparisons. But, yeah, as far as climate stuff goes, that's really not their job.

No. It's not. And I will say this, that NASA got an institute for space studies would not exist today if they didn't go down the path of, you know, global temperatures for climate. They were an Apollo program, appointment creation. And when the Apollo program ended and, you know, all these different missions that they'd planned ended because back then, they had this idea that, gosh, we're spending way too much money on sending things into space.

We need to focus on Earth a little bit. You know? And so James Hansen went before NASA in June 1988 and said, we have a crisis. We have a crisis. The world the world's getting warmer, and it's carbon dioxide.

And here's my graph, and here's my projections, and and that was basically the whole beginning of it all. And then, you know, it just well, just right after that.

Well, and if you've ever you know, if you're a space nerd or whatever and you're looking at a lot of NASA's products that they put out for Earth monitoring related stuff, it is really interesting. And, I mean, obviously, the photographs that they've gotten, are spectacular. It's it's very, very good technology, and it's very, very good data. It's just the way that they're using it is crooked. Okay.

Real quick. Mark Cadesso asks, what's in the cup? I have Earl Grey tea in this cup, and it's one of my favorite cups. It says Oofta. It's great.

If you're from the North, you understand. Okay. Now we have let's go. Female KC Royals fan, who hasn't asked a question in a while, so I'm happy to hear from you, says, doesn't a lot of government overspending lead to inflation issues? I'm gonna pitch that to Sterling.

Well, yeah, inflation is always a monetary issue. And when the government puts more money into the economy and there's no more production, prices rise. You know? When when they print whether it's printing money, which they're always which which they're always doing when they're spending. Remember, we don't bring in tax dollars sufficient to meet our spending any year.

In any year since I'm sure there were some when I was young. You know, after the Vietnam War, there might have been a brief period where we, taxes, exceeded spending, but, not for decades. And, all of that money being put into the economy when it's not going to productive uses, when it's not creating products, when it's not creating jobs, market oriented jobs, not government oriented jobs because they're tax drains, not tax, revenue producers. Basically, it's it's bad dollars, and that causes inflation.

Yep.

More spending, you know, more dollars than there is production increases prices because people want more. Look. If you give me if if you give me free money, I'm gonna wanna spend it. But that doesn't mean that the production is out there. So the prices rise.

This is economics one zero one. Process will rise to meet demand.

Well, we have time we only have time for one or two more questions, but what I'm gonna do is I'm gonna take the ones we have next, which are all related and kind of combine them into one. But I'm gonna read them off in rapid fashion, and then we're just gonna kind of pitch it to the group to comment on the general theme here. Okay. From Albert, says, will DOGE look into Climate United funding? Bob Johnson says, how many new Solyndra's are out there?

Albert asks again, why isn't this trending in the news regarding the, you know, the gold bars issue? And then above us only, Skye, how come the MSM missed this?

Well, I would say because the media is complicit in the funding. For example, the Associated Press gets all these subscriptions from the government, you know, through USAID and all that stuff. So they're complicit, and it's and they have they have talked about the grants that they get in the Associated Press to write about the climate crisis. No. They are not gonna write about the climate not happening.

They're gonna write about the climate crisis because they're paid to do that. And there's all this this money that's being thrown like this into these subscriptions. And this is an old scam in the left where, you know, they would do it with books, for example. They would buy, you know, a thousand copies of somebody's book to give them funding, you know, and then they'd sit in a warehouse somewhere, like at the end of the Raiders with the Lost Ark. So the whole thing is just as one big money scam.

And, you know, I've been thinking that inflation reduction act, given what we've seen from it so far, should be renamed to the inflation inflation act. That's what happened.

The inflation production act.

Yeah.

The the the stuff about this subscription you know, there are some, publications that probably wouldn't exist but for the government subscriptions. I suspect that if these are cut off as Trump has said they will be done and and has directed it to do, institutions like Politico will shrink in size considerably. They will close publications because they won't be kept afloat by government dollars. And, as far as, you know, what Doge will go after, I hope they go after you know, I hope that they point out all of it and the Republicans in Congress then go after it. Cause that's ultimately, who's going to have to do a lot of this stuff.

Maybe the justice department can play a role. But, well, that's enough for me.

Well, I I'll just put a caper on it. I mean, Abel Windsor just put on there that the USAID funding to the Associated Press is now $52,000,000 in climbing. Anthony mentioned that the Associated Press is given donations specifically to report on the climate crisis. That is in addition to all the subscriptions that the thousands of bureaucrats are having paid for with your money, but there are not there are nongovernmental, nonprofits out there that are just giving money directly to the AP. Use this to hire climate alarmist reporters and to write a climate alarmist story every hour, on the hour, for weeks on end.

Where do you think now what I think we what we may find is where are those those nonprofits out there that are paying the the, AP to write these stories getting their funding? I would bet dollars to donuts that a lot of that is USAID being funneled through a second step. And so this this perpetual funding machine that is being, hopefully, being brought to an end, thanks to Doge I mean, Albert, you said, will Doge look into Climate United funding? Well, they kind of already have. They've they've exposed that they got $20,000,000, and that's the point.

There is Joe's doesn't have any power over their internal, accounting. You are supposed to be audited every year as a five zero one c three to ensure that you still earn and deserve your nonprofit status. The Heartland Institute is, every year, independently audited to make sure that we are on the up and up and not, you know, misusing the funds that the people that are generous enough to give to the Heartland Institute give us. And so are these places being audited? Well, they just went into business, like, on, you know, four weeks ago, so they probably haven't been audited yet.

So the good news is that finally, as as the saying goes, sunlight is the best disinfectant. We finally, after decades of this kind of scamming going on, have sunlight upon the whole scheme, and it's going to be very interesting to see how it develops from here on out. Because the other side is now in the position of defending, basically, theft and fraud and money laundering and, you know, nest feathering with your own tax dollars. Good luck to you out there. I'd rather be on this side of the argument wondering why our money is being wasted to advance climate alarmism and a bunch of other stuff.

To the extent that they're covering this at all, the in the mainstream media, not not in in the blogosphere, is they're covering that Doge is doing this. That why is Doge over here? Why is Doge over there? Well, they're not a government agent. They're not covering the substance of what Doge is discovering.

They're critiquing the the structure and the method of doing it, and that's that's because they're benefiting from it.

Yep.

Alright. That's all that's all we got.

That's all we got, and that is our that is our exit music for today. Gosh. What a what a great show today. I wanna thank the, what? We had 1,700, at least, people watching on all sorts of streaming services this Friday, February 14.

We wanna thank everyone who watched us live and, of course, all those who are gonna watch it on tape later on our places where it is, on x, on YouTube, and on Rumble. I wanna thank our three regular panelists, Linnea Anthony, and Sterling Burnett. I wanna thank our streaming partners, Climate Realism, Climate at a Glance, What's Up With That, and the c o two coalition. Always visit heartland.org. Always visit What's Up With That.

Always come back to this here show every Friday at 1PM, eastern time. Well, PM, central time. Thank you all for watching, and we will talk to you next week.