Heartland Daily Podcast

Joe Biden: And that's what
climate change is about. It is

literally not figuratively a
clear and present danger.

Greta Thunberg: We are the
beginning of a mass extinction.

Jim Lakely: The ability of c 02
to do the heavy work of creating

a climate catastrophe is almost
nil at this point.

Anthony Watts: The price of oil
has been artificially elevated

to the point of insanity.

Sterling Burnett: That's not how
you power a modern industrial

system.

Andy Singer: The ultimate goal
of this renewable energy, you

know, plan is to reach the exact
same point that we're at now.

Sterling Burnett: You know who's
tried that? Germany. 7 straight

days of no wind for Germany.
Their factories are shutting

down.

Linnea Lueken: They really do
act like weather didn't happen

prior to, like, 1910. Today is
Friday.

Jim Lakely: That's right, Greta.
It is Friday. It is the most

important and fun day of the
week because it is the day that

the Heartland Institute
broadcast the Climate Realism

Show. I'm Jim Lakely, vice
president of the Heartland

Institute, and your host for
today. You know, there is

nothing else like the Climate
Realism Show streaming anywhere,

so I do hope that you will like,
share, and subscribe, and leave

comments underneath this video
that helps convince YouTube's,

discriminatory algorithm to
nonetheless smile upon this here

program and get the show in
front of more people.

And as a reminder, because Big
Tech and the legacy media do not

approve of the way that we cover
climate and energy policy on

this program, the Heartland
Institute's YouTube channel has

been demonetized. Now we did
apply to get that reinstated,

and, I think we were shot down
in less than 1 minute. So we

will keep trying, but as for
now, we are still demonetized.

And so if you wanna support this
program and the Heartland

Institute, and I hope you
really, really, really hope you

do, Please visit
heartland.org/tcrs. That's

heartland.org/tcrs.

That stands for the Climate
Realism Show, and you can help

us make sure that this program
keeps getting broadcast every

single Friday. Any support you
can give is, warmly appreciated

and, very welcome as as well. We
also wanna thank today, before

we get rolling, our streaming
partners. Those, people are

junkscience.com, Cfact, Climate
Depot, and what's up with that.

If you follow them on X, you
should be, be able to watch this

show with them right there on
their on their networks, or on

their channels, I should say, on
X.

So let's get rolling here.
Today, we have with us our usual

panel. Starting off with Anthony
Watts, he's a senior fellow at

the Heartland Institute and the
publisher of the most

influential climate website in
the world, what's up with that?

H Sterling Burnett, he is the
director of the Arthur b

Robinson Center on Climate and
Environmental Policy at the

Heartland Institute, and, also,
of course, Linnea Lukin,

research fellow for energy and
environmental policy at

Heartland. Greetings all.

This is gonna be another fun
show.

Linnea Lueken: Thank you very
much. Sorry. My dog is, like,

losing her mind in the
background. So I'm sorry if you

can hear her. I'll try to stay
muted.

Sterling Burnett: Yes. We should
introduce our dogs.

Jim Lakely: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. We
all have we all have pets. I

have cats.

Cat has not yet appeared on the
show, but it'll be any day now.

I'm sure. Linea, I know that
it's, it's cold here. Actually,

you know, we talk about weather
a lot and climate a lot because

the mainstream media likes to
conflate the 2. But, yeah, is

everybody pretty much in the
United States listening to this,

show today or watching the show
today, it's cold out there.

A lot colder than it normally
is, in a December for most of

the, lower 48 continental United
States. And, Linea, I think you

were just talking to him before
he came on the air, that your

chickens are not adjusting to
this instant climate change very

well down there where you live.

Linnea Lueken: No. One of my
chickens just has her molting

pattern a little bit off kilter,
and so she is blowing out all of

her feathers right before we got
a serious cold snap. And so she

is a little bit cold. But the
rest of them are okay, but she's

just kind of stupid. I don't
know.

Anthony Watts: Well, it's good
thing you don't have any

turkeys.

Linnea Lueken: Yeah. There

Anthony Watts: are none left.
Yeah.

Jim Lakely: Yes. I cooked most
of them.

Anthony Watts: So are you
expecting power outages soon? I

noticed you have a kerosene
lantern over there to your, over

your right shoulder.

Linnea Lueken: Indeed. I'm
always ready. And in fact, I

lose power very, very
frequently, where I live

probably at least once a week,
So that's

Anthony Watts: fun. Nice. Is it
because of the Almost a third

world country status.

Sterling Burnett: Is it is it
because of the escaped monkeys

ripping down the power lines or
because of

Anthony Watts: climate change?

Linnea Lueken: Yeah. I think
there's still one on the lam

here. So they've they've got
pretty much all of them, so I

won't rule it out. It could be
monkeys. I don't know.

Jim Lakely: Right. You have
escaped monkeys in your

neighborhood?

Sterling Burnett: Yeah.

Linnea Lueken: Yeah. About,
like, a half hour north of me is

where that big monkey breakout
happens. So they there's still

one monkey missing, I think.

Jim Lakely: Alright. Maybe I
take off too much time during

the holidays. I I think I
vaguely remembered something

about a monkey, monkey breakout,
planet of the apes kind of

situation, but, I haven't been
following closely. So you'll

keep us updated on that, since
it those directly

Speaker 1: text Yeah.

Linnea Lueken: I think it's
pretty much solved by now, but

whatever it takes.

Jim Lakely: Alright. Well, we're
going to, get the show rolling,

and we're gonna start as we
always do with, Anthony Watts'

favorite segment, especially
the, video drop for it. That is

the crazy climate news of the
week. Hit it, Andy. Yeah.

Could use some of that some of
that warmth of the earth in a

lot of places around around the
United States today. So, anyway,

so our first item here, I think
will I think especially

interest, Linnea. I'm gonna go
to you for the first comment

here. This is from Forbes. This
is how the gaming community is

leveling up on climate change
awareness.

Apparently, gamers are going to
be able to save the world,

Linnea, so good good news there.
So let me read a little bit from

this story. The staggering
number of 3,200,000,000 gamers

worldwide represents a massive
audience that could

significantly impact public
understanding of climate issues.

Recognizing this potential,
initiatives like the green game

jam are leading the way by
engaging major game developers

to integrate eco friendly
content to their games. Boy,

does that sound like fun?

PUBG Mobile's, quote, play for
green campaign, backed by the

United Nations, that's great,
exemplifies how games can

educate and inspire players to
take action on climate issues

through immersive gameplay. With
millions of players

participating, this campaign
underscores how the gaming

industry can merge entertainment
with education and foster

environmental consciousness.
Alright. Though, through Yeah.

Collaborations with Climate
Scientist.

Almost done. Like professor Mark
Maslin, Pubg Mobile integrates

scientifically grounded climate
narratives into its gameplay.

Boy, more fun stuff here. For
example, the ruins of Erangel

map series uses real life
environmental data to depict the

impacts of rising sea levels,
heat waves, and droughts. This

approach not only enhances the
game's realism but also educates

players about the real world
consequences of climate in

action.

So, Linnea, you certainly are
among those 3,200,000,000 gamers

out there. Have you come across
this kind of messaging in, in

your gaming world?

Linnea Lueken: I mean, yeah.

Jim Lakely: And and the gamers
really it strikes me that gaming

culture does not really respond
to this kinda ham handed,

propaganda in their
entertainment.

Linnea Lueken: No. And in fact,
you know, if you go on Steam and

or which is, like, a PC gaming
platform, distributor, If you go

there, you can sign up for
groups that will specifically

mark different games as, like,
DEI influenced or ESG

influenced. And so, you can
avoid buying those games if

they're on those lists, and a
lot of people do. Those those

lists tend to be very heavily
followed. Yeah.

Everyone's just sick of the
politicization of this stuff.

But I will note that they're
trying to make this out to be

like some big gamer movement
thing, and yet they're targeting

mobile games, which for for for
for the real gamers, mobile

games are a little bit of a
joke, I would say. It's, it is

pretty funny that it's PUBG
Mobile, and it's not, like,

actual PUBG. So, yeah, it's it's
been going on for a while. This

isn't new.

They've been putting little,
like, climate change messaging

stuff into tons of games.
There's some, cool, like, broad

scale map war games that have
been including, you know, sea

level rise stuff in it for a
while now. So it's it's nothing

new. I think even Sims has,
like, a climate change thing, in

it as well. So everyone just
ignores it.

I've never heard anyone even
talk about it besides

mentioning, like, yeah, they've
already been doing this. It's

not anything new. It doesn't
influence anybody. It's just

another thing for them to throw
money at and feel good.

Anthony Watts: The games though.
Can you can you role play in

this stuff? Can you become like
a hero that saves the planet

through your climate change
actions?

Linnea Lueken: No. In PUBG,
you're just running around

shooting people. So

Sterling Burnett: Oh, that's
that's the thing is

Anthony Watts: That's that's
depopulating the earth. That's a

win. Right?

Sterling Burnett: You see these
games you see these games, and

the message doesn't look
particularly it certainly

doesn't look for the most part,
sort of, humanist, pro human,

because there's just a lot of
killing and blowing up going on.

But secondly, when it's not
killing and blowing up, it's

like what the civilization
thinks where you build up from a

primitive society to to modern
civilization. I don't see the

games where it says, let's go
back. Let's be let's go back to

the Pleistocene. We start with a
modern city and slowly take

things away until we're living
like cavemen.

That's what we all strive for in
these games. No. The games don't

do that, and the other games are
are shooting things, blowing

things up. Yeah. You kill
people, but you start a lot of

fires, and you're putting out c
o two.

If if you if you blow up cooling
tanks, you you're putting, you

know, CFCs into the air. They
don't seem very green to me. The

messaging is not very green.

Anthony Watts: Yeah. And as far
as

Sterling Burnett: the sea level,
you know, as far as the sea

level rise in war games, if
you're doing a war game and it's

like a Napoleonic or, you know,
some ancient war game where

you've got wooden ships and sea
level rising, I'm not seeing how

you're getting the c02 is
causing sea level rise matches

their faults.

Linnea Lueken: Yeah. It's a
pretty it's a pretty long war to

be deeply or heavily influenced
by sea level rise. That'd be a

pretty bad time, actually.

Jim Lakely: And I think going
back to the Pleistocene, boy,

that is super super immersive
for the for people to take us

back to the Pleistocene. Yeah.
You know? And and this thing

about, we'll get to that story
in a second here, Andy. But the

thing about the, about gaming
you know, when I when I read

stories like this and I think we
covered there was another game,

and I should have put it in the
show notes so we could bring it

up.

If you guys remember I'm sure
you you you remember, Linea, and

Andy, our producer, does too,
about another game that was not

a mobile game. It was a, either
online game or something that

you would do on a maybe not on a
console, but on your computer.

Right? But when they they talk
about that there are

3,200,000,000 gamers on Earth. I
mean, they include you know,

they're not these are not people
that all have an Xbox or a, you

know, or anything like that or
or a PS 2 or PS 5, I guess it is

now.

I haven't gamed in a long time.
But they also include people

who, like, play Words With
Friends on their phone with

their mom. Right? Or or play
these these Candy crush. Yeah.

Yeah. Candy crush, things like
that. Those are not gamers.

Those are people that are that
have downloaded games on their

mobile devices to kill time
while waiting for their flight

to take off and stuff like that.

Linnea Lueken: Yeah. It's like
saying someone's into a tabletop

when they just play monopoly
with their family at

Thanksgiving every year. It's
it's not exactly the same thing.

Jim Lakely: Yeah.

Sterling Burnett: And more
importantly than any of that,

the messaging is, shouldn't the
message if what you're trying to

be green, you know, you're
trying to people to save the

earth is to to turn off your
games, to stop using energy?

Because gaming takes energy.
When people have it's plugging

something in. The power is
coming from somewhere. It's on a

console that's made from fossil
fuels.

If you wanna say the earth is a
gamer, you should cease to be a

gamer.

Anthony Watts: Yeah. You know,
Sterling, I'll point out that

you are our resident gamer,
although of a different kind.

Instead of earning badges, you
earn things that you post up on

the wall there. Indeed. That's
true.

Jim Lakely: That's true.

Sterling Burnett: And but when
I'm out there, I'm not using any

electricity. The only, the only,
c o two I'm emitting is what I

breathe out and then the small
puff of, c02 that, when a

cartridge goes off. Yep.

Linnea Lueken: How dare you.

Jim Lakely: That's right.
Alright. Alright. Let's move on

to our second item here in the,
crazy climate news of the week,

and that is from our friends
over at the c o two coalition.

And the headline is BRICS Kazan
declaration, Trump's COP 29

climate blather.

BRICS, I'm sure a lot of our
listeners and viewers know,

stands for, Brazil, Russia,
India, China, and South Africa.

But then this coalition, it's
basically a counter it's a it's

a counter of the United Nations
or, say, the g 7, of but of

emerging economies. Right? So,
anyway, so, our friends at the

CO 2 Coalition point this out.
Here we go.

Some of the world's most
powerful nations made clear to

the so called climate emergency
or that the so called climate

emergency was a secondary
priority for them. Attendees of

the 16th annual BRICS summit
represented more than 45% of the

global population and 35% of
global gross domestic product

and included representatives of
Saudi Arabia, China, India,

Brazil, and the United Arab
Emirates. In the case, Kazan

declaration, the core BRICS
countries, including India,

China, and Russia, have openly
declared that their domestic

energy needs and economic
well-being will take precedence

over international climate
agreements like the Paris

Accords and net zero
initiatives. In hindsight, the

meeting at Kazan could have seen
could be seen as a foretelling

of such doubts about the
standing of the popular climate

narrative. However, c n n CNBC's
summary of the event, which

supposedly lists key takeaways,
completely ignored this critical

aspect despite representing a
considerable portion of the

declaration's wording.

The mainstream media was silent
as their green fantasy was

disintegrating right in front of
their eyes at Quezon. Now,

Sterling, we here on the Climate
Realism Show, we consider this,

pretty darn good news, and we
covered COP 29 on our show, 2

weeks ago when we took off for
the Thanksgiving holiday. And,

our friends at CFAK who were
there said the the COP 29 had a

bit of a funereal vibe. And now
we have this, you know, the

largest emerging economies, and
they're growing in population

while Europe and and North
America, frankly, are not

growing as fast or maybe they
were even shrinking. And they're

just thumbing their nose at, net
zero in the UN's climate agenda.

Does this mean perhaps that we
are seeing the beginning of the

end of the global climate agenda
ruling the Earth?

Sterling Burnett: No. Let's
let's say first about COP 29. It

was funereal within the
boundaries of cop 29 within the

little buildings that they held
the meetings in. Outside, it was

evidently not very funereal at
all. There were people wearing

MAGA hats.

There were oil pump derricks
going up and down. Their

president saying, it's a it's a
blessing from God. That sounds

pretty celebratory to me.
Concerning bricks, look, the

lead singer for the talking
heads, David Byrne, one one of

his lines was same as it ever
was. And nothing that happened

at BRICS is really surprising
because this is the position

they've held since BRICS was
formed, and they're expanding

the number of nations in BRICS.

It's gonna be inconvenient if
they have to go longer with the

acronym with the new nations.
Yeah. But, they have always

placed development first. They
have always embraced fossil

fuels. They they they genuflect.

They say, oh, we've gotta do
sustainable development. Oh,

yeah. The climate climate change
is an important issue. It's just

not more important than anything
else we're doing, which, by the

way, reflects the kind of things
that we find when we do polls of

people. Oh, it's very important.

It's just not more important
than me being able to feed my

children or get to work or be
safe on the streets. So bricks

have always been realist. The
truth is we've written about,

their realism. You know, it
talked about what did you say?

It was, they were 30%, 40
something percent of the of the

population.

Talk about their c o two
emissions. I wonder how what

what that percent was. I mean,
China alone is more than a

quarter. Right. India is
probably another 6 to 8% or

more.

Russia is pretty high. So I bet
when you add that, you're

getting close to 50% of
emissions that they represent,

and theirs are growing.

Jim Lakely: Right.

Sterling Burnett: They're
growing, not shrinking. And so,

when the Paris agreement was
signed back in 2015, I said then

it was a paper tiger, And I
wasn't the only one, but that's

not what you that's not the
message that you got coming out

of the conference, of course,
that's not the message you got

from all its supporters, but it
was a paper tiger, because it

couldn't stop 1.5, it wouldn't
stop emissions from rising,

People wouldn't meet their,
obligations either for funding

or emissions cuts, and I've been
proven right. And, the other

skeptics have been proven right.
And, honestly, I think the BRICS

people are gonna be more
accurate than the COP people

because emissions are gonna
continue rising, fossil fuels

are gonna continue to be used,
development will continue apace,

and, despite all the gamers'
efforts, if that's what's

causing climate change, then
climate is gonna continue to

change. That doesn't mean it's a
catastrophe.

And and for the people in
bricks, it's definitely not a

catastrophe. What it is is a
blessing just like the guy just

like the president of of in Baku
said.

Jim Lakely: Yeah. Yeah. I mean,
well, India and China, they are,

the 2 most populous countries on
Earth. I wasn't it wasn't it the

case of either Linnea or, oh, I
guess we lost we lost Anthony

there. We're gonna have to get
him back.

I was just gonna ask him this
question. But wasn't it the case

that India did they walk out of
one of the most recent cops? Or

if they haven't walked out, they
basically they okay. So they

walked out. And China and India,
just those 2 have told, you

know, the United Nations and,
like, and the global climate

leaders, to go, buzz off when
they show up to these things.

It's almost out of contempt that
they show up. And then, like I

said, this they're, the BRICS
countries are 45% of the world's

population and 35% of the gross
domestic product. Those numbers,

both of them are gonna continue
going up as as the power and

influence of the, you know, put
it in the way a leftist liked

it. The colonial powers, the old
colonial powers is going to

wane, and they and the powers of
these countries are gonna go up.

Then, of course, there's
Argentina, which, walked

physically walked out of the COP
in the middle of it, just the

in, in Azerbaijan just a couple
weeks ago.

Linnea Lueken: Well, it's like I
I said, you know, when we were

talking about this last time.
You know, the the news has been

asking the question, you know,
oh, is is the COP, still fit for

purpose? And I still maintain
that it is fit for purpose if

that purpose is enjoying a nice
dinner and an open bar in exotic

locations and getting to listen
to people, you know, who agree

with you for hours and hours on
different little, you know, kind

of self congratulatory panels
and stuff. It's it's not going

to change, but it would be kinda
nice to see fewer and fewer

people pay any attention to
these conferences as they become

even more irrelevant than they
already were. It it would be

nice to see them no longer
making the news even.

I think at that point, they
would probably stop having them.

Sterling Burnett: Well, I'm
gonna make a prediction. I'm

gonna predict the next cop will
get much less media coverage in

part, at least in the US, in
part because the delegation from

the US is gonna be much, much
smaller than possible it's ever

been before. Yeah. I mean, look,
even the last cop, not as only I

think only 2 or or 3, maybe 2 of
the, g 7 nations sent their

leaders. The US didn't have its
leaders there.

France didn't go. Germany's
leaders didn't go. China

certainly didn't go. They were
at BRICS. Right?

You know, they sent delegations.
But, you know, when you're

talking about saving the earth,
wouldn't your delegation

wouldn't you think, oh, well,
that sort of requires the head

of the country's, participation,
even if it's just to show up

and, you know, cut a cut a
banner or something, opening the

conference. So I think it is a,
waning institution and, and

rightly so, and so we'll hear
less about it. That's not going

to stop climate alarmism, sadly.

Anthony Watts: Yeah. Yeah. Well,
you know, we're up to 30 almost

now. You know, top 20 9, almost
30 of these things. You know?

And there's one of my favorite
graphs out there shows carbon

dioxide going up, up, up, up,
and all these markers on there

for all these cop conferences.
These people haven't been able

to accomplish anything, and yet
they still have their

conference. And, of course, you
know, the we've made another

breakthrough right at the last
minute and all this other

rubbish. The bottom line is is
that it's nothing but a big

party for them to go, schmooze,
have some drinks, and go to an

exotic country. That's all these
conferences are.

They are accomplishing nothing.

Speaker 1: Well, I I would say I

Jim Lakely: just wanna push back
on that just a tad, actually.

Something, Joe Rogan had a guest
on, I think, 2 episodes ago,

Mike Benz, who is a tech policy,
guy, cybersecurity guy. He was

in Trump's administration. He's
a fascinating and very, very

educated person on on a lot of
stuff, and I recommend people

actually check it out. But he
was talking about these kinds

of, global summits and that
their purpose isn't to save the

world.

It's to establish a consensus.
That's a word that we love

around here. It's consensus. But
it is to establish a global

consensus that something must be
done. And this takes years years

years to accomplish.

And eventually, you do get to
the point where you go to a cop

and everybody is saying the same
thing. If we could go, had a

time machine, could go back to
the first conference of the

parties of the United Nations,
you would see a lot more, let's

say, variety of opinion, and,
there would maybe even be 1 or 2

interesting conversations going
on. But by the time you get to

COP 29, everybody in the room is
a is a absolutely brainwashed

mind nub robot saying exactly
the same things over and over.

The the idea is to get the
global consensus to do something

about climate change, even if
it's not going to work. And that

always turns up to be more
government power and going

socialist, basically.

Sterling Burnett: The problem I
I I think that analysis is

interesting, Jim, but the
problem with it is unlike, say,

Super Bowl watching, which goes
up, cop watching is going down.

And the the the the status of
those who attend cop is not as

high as it was before, when
president showed up, when prime

ministers showed up, when even,
you know, oh, let's go so low

as, you know, a a department of
interior head. You know, you're

talking lower level people, and
lower level people can agree all

you want. And they can tell
their governor, oh, this is what

we agreed to. Okay.

Okay. I don't have time for
that. I'm running an election.

In the end, if they're just
talking to themselves, I I don't

much care whether they get
agreement amongst themselves.

It's whether their national
governments then do something.

And they've been talking about
doing something, and they've

been trying to do something for
decades now. Even before Paris,

there were other agreements. One
of them we actually signed as a

treaty in the United States, the
very first one, and we missed

the goals. We continually missed
the goals, and we're getting and

the goals are getting farther
and farther away, not closer and

closer. So, it's it's they may
get a consensus, but the

consensus isn't moving action.

And I'm unconvinced it'll ever
move that kind of action because

of something like bricks. In the
end, leaders want to be leaders.

They wanna be elected. They
wanna stay in office, and you

don't do that if you wreck your
country.

Jim Lakely: Alright. Alright.
Anything to add to that, Anthony

and Linnea, before we move on to
item number 3?

Anthony Watts: No. I think
that's pretty well covered. My

my point still stands. These
folks are accomplishing nothing.

Jim Lakely: That is that is
true. Yeah. I mean, even even

with the point I made, I think
probably peak, consensus

building was in 2015 at the
Paris climate agreement, and

it's been downhill ever since
for sure, I think.

Anthony Watts: Right.

Linnea Lueken: And Well, yeah.

Anthony Watts: Climate agreement
is nil. You know? It's not

really accomplishing anything
either because, oh gosh, we've

already passed 1.5 degrees
centigrade. Oh, no. We're going

to die.

You know? Yeah. Yeah.

Jim Lakely: Alright. Our third
item is, well, it's from our own

Climate Change Weekly, and it is
marking the 15th anniversary of,

Climategate. I forgot to give
the, we're gonna get to that

meme in a second, Andy. That's
this is my fault for the

producer. I forgot

Anthony Watts: to give you the
link,

Jim Lakely: to the, climate
change weekly that we published

this morning, or I should say
last night at heartland.org.

But, climate change weekly is a
is a weekly newsletter

newsletter. You should
definitely go to

heartland.org/subscribe and
subscribe to Climate Change

Weekly. Sterling Burnett works
on this, very hard every week.

He takes a week off once in a
while.

We still call it Climate Change
Weekly. It's fine. But, anyway,

we are marking in Climate Change
Weekly number 527. That is the

15th anniversary of,
Climategate, the exposure of

basically, having the peer
reviewed journals rigged to only

tell one story and a narrative
instead of actually, you know,

being scientific and sharing
with people the actual data and

science of what's going on. So
I'll just read a little bit from

the top here and then I'd love,
Anthony and Sterling especially

to talk a little bit more about
this.

But, this month does mark the
15th anniversary of Climate Day,

the release of thousands of
emails across among climate

scientists showing them behaving
very badly. The scientists

colluded and are still colluding
to create the perception of a

man made climate crisis based on
their preconceptions about the

way the world works, backed by
computer model projections,

computer models they helped
build, inputting their

assumptions about what affects
global temperatures, an instance

of confirmation bias and
circular reasoning, or both. By

contrast, real world experience
demonstrated and measured data

and trends shows no crisis has
occurred despite repeated

predictions, tipping points, and
specific terrible events made by

climate scolds, none of which
have come to pass. Now, I will

stop there, and and and Anthony
and and Sterling, especially,

you can kind of fill in some
background because a lot of our

viewers and listeners may not be
may not be familiar with

Climategate. Now, there are a
lot of very interesting

characters in the story of
Climategate and the emails that

went around.

Phil Jones. Of course, Michael
Mann is a character in here. I

think all of them are villains
pretty much, but they do mention

some heroes in their emails in
Climategate, some real

scientists that they are trying
to run down and keep out of the

peer reviewed literature. I
mean, to me, because we follow

this. This is our, you know,
this is our full time job and

our passion.

You know, this scandal was 15
years ago in my mind. It feels

like it was just last year. You
know, so, Anthony, what you

wanna start, Anthony? I wanna
start with you. But it's like

Anthony Watts: Yeah. Thanks.
Yeah. This is what we talked

about. I wanna point out that I
broke the climate gate story on

Whatsapp with that.com.

Jim Lakely: There you go.

Anthony Watts: I remember it
vividly. I was in Europe, and,

my, second in command, Charles
Rauter, found the file. The the

file got posted to several
websites, including, Real

Climate, and Gavin Schmidt was
running interference trying to

make people believe that, oh,
this isn't real. Don't pay any

attention to it. And in the
process, he verified it.

He accidentally verified that it
was real. And so I had I had I

was concerned that this was some
kind of a plant. You know? Why

is it showing up while I'm in
Europe? And so I made, made the

decision to wait until I got
back into the United States

before we published on this.

And that caused a little
consternate consternation to

mister Climategate himself. He
was wondering, why aren't you

guys publishing this? I couldn't
tell him exactly because I

didn't want, you know, someone
to pick up on the fact that I

was traveling from outside the
United States. Because I was

afraid I wouldn't get back in
the country if I published this

thing. Literally, that was, that
was a big fear of mine that, you

know, somehow this was a plant
that just basically shut me down

or were other websites down.

I just didn't know at that
point. And I remember vividly

clearing customs. I was texting
with Steve McIntyre and Steve

Mosher and Charles Rotter while
I'm standing in line at customs,

saying, you know, I've I've just
got 10 minutes before I can do

this. You know? Come on.

Come on. Get it out there. And
so, literally, once I passed

customs, I went over and found
the nearest electrical plug,

pulled out my laptop, sat down
on the floor, wrote it, wrote

the release, about Climategate.
And I I looked up and I I

realized, wait a minute. My
plane's boarding.

And, so I've I've finished it,
hit publish, and then ran to the

door. And, literally, I was the
last person on the plane. And

back then, they didn't have Wi
Fi on planes. So I had 5 and a

half hours between Washington DC
and Sacramento, California where

I didn't know what had happened.
You know?

I'm just like, what have I done?
Right? And so I get off the

plane in Sacramento, and I see
if it's going viral and people

are freaking out and all this
stuff. And so it was, it was

quite extraordinary. But, the
takeaway from all of this is

that we we expose, as you said,
Jim, scientists behaving badly,

scientists perverting the peer
review process, scientists

fudging and manipulating data.

And then, you know, rather than
own up to it, these people and I

don't even wanna call them
scientists anymore. These people

decided, well, we're just gonna
whitewash this. You know? Rather

than tell the truth, rather than
stick to science, rather than

pay attention to what the real
data says, they whitewashed it.

They got, you know, these fake
investigations going over in

Europe at, at the, in the UK,
you know, at the at the climate

research unit there.

They had a couple of them there.
They had one with Penn State and

Michael Mann, and they were all
whitewashes saying, well, these

people behaved appropriately and
blah blah blah. Like, that's a

big load of horseshit. Bottom
line is is that we did stop some

advancement of climate alarmism
with that, but they went back to

business as usual once they
finished damage control.

Jim Lakely: Yeah. And and just
to just a little bit more

background for a third to you,
Sterling, is that, you know,

Climategate, this this was the
exposure of, more than a 1000

documents, I think mostly
emails, that were from the

climactic research unit at East
Anglia University, and it really

exposed what was going on behind
the scenes, among the, you know,

the the climate consensus
pushers, and how they were

basically conspiring with each
other on a global scale. It's

like, you know, sometimes a
conspiracy theory is not a

conspiracy theory. It's a
spoiler it's a spoiler alert,

and that was the case, for this.

Anthony Watts: Right. And we
have,

Jim Lakely: you

Anthony Watts: know, we have all
kinds of of stuff leading up to

this. One of the things that
Steve McIntyre was doing was

making, you know, new FOIA
request. And one of the most

famous emails that came out of
it was from Phil Jones,

basically saying, if they ever
find out that we have an FOIA

law here in the UK, we're in
trouble. Yeah. I mean,

seriously, what what further
admission do you need?

Yeah.

Sterling Burnett: Well, you
know, they had look. They they

said they said oh, you got put
in context. No. No. No.

The words speak for themselves.
The you know, when you say, I've

done a little trick and got rid
of the medieval, the, the the

little ice age. That speaks for
itself. I did a little trick and

got it. And I and and the other
researchers are saying, I need

to figure out his little trick
or get his trick from him so I

can do it in my data.

Jim Lakely: Yeah. Mike's Mike's
Mike's nature trick,

Anthony Watts: I think, is what
we're doing on it. That's

exactly it. And basically, what
it is, they they, tacked on the

big instrumental temperature
record to the proxy record, but

stopped the proxy record of of
tree rings after about 1960.

Because instead of heading up
like it was supposed to, it was

heading down, and that was
inconvenient. So what do they

do?

They slap on the instrumental
record to take 2 dissimilar

datasets that should never be
displayed in the same graph, put

them together, and publish it
that way as if everything's all

hunky dory because the
instrumental record went up. You

know? And the the tree room
record went down. Basically,

they they, they subsumed science
with this process.

Sterling Burnett: And and so
it's what they did with the

science, and it's what they did
to cover up what they did with

the science that's detailed in
these emails. It's what they did

to suppress science that
disagreed with their positions

that, you know, it it was a
complete corruption in the field

of climate science from the
research itself, from the data

manipulation to the suppression,
the active suppression of other

research, in up to and including
attempting to get editors of

journals fired for publishing
inconvenient research. And then,

honestly, breaking the law when
they they're supposed to keep,

all this information that they
have, and they have emails

saying, get rid of all your
emails. Destroy them before they

have to be released under
freedom of information. They

can't they can't read what
doesn't exist anymore.

It was all supposed to be saved,
and and, it shows them doing

this. It shows them ignoring
Freedom of Information Act

request. Just, honestly, just a
few years ago, this is still

happening. This is an ongoing,
issue. Just a few years ago,

researchers at the, is either
Arizona State or the University

of Arizona.

I don't wanna, say which one
because I'm not sure. It's one

of those 2. The the Arizona
Supreme Court said you have to

release these emails. This this
is, like, 12 years on. It's

public emails.

It's not your private property.
It was emails done in your role

as professor at at the
university on university,

computers through the university
system. It is public. You must

release. And, of course, what
they were trying not to release

was stuff that undermines the
climate alarm narrative, and

that's what it comes down to is.

These are researchers who get
1,000,000 of dollars, as long as

they keep the narrative going.
Yeah. If if if if we come to the

point where we all agree climate
change is not causing a climate

a catastrophe that's gonna
destroy the earth, then we move

on to other things. And they not
only do they have egg on their

face, their reputations are are
are are ruined, but they don't

get the money. They don't bring
the money into the universities.

And so the universities have a,
an incentive to fight to distort

science for their own benefit.

Jim Lakely: Yeah. Liz, as as
Anthony pointed out earlier, and

you can go to heartland.org.
Right there, one of the the one

of the three featured items on
our front page is this week's

Climate Change Weekly where you
can read this stuff. Andy has

found the original post from,
from What's Up With That and is

going through some stuff. But as
he was scrolling through, guys,

there's there's a a part here
about the emails about the

manipulation of temperature
data.

And, doctor Tom Wigley of the
University Corporation For

Atmospheric Research, in an
email to Phil Jones on September

28, 2008, said, quote, if you
look at the attached plot, you

will see that the land also
shows the 19 forties warming

blip, as I'm sure you know. So
if we could reduce the ocean

blip by, say, 0.15 degrees
Celsius, then this would be

significant for the global mean,
but we still have to explain the

land blip. And so when we talk
about on this show that the the

consensus scientists that the,
the gate kept scientific,

establishment that does not
allow anybody else with actual

data to question anything they
do, when we say that they're

hiding the decline, that the you
can't trust their data because

they wanna hide it, and when
they talk to themselves in

private, they talk about
manipulating the data so that it

fits a narrative instead of
telling people what's actually

happening on the planet.

Anthony Watts: Right. You know?
I think and it it boils down to

money. Yeah. Really.

I mean, it go back to Watergate
and follow the money. The money

is what really is the issue
here. If they if if they

suddenly discovered, well,
climate change isn't the big

deal we thought it was and
admitted that, then all the

money would dry up because
there's no crisis anymore.

Instead, it it's exactly the
reverse. What these guys are

doing is is following the
maximum, money talks, bullshit

multiplies.

Right? That's what's going on
here. They're just Something

like that. Making it higher and
deeper.

Jim Lakely: Yeah. Alright. Well,
as mentioned earlier

Sterling Burnett: Here's here's
one quote I'd like. I I like

this.

Jim Lakely: It's just One more
quote.

Sterling Burnett: Yep. Keith,
which Keith Briffa, Keith's

series differs in large part in
exactly the opposite direction

that Phil Jones does from ours.
This is the problem we all

picked up on, and everyone in
the room at IPCC is in agreement

that this was a problem and a
potential distraction,

detraction from reasonably
consensus viewpoint we'd like to

show. Basically, it's when they
run into a problem, when they

run into inconvenient data,
their response is, how do we get

rid of? How do we manipulate the
data to change what the results

actually are, and how do we
suppress the original data?

And it goes on. Right. You know,
there's one one that says, this

this is really inconvenient for
us. How how do we do that?

Anthony Watts: Yeah. That's not
science. That is sophistry.

Jim Lakely: No. And it's it's
it's false narrative building.

It has nothing to do with
science, and that's what it's

always been and has been. And
that's why this show exists. You

know, actually, it's kind of
ironic.

If it wasn't for Climategate in
2009, their pop this show

probably wouldn't exist because
we wouldn't need to be here

because, you know, if they were
telling the truth about about

the the data that we have around
the Earth and instead of

exaggerating or, frankly, just
making things up, there would

not be a need for a climate
realism show. This would be just

the climate science show. I
mean, we talk about science a

lot more, but we have to push
back at the narrative because

that's what everybody hears for
sure. We do cover science here

quite a bit, though, actually.
So alright.

Let's let's pop up our meme of
the week, and that is this one

that, that is actually part of
the Climate Change Weekly

publication this week from
Smellingbirdett. It's a, just

for those just listening, it's
a, some cows frolicking in a

field, and it says the amount of
methane released from a single

blade of grass wouldn't change
if it was just left to decompose

or if it was eaten by a cow. Yet
we now live in a world in which,

Bill Gates is trying to give
drugs to cows to make them fart

less to save the planet, and,
you know, all silliness ensues

from there. So I actually didn't
know that. I you know?

So this is a meme. We found
this. I will not vouch for its

accuracy. Does anybody on this
show know that if that is a

actual true claim? Does the
methane release, but the

decomposing blade of grass in a
field equate that from the,

methane parted out by a cow for
that one single blade of grass?

Linnea Lueken: I'm not sure that
that's correct because you're

gonna have different chemical,
but it's probably it's probably

partially correct. I think that
probably the chemical reactions

involved in the decomposition
are different, and so you'll

have a different amount of
methane released. But we'll also

say that the the methane issue
is such a nonissue when it comes

to, the amount of influence that
it has on on, you know, heat

absorption in the atmosphere
anyway that it this, it's a wash

either way. The thing that makes
it a real difference with

regards to this meme is, you
know, the cow is gonna make it

release a lot sooner than
waiting for the grass to die.

Anthony Watts: Oh, that's true.

Linnea Lueken: But I I don't
know if I would say that that's

a problem.

Jim Lakely: Alright. Alright.
Well, we don't vouch for the

accuracy of that meme, but it is
kinda funny. Alright. We'll move

on.

You could do your own research.

Anthony Watts: Know this. If
they're making drugs for cows to

keep them from making methane,
is that made in a meth lab?

Jim Lakely: Oh, where's the come
on, Andy. You're a little slow

on the on the rim shot there.

Sterling Burnett: The rim shot.

Jim Lakely: Yeah. Here we go.
Alright. Yeah. Alright.

Okay. Okay. Alright. So we're
gonna go to our main topic,

today, and that is, on this EPA.
Scandal.

This is a scandal. It it's it
would be a scandal if our,

mainstream media was interested
in reporting scandals anymore,

but they are not. And this is
from our friends over at Project

Veritas. EPA adviser admits
insurance policy against Trump

is funneling billions to climate
organizations, quote, we're

throwing gold bars off the
Titanic. You know, I was I I

could read from this.

Let's just say that this is a
one of those classic Project

Veritas sting operations, where
they have a hidden camera and

basically kinda do a honeypot
operation, where you take an

unsuspecting, corrupt government
bureaucrat out for a few drinks.

And I guess by drink 3 or so,
they just start talking and

can't shut their yaps, and so
they start giving away the game

of what's really going on in our
government behind the scenes. So

instead of reading some of the
story, we can get into the

details of it. I wanna play,
Andy, if you will, EPA scam

video, please.

Speaker 1: Just have to get the
money out as fast as possible

before they come in and, like,
pop it up. It truly feels like

it's like Ramas Titanic or
throwing, like, gold bars off

the top hat. Who are the gold
bars going to? On top, it's

states, tribes. We gave them the
money because it was harder if

it was a government run program,
they could make the money away.

Andy Singer: No. If Trump won
and because

Speaker 1: it was a it was a
experience policy against Trump

winning. Until the Trump people
come in and tell us they can

longer give up money. So I do,
you know, the inflation

reduction back? Yes. Okay.

Biden's climate law? Yes. Yeah.
So I do entire implementation. I

work with, like, Biden
appointees.

It's a company that we've given
out. We've given out, like, tens

of 1,000,000,000 of dollars,
like, over the last year. I'm

glad I can give out, like,
$50,000,000. $50,000,000.

$50,000,000.

$50,000,000. $50,000,000. Philly
would be. $50,000,000,000. Yes.

For Climate Bank. So, like, to
go work for one of these places,

I think we'll be really good.
What what are the places that

you've given them to? It's only
been a few weeks, so it's a

little more. But, like Green
Bay.

So, like, so, you know, like,
nonprofit institutions that are,

like, making it more financially
feasible to build renewables to

do, like, climate projects. I do
implementation now. So I do,

like like, how do you spend a
$100,000,000,000? How do you

make sure that, like, they're
the prop well, until recently,

how do you make sure the proper,
like, process are in place to,

like, prevent Todd and prevent
the users and, like, ensure

that, like, we are funding,
like, good paying jobs and and

that sort of stuff. That's not
now it's just how to get the

money out as fast as possible
before they come in and, like,

talk to them.

Really? Yeah. No. I think we
gave them the money because it

was harder if it was a
government run program, they

could the

Andy Singer: money away. No. If
Trump won

Speaker 1: and because it was a
it was a experienced policy

against Trump winning. So, like,
these are basically, like,

nonprofit institutions that will
cover the entire country. They

could have been in a government
agency, but because they aren't,

they're safer. From
publicanization than we have

been. You guys are, like, saving
saving the world, literally.

Anthony Watts: I don't

Speaker 1: know if we are, but
I'm just they're throwing gold

bars up at their clinic. Yeah.

Jim Lakely: Yeah. Alright. Yeah.
So that's that's any god. That

is so it is so offensive and so
it just builds up a little bit

of rage to me, to be honest.

I mean, this is a guy. His his
name is Brent Efron. He's a

special adviser, implementing
Biden's climate agenda. His his

role is to is to find a way, the
fastest way possible, possible,

to shovel literally
$100,000,000,000 worth of grants

under, the so called inflation
reduction act. And, as he says

right there, normally you know,
in a normal thing, they would

take some time to make sure
that, there wouldn't any be

fraud or abuse, and the plate
the targets for the money would

would check out, and they would
do do good with it.

They don't have time for that
anymore. Nope. They're just

gonna shovel it out the door.
All the checks and balances are

gone, and and literally their
goal is to get as much money

into the hands of
nongovernmental organizations,

NGOs, quote, unquote, as
possible because that money will

be untraceable. You won't be
able to get it back.

It'll be gone forever. And to
me, this is really about as

corrupt as it gets and is a
great example of what it is when

you have the partnership between
NGOs and the government. It's

not really that's not really a
nongovernmental organization. If

an NGO is taking if if NGOs are
taking $100,000,000,000 from

government, they are a
government agent. They are not a

nongovernmental organization.

Sterling Burnett: Extension of
government.

Jim Lakely: So who who's Mattis?
Who wants to go first?

Anthony Watts: Well, well, I'm
gonna say this. I'm gonna go

back to what I said a few
minutes ago. Money talks,

bullshit multiplies. Here it is
right there.

Sterling Burnett: I I've been
covering this for some time,

back in Climate Change Weekly
and some other, I was

interviewed about this back in
the middle of summer because

they were shoveling money out
the door before. Look. The

inflation reduction act is on
congress's shoulders. They

passed it. They lied about it.

I mean, they gave it a title
called inflation reduction act

and increased inflation. They,
the green spending some of the

money they gave, like, in in the
summer were to nonprofits, to

community based nonprofits under
the climate justice,

environmental justice provisions
of Biden's executive orders. And

to give you an example of some
of the organizations is, they

they gave they gave, I think it
was either a 1,000,000,000 or

$500,000,000 to an organization
who the previous year had, a

total of something like $25100,
come through its account. It

didn't even have a full time
employee. It was it was working

in the community to, to help
poor people.

So they give them all this money
to, help poor people adjust to

climate change, to to build, you
know, community action on

climate change, and to,
retrofit, you know, homes with

climate friendly technologies
and things like that. But the

point is it had like a part time
guy who had no idea how to

handle 100 of 1,000,000,
1,000,000 of dollars. And that

was just one instance because
there was like 5 or 6

organizations that were all the
same in that regard. None of

them were large organizations.
None of them had any kind of

budgets that that were in a
$1,000,000, or or even half a

$1,000,000,000, much less, a
1,000,000,000, 500,000,000.

And as he said, or as was
pointed out, yeah, there's no

tracking. There's no we we don't
know if they have proper

accounting in place. There'll be
no way to account for it. My

suspicion is these organizations
will grow dramatically. They

will have offices, not be
working out of someone's home,

that will hire multiple people,
and that there won't be much

accomplished other than to pad
the the pocketbooks of, the

people who run the organization,
who set it up, maybe initially

with a noble purpose, and their
employees now, and waste

taxpayer dollars.

And, it will be like the green
climate fund internationally,

where they can't account for 40%
of the money they've sent out of

a of a $100,000,000,000. They
can't account for more than

40,000,000,000 of how it was
spent. And other stuff that they

can't account for, a lot of it's
not for climate stuff. It's like

for a love film, a love story
that was filmed in, in Argentina

or gelato shops, in developing
countries. So it's a disgrace.

It's it's our money. It's future
generations money because we all

know it's done with deficit
spending. Future generations

money and, you know, we should
never allow bills like this to

pass again. Not with that kind
of discretionary funding. No.

Jim Lakely: Well, Anthony, you
know, Donald Trump's been

getting a lot of guff. I know he
just appointed Lee Zeldin as the

new head of the EPA, and, you
know, guys like you and me hope

that Lee Zeldin goes in there,
and and with a chainsaw and

start sawing desks at half and
throwing people out. You know?

But the the idea that the EPA
is, one, qualified to give to

figure out how to dole out at
least a $100,000,000,000 worth

of grants, when it isn't, and
that that's not what its purpose

is, actually. It's to is to
protect our clean our our air

and water and all that stuff.

But the idea that these these
these government agencies, are

pristine and they're out they're
out looking for the best

interests of the Earth and of
the American people is belied by

the idea that this is a
completely corrupt process. In

fact, the guy even said in that
interview that he knows he's

gonna be fired when Trump comes
in, so he's hoping to land a job

in one of these, NGOs that he
just helped give 1,000,000,000

of dollars to.

Anthony Watts: Exactly. Yeah. It
it's just criminal. The whole

thing is it's a criminal
enterprise. That's all I can

say.

I mean, basically, they're going
in the through the process of

money money laundering of public
fund, public tax dollars. And

there are laws against this, but
yet they're not being enforced.

I don't know if we can bring it
up or not, but we just had a a

report from Fox News. I put it
up on the private chat channel.

A link they're talking about
that the EPA has just made their

first ever climate change
arrest.

While they're giving out
1,000,000,000 and 1,000,000,000,

they're arresting someone for
not doing whatever obscure law

they're throwing at him, you
know, because they're destroying

the planet. Meanwhile, these
guys are destroying the

treasury. It's it's just
criminal.

Jim Lakely: Anthony, you're just
jealous that the first ever

climate arrest by EPA was not
you. You wanted to make history.

Anthony Watts: Well, you know,
the I I I wish him well, but,

gosh, I don't know if that's
something I really want.

Jim Lakely: Well, call me
surprised.

Sterling Burnett: I have a
feeling it might be voided very

shortly.

Jim Lakely: Yeah. Yeah. We'll
see. Yeah. I mean, that that's

the thing.

So so, you know, you know, the
the change of the changeover of

power can't happen soon enough,
and it just, I'm glad for

Project Veritas for highlighting
the fact that EPA is corrupt and

corruptly shoveling money out
the door to their left wing, so

called NGOs, all these green
groups out there. And I will

point out the Heartland
Institute, as almost everybody

listening and watching the show
realizes, we are also a

nonprofit 501c3 organization. We
would be, fairly categorized as

an NGO or a nongovernmental
organization or an educational

organization. We have never
taken a single cent from any

government, either federal or
state or local, ever. We never

will.

We stand by our principles, and
we our job is to advance truth

and encourage conversations like
this one on what's really

happening to the planet. There
is a lot of scamming going on

out there in the nonprofit
world. And if a nonprofit is

getting money from the
government, in my opinion, they

can't be trusted. And I think,
the more people know that, the

better.

Speaker 1: Alright. With that
with that, you know, we're

trying to

Jim Lakely: well, that wasn't
very fun.

Anthony Watts: I think we we
need a, I think we need a new

feature. We need, a disgust o
meter. You know?

Jim Lakely: Well, we'll probably
peg that thing every time. So

Sterling Burnett: I'll vomit,
though. A vomit.

Jim Lakely: Yeah. Levitt.
Levitt.

Linnea Lueken: Levitt does not
exist. It will just

Sterling Burnett: it'll just But
it would be it would be it would

be it would be like spinal taps,
amp amp

Anthony Watts: Goes to 11. To
11.

Jim Lakely: That's right. That's
right. It goes to 11 every time.

Alright. Well, thank thanks,
guys.

I thought that was a a great
rundown of that, and, we'll stay

on top of this EPA green, cash
scam. Maybe, maybe it can be

stopped. Maybe they'll be
embarrassed and not send out all

the money. I guess we'll find
out. And if we find out, we'll

share it with you.

Let's get on to our favorite
part of the show other than

crazy climate news, and that is
the q and a, with Linea, who's

gonna run through the questions
you guys have left in the chat.

So take it away, Linea.

Linnea Lueken: Sure thing. I
will give a warning to begin

with. Most of the a good chunk
of these questions are kind of

tongue in cheek, but I decided
to include them anyway because I

think they're funny. So, let's
see. This one, I believe, is a

sarcastic question, but I'm
going to, reference it anyway.

This is regarding our COP
conversation. Montana Blues

asks, are all the COP people
vegans, or do they eat red meat?

Anthony Watts: Well, I would
point out that a few years ago,

I was I think it was in Spain,
Jim, when we were there. The

they already had a Burger King
there, and people were lined up

at the Burger King. You know, we
had pictures of that. It was, it

was hilarious because you're
thinking, oh, they're more

vegan, you know, saving the
earth. Yeah.

They are lined up to get Burger
King. Wow.

Sterling Burnett: Well, there
look. There there are probably

some vegans that go to these
things, But, our friends from

CFACT who were there, you know,
they said, the most popular

places were the buffets, where
they were going up getting

different types of meat.

Anthony Watts: I love

Sterling Burnett: it. Yeah. So,
it's worked for

Anthony Watts: dinner. Exactly.

Linnea Lueken: Well, I mean, if
you I mean, this stuff, half of

this stuff is Germany's fault.
Right? Like, the Germans are

very into the climate change
stuff. And, as Germany is always

trying to destroy Europe every
couple of decades, And those

those Germans love to have,
like, piles and piles of, like,

salami and stuff for breakfast.
So I'm sure you can't have a a

cup without at least a little
bit of that.

Sterling Burnett: No. They they,
they you know, it's like the I'm

reliably informed that there
were no mealworms or crickets on

the menu. Right.

Linnea Lueken: Okay. So here is
a question from above us only

Skye. Does the panel think that
global emissions may have

reduced by COP 473?

Anthony Watts: Is that like
Fahrenheit 451? I mean

Speaker 1: Well, yeah. Well, so
what would that be?

Jim Lakely: So we're at COP 29.
That would be, you know, 450

some, cops from now. So we'll
we'll see. Maybe by the time I

predict I

Sterling Burnett: predict that
by then, emissions will have

declined because we will have a
different form of energy, that

is cheaper, and as reliable. You
know, maybe they'll have figured

out fusion by then. Maybe I'll
have a a a jetpack. There it is.

Anthony Watts: A jetpack.
Spectrometer.

Sterling Burnett: Yeah. A a jet
pack that runs on my little,

mini nuke. Of course, I won't be
around, but, my ancestors gosh,

473. Of course, by then, they'll
have discovered that climate

change isn't a problem because
it'll be cooling again, and,

they'll not need other big
government programs to prevent

the ice age. Yeah.

Linnea Lueken: Right. Okay. So
here is, from Kite Man Music who

says, can we have a whip round
for a better camera for

Sterling? We're gonna pass
around the collection basket for

that. Thanks, guys.

Sterling Burnett: Are you is
that something you really,

really want? No, I'm trying to
be.

Jim Lakely: You guys think that
it was just bad. No, no, no, no,

no. Those are the settings.

Sterling Burnett: Yeah. It's
like I put a little filter over

my camera on my computer.

Jim Lakely: The best we could do

Sterling Burnett: It's to your
benefit.

Linnea Lueken: Alright. Here's
from our friend Chris, who says,

will man get a preemptive global
pardon from Biden?

Anthony Watts: Well, I think in
order to get one of those, Mann

would have to be petitioning to
get a pardon. And Mann thinks

he's done nothing wrong, so I
don't think that'll happen. I

mean, the guy is completely
without any regret, completely

without any conscience, it
seems. So I don't think that'll

happen.

Linnea Lueken: We can only hope.
It would be very, very

astonishing to see something
like that, and that would make

my year. I I would I would be
even more blown away, than the

hunter situation. Okay. I don't
know who this is, but I will go

for this question from k one f
eight who says, whatever

happened to Bishop Hill?

Anthony Watts: Well, he's still
around. He's working for the

NetZero group over there on the
UK, and he's focusing his

efforts on research and policy,
pieces for them. He basically

found out that blogging doesn't
pay. Gosh. I figured that out a

long time ago, but, you know,
I'm not allowed to earn money

just like, the Climate Realism
Show.

Google shut us off, you know,
because how dare you make money

off of spreading lies? That's
what they look at it as. But,

you know, we're we're all about
climate realism on what's up

with that as we are here, but
they can't handle it, so they

shut us down. But, yeah, earth
doesn't pay. That's apparently

the problem.

Linnea Lueken: Of course.
Alrighty. Here's Michael Downs

asking, can parents sue a
teacher's union for teaching

climate cult to our children? I
wish. I don't think you can sue

for that.

Sterling Burnett: You might,
however, as a parent, be able

to, shut it down at the board
level. Right? Go to your be be

be a member of the active member
of the PTA. Show up at your

school board meetings, show up
when it's voted for the school

board, vote show up and,
demonstrate concerning your

state board of education to get
it all out of the, you know, out

of the schools. The teachers'
unions, I'm I'm not sure.

You know, in some states,
they're more powerful than

others, but, I'm not sure you
could sue them for that because,

a lot of the stuff is set by,
your school boards and and your

state education agencies. They
they may encourage that type of

teaching that they teach. They
may agree with the type of

teaching, but, the Texas
Education Agency says what you

have to what you have to teach
in Texas, for instance.

Anthony Watts: Yeah. When I was
on the school board in

California between 2,006, 2002
and 2006, they would give us a

an approved list of textbooks
from the state. We could not

choose anything else, you know,
so there was, like, 2 choices

for history, 2 choices for
science or whatever, and the

state dictated what textbooks
you could use in your school

district. And if you deviated
from that, well, then there was

hell to pay. And in fact, that
happened.

We had a math teacher at one of
the high schools come up with

this fantastic little booklet
that really was going like

gangbusters. And we saw great
improvements on from this thing,

and the state stepped in and
shut it down. We can't have

this. It's not on the approved
list.

Sterling Burnett: I suspect, you
know, maybe you could see the

teachers' unions if if you find
out that your local union are

lobbying for particular
textbooks. You know, these are

the ones we want and and
lobbying for it because that's

using union funds to to get
viewpoint across as opposed to,

you tell us what we're supposed
to teach. This is our, this is

what we'll teach. If if they're
saying that we should tell you

what we should be teaching, and
these are the textbooks that we

approve. Maybe you could go
after them then.

Linnea Lueken: Thank you, LT
Oracle of Truth. Yeah. We do

like to be on Rumble. This is a
question with regards to climate

gate, which which is from
Darren, and he asks begs the

question of why it was never
called out big time. That is the

corruption, the the, collusion
between different, top climate

scientists.

And he says, although I can
guess why.

Anthony Watts: Well, there's
this mistaken belief that

scientists are pure as the
driven snow. Of course, there's

not gonna be any more snow,
according to them. But the thing

is that people that are on the
left in particular elevate

science into some kind of, it's
almost cultish. You know?

Science says, you know, follow
the science, that kind of thing.

And so they don't want to tear
down science because they know

that if they start doing so,
there's gonna be a lot of

inconvenient stuff coming out. I
mean, and it's not just in

climate science that we're
having this problem. We're

having this in the medical and
pharmaceutical, areas a lot.

There's a lot of false papers
based on false data out there.

It seems to become almost
systemic now, and the thing

that's driving this is money.

There's all this money available
for research. Yes. And so

Government money. Exactly. And
so if you've got a $1,000,000

grant for something that you,
you know, you you you came up

with an idea.

I think I can prove that climate
change is causing wildebeest to,

run amok in this in the savannah
or something dumb like that.

Right? And so you're gonna come
up with a way to justify that

money so you can get the next
grant. It doesn't matter if it's

true or not. It's all about the
next grant.

Sterling Burnett: I'm not sure
it's fair to say that it wasn't

a big deal at the time. I mean,
not just we cover it. I I

suspect you could go back in
archives and find that the New

York Times covered it, the
Washington Post covered it, that

most of the, major media
outlets, covered it. I think at

the time I was interviewed on
television stations here in

Dallas, but it faded very
quickly because they immediately

it was big enough thing that
they had various, they set up

various boards to study it, to
find out if there was any

wrongdoing. And, of course, when
Penn State is gonna lose its

money, it's gonna find no
wrongdoing.

Over there in in England, they
found no wrongdoing. There was

only one that found they didn't
find that the science was

corrupted. They found that the
science did bad things, and they

shouldn't have done it. Naughty
naughty. They, you know, they

scraped a little thing.

Naughty naughty. Don't don't do
this again. We we find it's

wrong, but there was no
penalties attached. And so as

soon as that came down, they
said, oh, well, we investigated

it. We we had investigations.

They didn't find wrongdoing. And
so it it it was it was easy to

sweep it away. But when it first
broke, I thought it was I

thought it got quite a a fair
amount of coverage. It just

faded quickly, and that's why
people like us have to bring it

up every so often because the
the malfeasance, the corruption

is still ongoing. Every couple
of years, you find new stuff,

and you have to publicize it and
then tie it back into climate

gate because it's all related.

It's the same actors and the
same types of actions.

Anthony Watts: Yep. And a lot of
what we get today is science by

press release. You know? It's
about getting the the success is

often measured not by the
validity of the science itself,

but how much press you get. And
when you get more press, then

you're likely to get more money.

Sterling Burnett: The truth the
truth is 15 years ago when it

first broke, skeptics like us
were actually given more access

to the mainstream media.

Anthony Watts: We were.

Sterling Burnett: We were
interviewed more often. They

they wanted balance in the
stories. They wanted different

points of view. There has been
an active suppression of that.

They said, we shit we can't give
these people points of view as

if they have an equal, knowledge
as if they count as much.

We can't you know, the the Los
Angeles Times explicitly say, we

will no longer publish anything
that's critical of climate

change. No letters to the
editor, no op eds. That wasn't

true 15 years ago. It's happened
since then.

Linnea Lueken: Yep. Okay. I'm
gonna answer this question

really quick from Hippie who's
asking me directly, if and I'll

try to explain because I think I
understand what she's asking or

he's asking. But, it says, if we
don't use oil up, what will we

do when the oil starts seeping
into the oceans and land more?

And I think what the context of
this question is, is that there

are natural oil seeps that exist
at the bottom of the ocean, that

exist on the land.

I think that we don't really
harvest or no. I know that we we

don't really harvest from
natural seeps all that much,

except for the case of, like,
the tar sands. I think you could

count in that category. And when
you're doing drilling off of,

like, Santa Barbara, and
producing from reservoirs there,

you're probably reducing the
amount of oil seeps that will

occur at the bottom of the ocean
in that area just by, you know,

virtue of you pulling, oil from
the reservoirs there.

Sterling Burnett: Reducing the
pressure in the

Linnea Lueken: reservoirs. Yeah.
And so I think that that's

probably relatively minimal,
though, compared to the amount

of natural seeps that we never
touch. The bottom of the ocean

is absolutely full of things
called, methane hydrates for 1.

There have been a lot of
theories, and, there's a lot of

research that goes into trying
to figure out how we could

harvest those things.

But most of the ideas as far as
I've seen so far are pretty bad

or, you know, like, economically
not feasible. So I don't think

that if we if we were to stop
using oil, which would be a bad

idea, but if we were to stop
using oil, I don't think that

would significantly increase the
amount of seepage. But just

because we don't harvest that
much from those areas, but it

would certainly be bad for,
energy security. So, yeah, I I I

wouldn't too I wouldn't be too
worried about that. But that's a

good question, though, and and
it's fun to get to talk about

that stuff a little bit.

Okay. Next question is one that
I think I can pitch to Jim,

which is from, Riz Reid who
says, when is the next NIPCC?

And I think he means ICCC, But I
think we also have an NIPCC,

which is the

Anthony Watts: It's about it's
about this thick. You've got it

on the shelf over there.

Linnea Lueken: We've got these
books. I don't know if we're

gonna do another one of those,
but, Jim, you're muted. You're

one mute.

Jim Lakely: There's my one mute
of, per per podcast. Yeah. Yeah.

Nipsey stands for,
Nongovernmental International

Panel on Climate Change. It's a
gathering of real scientists who

put together, as as Linae was
pointing out their books,

volumes about this thick, in
response or kind of in parallel

to the reports of the United
Nations IPCC.

We do not have any plans to do
another volume of that size, in

the near future. But if you
meant when is the next,

Heartland Climate Conference,
which is, the International

Conference on Climate Change,
that's ICCC by the Heartland

Institute. We are kicking around
the idea of having 1 in 2025. So

it's in the very preliminary
stages, but we know that they're

important and we know that
they're very popular. So when we

have news on that, we'll share
it.

Anthony Watts: That would be a
good opportunity to promote our

book. There you go. Climate and
a glass. Right. And and and note

how thin it is.

Right? Yes. Because we condensed
those topics down to to, you

know, a crucible of truth that
can fit on a single page,

instead of volumes and, you
know, references and so forth.

This has references in it. But,
you know, you can get our book.

Go to climate at a glance.com.
You can download it for free if

you'd like, and we also have a
climate at a glance app that you

can install on your iPhone or on
your Android phone. It has all

that stuff in it too, and it's
really handy, especially if

you're, you know, somewhere
where you get in an argument

with someone where they say, oh,
you know, climate change is

doing this or doing that or
causing this or whatever. You

can look it right up on the app
and say, look. No.

It's not true. It's not true.
It's all hype.

Sterling Burnett: So Yeah. The
the virtues the virtues of the

app and the web page, the the is
that we have newer material in

it, you know, additional
material that we've added since

we published the the book.

Linnea Lueken: Right. That's
true. And and it's, the reason

why I think we're avoiding doing
the big text textbooks is 1, you

know, you don't distribute as
many of those things. I mean,

they're gigantic. I remember
yeah.

When I first went to, one of our
conferences, and I attempted to

go back home with a couple of
those textbooks, and it was

very, cumbersome to take on the
plane. So, they really are like

full size textbooks. And I do
believe that the NIPCC texts are

available in PDF form on the
Heartland website as well. So if

you want our massive amount of
information about different

climate related subjects,
including, you know, physics and

biology and everything, you can
find those online, and it's a

lot easier than having a
gigantic textbook.

Jim Lakely: Yes. Yes. Go to
heartland.org and actually

scroll all the way down to the
bottom in the footer. There's a

website called climate change
reconsidered. So it's, actually

climate change reconsidered.org.

You can get all of the,
voluminous reports. I think it's

in total about 4,000 pages of
scientific work. So, yeah.

Linnea Lueken: Okay. This is a
good question from Redneck Screw

Loose regarding, the, EPA's
green cash scam, which is how do

I get on the gravy chain train
with biscuit wheels? And I I

wanted to comment on this
because Andy and I joke about

this all the time that, you
know, if we didn't have souls,

this is the wrong industry to
get into is on the climate

realism side. If we really
wanted to make some money, we'd

be on the green side, and let
this be our, you know, evidence

that we believe what we're
talking about.

Sterling Burnett: I've been
offered it. You know? I I was

offered position in other
places. That's all you gotta do

is just, you know, can't you
come over? Don't you really

think it's going on?

Because they thought I was
corrupt. Right? They thought,

look, I'm just in it for the
money. And if they offer me the

right money, then I I would
admit the truth. It's like, no.

I a, I'm not corrupt. B, I'm not
getting the oil money you think

I'm getting. C, I follow the
science, and I'm not gonna not

do that because you offer me
money.

Anthony Watts: Yeah. I will
point out that not too long

after Climategate, I was offered
some money to shut down what's

up with that. Seriously.

Jim Lakely: Really?

Anthony Watts: Yes. I haven't
talked about this. But,

basically, I'll put this
bluntly. I told that person to

go shove that idea up the bodily
orifice of choice.

Linnea Lueken: Right. Here's
another good tongue in cheek

kind of question, which is, from
Gilbert who says a question for

everyone. Would the world stop
spinning on its access access if

Michael Mann admitted that he
knew his paleo reconstruction

was wrong? Anthony, comment.

Anthony Watts: He'll never admit
that. As I'm as I'm fond of

saying, his ego is so large. He
can't fit through most doors. He

will never be able to admit that
even if someone publishes a peer

reviewed paper that proves it,
and there have been some out

there, you know, like what
McIntyre did, he's not gonna

admit to it. His his ego is too
large and too fragile to be,

able to admit such a thing.

Sterling Burnett: I was at a
conference with him once, and

we're both we're actually both
published in the same journal,

because the journal, there was a
a journal that was published

based on the conference. And, he
he's the only scientist. He's

one of only 2 scientists that
I've ever talked to, debated,

been on stage with, who gave me
an answer to what would it take

to convince you that, you were
wrong, that the humans weren't

causing catastrophic climate
change. Others that I've

questioned, they've they've
thrown up their hands, which

shows me it's not science
because there's no there are no

conditions that would disprove
the theory that they can think

of. But Michael Mann had an
answer, and, he said this in

front of a few people in in
answering my question, and he

said, all of physics would have
to be overturned.

Anthony Watts: I said

Sterling Burnett: I said, what?
I said, the like the laws of

conservation of energy and
entropy? He says, everything

I've ever learned about physics
would to be overturned for me to

be wrong about climate change.

Jim Lakely: Oh my god. What what
an ego on that guy. It's

unbelievable. Even Einstein said
it would only take one scientist

to prove me wrong. But for a
Michael Mann, all of physics has

to be proven wrong for him to
change his mind.

Sterling Burnett: Not to his
credit. He gave me an answer to

my question.

Jim Lakely: They did.

Sterling Burnett: He had an
answer. All we have to do is

overturn everything in physics.

Anthony Watts: Right. And then
the universe stops working, and

then it's to make the moot
point. Right?

Sterling Burnett: So maybe so
maybe the guys has is onto

something. The the world would
have to stop turning on its

axis.

Jim Lakely: I think he's right.

Linnea Lueken: Yeah. Okay. This
is a question referring to

something that's been in the
news recently, from Chris

Shattuck again, who says, does
bovir fed meat increase nonvegan

human farting propensity? And
then another related question,

which is, is Beauvoir being fed
to cows in the US? Would we be

told about it?

Would the milk be labeled? I
don't know actually if we would

label milk if we were doing
that. I'm pretty sure we're not.

Anthony Watts: They're labeled

Jim Lakely: if they got
hormones, so why wouldn't they

be labeled?

Linnea Lueken: Yeah.

Sterling Burnett: Yeah. No. I
would have to go through FDA

approval, and I don't think it's
been approved by the FDA. You

know?

Linnea Lueken: It takes a very
long time also to get that kind

of thing approved. That's one of
that's one of the few kind of

good things with the slow moving
FDA is crazy stuff like that

can't get through quite as
quickly. But it's it's it's an

interesting story for for those
in the audience who are not

aware. There are a couple of
different drugs and like methods

that are being used right now on
cattle, or at least are being

proposed to be used on cattle in
New Zealand and the UK and some

other places that are meant to
reduce the amount of methane

that a cow's stomach produces or
stomachs produce when they are

digesting the roughage that they
eat. And it's probably a bad

idea right now.

They're insisting that it
probably won't have any adverse

effects, but it really hasn't
been, from what I've seen, like

in circulation long enough to
show that that's the case. So

it's kind of questionable and
very spooky, and, everyone in

the UK is very upset about it,
and they've pretty much

boycotted the one company that
has been doing it. And I believe

that they do have to, market it
on their milk bottles if they

are using cattle that have been
treated with this stuff. And

there's one company in
particular that everyone is

boycotting over there right now.
So I don't know.

It's, it's an interesting
situation. Hopefully it doesn't

go anywhere. Hopefully it kind
of stops here and they they'll

probably try again in some other
sneaky way eventually. But but I

don't know. I just think it's,
you know, cattle produce that

kind of a methane in those
amounts with their gut bacteria

for a reason.

And it's probably, like, not
quite a Jurassic Park scenario,

but a pretty serious scenario
where we're trying to circumvent

nature in that way. I have a
feeling we're going to end up

with either a lot of dead cows
or worse. So

Anthony Watts: Yeah. I think the
stuff is misnamed myself. You

know, they call it both here. I
think it should be called both

these.

Jim Lakely: Yeah. And maybe
we'll have to do a whole show

dedicated to that kind of thing,
the methane regulation. I I will

note just on that topic that
there seems to be a lot of

interest in reducing the methane
and harming the cattle industry

in the United States, but
there's a lot more bovine in

India, and nobody ever talks
about that.

Anthony Watts: That's sacred.

Jim Lakely: They're sacred. I
guess their methane is sacred

too. So that's a great place to
leave it. Sacred methane. Yes.

I wanna thank

Sterling Burnett: man
Demanipotent. I can hear this on

now. Every fart is sacred.

Jim Lakely: Every fart is
secret. Alright. Lots of ideas.

What a way to end the show.
Thank you, Anthony Watts,

Sterling Burnett, Linnea Luca
for being on the show.

They're all from the Heartland
Institute. Thank you all who are

watching on YouTube, Rumble, and
x, and especially those who are

in the chat with us today. Hey.
Bring some friends to the show

with you next time. Help spread
the word.

Although nothing we want you to
like and share and subscribe.

Nothing beats a personal
recommendation and and spreading

the word of the show to others,
so I hope you will do that as

well. Visit climate realism.com
where you could get great

information every single day on
the counter spin to climate

alarmism. Go to climate at a
glance.com and get our app for

climate at a glance so you can
always know and have the facts

at your fingertips to counter
climate alarmism. Visit what's

up with that, the number one
climate realist website in the

world.

And, of course, always visit
heartland.org where you can

subscribe to our climate change
weekly newsletter. Thank you all

for watching and listening, and
we will talk to you next Friday.

Bye bye.

Speaker 1: Okay.