Heartland Daily Podcast

One of the most urgent tasks of our country is to decisively defeat the climate hysteria hoax.

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 trying that? Germany. Seven straight days of no wind for Germany. Their factories are shutting down.

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

That's right, Greta. It is Friday, and this is the best day of the week, not just because the weekend is almost here, but it's also the day that the Heartland Institute broadcasts the climate realism show. My name is Jim Lakeley. I am vice president of the Heartland Institute. We are an organization that has been around for forty one years, and we are known as the leading global think tank pushing back on climate alarmism.

Heartland and this show bring you the data, the science, the facts, and the truth To counter the climax alarmist narrative you've been fed every day of your life, there is nothing else quite like the climate realism show streaming anywhere. So I hope you will bring friends to view this livestream every Friday at 1PM eastern time. And also like, share, and subscribe. Be And sure to leave your comments underneath this video. All of these very simple actions convince YouTube's very mysterious algorithm to smile upon this program, and that gets the show in front of even more people.

And as a reminder, big tech and the legacy media do not really approve of the way we cover climate and energy policy on this program, so Heartland's YouTube channel has unfortunately been demonetized on YouTube. So if you wanna support this program, and I really hope you do, please visit heartland.org/tcrs. That's heartland.org/tcrs, and you can join other friends of this program who give tax deductible donations to help bring this show to the world every single week. We also wanna thank our streaming partners, junkscience.com, CFACT. What's Up With That, The c o two Coalition, and Heartland UK Europe.

We have a very big show today, so let's get started. We have with us, as usual, Anthony Watts, senior fellow at The Heartland Institute and publisher of the world's most viewed website on climate change. What's up with that? We have Sterling Burnett, the archbishop of Rancherbury, also known professionally as the director of the Arthur b Robinson Center on climate and environmental policy at the Heartland Institute, and Lanea Lucan, research fellow for energy and environment policy at Heartland. And, of course, as always, we have our producer, Andy Singer, behind the curtain, making sure this show looks and flows great.

And we are very welcome to welcome we're very happy to welcome back to the program James Taylor. He's my boss. He is the president of the Heartland Institute. James, welcome back to the show. It's gonna be a a good one, I think.

Yeah. Great to be here, Jim. Hello, everybody.

Excellent. Yes. People in the comments, Sterling we had to do some audio testing with Sterling today. So he was in the studio very early, not used not used to having him in the in the studio half an hour early. But he was remarking about how there were so many people already in the chat waiting, for the show to begin and already starting to chat.

So, one of those people that were chatting in there is our friend, engineer. His his name is Bob. It's okay. I'll I'll say your name, Bob. But he had mentioned that in Chicago, we're going to set a new, probably set a new record.

It's gonna be almost 90 degrees, I think, tomorrow on this weekend. So reminder that that's called weather, not climate. What? What?

Yep. That is correct. I like the fact that they're taking bets on you pulling a gym, Jim.

Yeah. Yeah. Pulling a gym is leaving my mute button on by mistake. Alright. There it is.

2.5 times. That's the over under. Alright. We'll see how it goes. Alright.

But we will start the show off as we always do with our favorite segment. It's called the crazy climate news of the week. Hit it, Andy. Thank you very much, Bill Nye. You are unpaid contributor to this program, and we enjoy it every week.

Alright. Our first story today, it, I've titled it in the rundown there on the side of the screen, shutting down the green new deal. And this has to do with the government shutdown that's going on right now and may it last a lot longer. This is from CNBC. Trump administration cancels nearly $8,000,000,000 in climate funding to blue states.

Let me read a little bit from it here, this of this very happy news. The Trump administration has canceled nearly $8,000,000,000 in funding for climate related projects in primarily Democratic controlled states, a top administration official said on Wednesday. Quote, nearly $8,000,000,000 in green news scam funding to fuel the left's climate agenda is being canceled, wrote, Russell bought Vote, who I believe heads OMB. He wrote that on a on the social media side x, the same day that the federal government shut down after congress did not pass the stopgap funding bill. Vogt said the projects affected by the decision are in California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington state.

Hey. That's kinda weird. Those are all blue states. Linea, we talked about this a little bit yesterday on the In the Tank podcast, which is every Thursday at 1PM eastern time where we stream this on X Rumble and YouTube. To me, I think this is a pretty good start, but there's probably a lot more to go.

Oh, yeah. Well and and the crazy thing is some of this money was going to stuff like trying to prop up, you know, failing wind and solar companies and doing all sorts of little studies and and DEI programs, all sorts of stuff. So nobody wanted any of this. I I saw a report that said that a huge portion of this money was going towards, like, carbon capture and clean hydrogen and stuff. So, you know, a lot of people are going to jump on this and say, look.

The, you know, the president is going after you know, he's in the pocket of big oil and stuff, and he's going after all these other companies. But in reality, you know, big oil is making some money off of carbon capture and all of that and, you know, storage. So I'm sure that they're not too happy with a lot of these cuts either.

I You know? Sorry.

I was just thinking that, carbon capture, a good use for it as much as it's it's pretty pointless. A good use for it would be to recarbonate my beer when I don't drink it fast enough, but then I realized the better solution is just to drink it fast

enough. That was mixed for me. When it's not subsidized and used to for productive means like oil production, from declining wells, it makes sense, but it didn't need the subsidies for that. They were just the oil companies just decided, oh, if you're gonna subsidize it, we should get our share too. I I will say I was a little surprised at this story because I'm surprised there's still $8,000,000,000 in green news scam funding available to be cut.

They've you know, the Trump administration in in its nine months in office has has been cutting left and right. Pretty soon, you think they'd have hit bone, and there would be except where congress explicitly forces them to spend the money. The discretionary stuff that they can cut should be done. Then it's just a matter of going back and ending old, bad programs.

Yep. Uh-oh. Yeah. You lost James Taylor apparently, but go ahead.

Yeah. I mean, it's it's good to see that they're that they're continuing along with this. It's it's definitely I mean, the the main point of our or the main topic of our show today is is the climate war over. And it certainly has to feel like the bell's tolling every single time one of these major cuts is made. You know, it's it's gotta be panic mode right now all across the green scam universe.

So we'll see.

It it will be interesting to see at the end of the year, what the budget comes in like, you know, how much money we actually spent, how how much the deficit grew or didn't grow with all the cuts that have been made and jobs that have been cut. Not all of them that got cut initially are still cut, but, many of them are, and more are being cut as the government shuts down. It'll also be interesting to see how many regulations are taken off the books as opposed to new regulations being, being put on. I think they're right now, they're on a pace to take 10 regulations off for everyone, every new one they're doing. So that is, that should be some relief for Americans, the American economy.

Yeah. I mean, the shutdown is a is a is a once really, maybe even once in a lifetime opportunity to really, basically dismantle these the this the green scam. The this is all a grift, you know, and to just take the money away from projects and, an agenda that cannot survive on its own in the marketplace. So, this is a good start. I hope they do a lot better and keep going.

I think the Democrats really stepped into it with this shutdown.

Yeah. Yeah. They Alright. Let's move on to our second one. This is it's gonna be a doozy.

I've titled this one, the pope climate justice and holy ice. Sterling shared this one with us from the Hindustan Times with the headline, pope Leo mocked for blessing block of ice at climate justice conference. Will it become holy water? I don't know. But anyway, so Pope Leo, the sick the the fourteenth, blessed a block of ice at the Raising Hope for Climate Justice Conference that was held near Rome.

Now instead of reading more from this story, and there's there's been a lot of chatter about this on X, I thought it was good to just put this entire thing in context by playing the whole thing. So no. Not the whole thing, but about three minutes of this ceremony that Pope Leo participated in. So go ahead and hit play, Andy.

Lord of life, bless this water. May it awaken our hearts, cleanse our indifference, soothe our grief, and renew our hope through Christ our Lord. Amen. Lord, bless this assembly, this conference. May the dialogue we engage in contain respect for all gathered here and the entire earth community.

May we work towards a flourishing of all creation held in being by our creator through Christ our Lord.

Creation awaits our conversion. We commit to raising hope and to continuing to unfold a river of hope. We move from tears to hope, from grief to action. Let us speak our pledges. Each help us to unfold this river of hope.

After each pledge, we invite you to sing the refrain,

We will raise hope by demanding that leaders act with courage, not delay. Will you join with us?

We

will raise hope by standing with communities most at risk. Will you join us?

One

minute. We will raise hope by opening spaces for dialogue, creative energy, and solutions that we haven't yet dreamed of. Will you join us?

Arnold Schwarzenegger.

May these voices of hope rise as one. May they echo beyond this gathering and into every corner of the earth. Amen.

Amen. Amen. Stop. Stop.

Turn it off.

Yeah. Well, let me start with you, Sterling.

Fortenegger was being true to himself. You know, this is Greenland ice which refreezes every summer. He could just simply say, it will be bock.

You know? Sure. If it's green on the ice, then, a, they've removed it from Greenland, and I don't think it's gonna make it back. So that won't be refreezy. Yeah.

You know, I had I had hoped this the new pope may not be as active in the climate space as the old pope. He's unlikely to issue an encyclical like the old pope did, But it it it is still a little sad that he has dipped his toes in this water. In this case, maybe getting frostbite, a blessing, this block of ice. In the end, it it just seems to me a bit like, we're spending the creation, not the creator. The bible warned about that.

They talk about, renewing, you know, energy that we hadn't thought of. We've got good energy. And, the restrictions that, the Catholic pope and the the the past pope had wanted on fossil fuels was harming his very flock. They want to, worry about those most affected by climate or weather. They're the ones that will benefit the most from increased use of fossil fuels.

We've already reached a level of, wealth. We don't wanna go backwards, but they're still far behind. They need what we have. The pope is not the only one weighing in on climate change this week. It turns out the head of the church of England has joined some Tories and, the the labor party over in Britain in condemning a call from one of the, Tory leaders to withdraw from the climate act, England's climate act.

It it's always troubling to me when, religious leaders that are supposed to be worried about people's souls, bringing people to Christ for salvation, and teaching them to love one another as ourselves instead weigh in on these geopolitical matters of which they really have little limited understanding. And, when they do, they come in on the socialist side. Socialism is not a friend of religion, but they support the, proposals, the policies that socialists propose to control the economy, to control people's lives, and that is troubling to me. Why should they be making making a common cause with communist China or Castro? They haven't been good to Christians.

You know, it's it's really interesting. Thanks, Anthony. It's really interesting looking at the visuals here. They have on this pedestal, this lit pedestal, like, if it's a holy relic, this block of ice that was captured from a Fjord in Greenland and then brought for this event, which I imagine if they're going to bring it there without it melting, they're going to have to bring it in some refrigerated frozen device container that, of course, is powered by fossil fuels emitting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere for this visual. But here's the thing.

This ice that the pope is is darn near worshiping, the ice that formed in Greenland, the ice that advanced seven hundred years ago at the end of the medieval warm period destroyed villages, drove entire settlements into extinction, killed off not just people, but the the, the cattle, the sheep, I guess not cattle, the sheep, that that the that the settlements had. It brought death and desolation, not life. And I would think that speaking, on behalf of the church, the pope would be celebrating life. And it also calls to mind that whenever a pope, this pope, Francis before him, delves into matters that don't have anything to do with religion, what he is doing is dividing Christians, potential Christians. The central focus of the church, I have always taught, was to lead people to salvation through Christ.

How is it that by getting involved in this secular topic for which, by the way, he's on the side of intellectual bananas, How is that going to advance the mission? It's sad to see. And, boy, I mean, he's just opening himself up to a mocking of himself in the church, and that's very unfortunate.

Yeah. It's it's bizarre. You know, here's the only thing I can think of. You know, the socialist might not like this, but here's the thing. Is pope Leo now an ICE agent of god?

Alright. Yeah. I know Lynette, I know I I want you to kinda weigh in here if you if you feel like it. But, you know, one of the things as I put this clip together was that, you know, I I know that Publioz's heart is in the right place and his spirit is in the right place, at least I believe that, but there just seems to be something about him participating in this ceremony with those particularly assembled people that just didn't really sit right with me because he's being used for PR propaganda. This is a huge coup for PR for them by people at their at their COP conferences and other places basically do pagan rituals, you know, for for Gaia at their other at their other things.

And then here here is, you know, Pope Leo lending the enormous weight of the Catholic church behind this nonsense among people who, frankly, are not are not worthy of that kind of good PR.

Well, I'm I I certainly agree that it

was

imprudent. I I I would give a little bit of pushback on the idea that this isn't the realm of the church. I think that he's wrong on the science, and he's wrong on the politics to fix it even if he wasn't wrong on the science. But I do think it's appropriate for the leader of the church to, you know, talk about potential threats to the planet. If climate change was actually threatening the existence of the planet or whatever, I don't think it would be inappropriate to encourage some kind of action or at least prayer in in regards to that.

Of course, he's wrong on the science here. But I also I was everyone was making fun of me for kind of laughing a little bit while I was watching it. And it just kind of it just kinda reminds me of, like, every if you've ever been to, like, a a not so good mass or, you know, like a like a mass where they bring out the tambourines or something and and you're just like, oh, boy. Here we go. You know?

Some, like, you get a couple of, like, hippie people in charge of the music department, and they they make the whole thing, like, very uncomfortable to sit through. It just was reminding me of that. And I'm just chuckling watching it imagining some of my, like, Latin mass attending friends watching it and imagining the the, like, pain that it would cause in a funny way, not in a in a bad way. But, like, it's just it's the the typical, like, sixties, seventies hippie presentation thing. But, no, I mean, he's not worshiping the ice.

Right. Giving something like that a blessing is completely normal in the Catholic church. We've had I mean, previous popes have blessed, the trees and the mountains or whatever when they go on, you know, trips to different countries and whatnot. That's pretty standard for the Catholic church. But, yeah, I think the whole thing is very imprudent because of the divisive nature of this subject.

But on the other hand, you know, there's nothing there's nothing in the bible that promises, you know, happy unity with everything all the time. So it's it's very

a particular climate or there promises a particular climate. You know? In in the end, when they were singing, I couldn't help but flashing back to Monty Python's and thinking every iceberg is sacred.

Sacred. Yeah. I mean, look. You know, look. I'm I'm you know, Priest bless the Notre Dame football team before they take the field.

I mean, this is not exactly, you know, revolutionary stuff here. But I just wanna make make one more quick note because we didn't have time to play the clip of it. But you did see Arnold Schwarzenegger there helping to flap whatever that was that they were holding it down the, down the aisle. He said he got on the stage too. So he's sharing the stage with pope with pope Leo, and he said he was very glad to be on the stage.

He called pope an action hero, and he's and he and he was happy that the pope could now use the power of the church. And he mentioned specifically the 1,400,000,000 Catholics, the 400,000 priests, the 600,000 nuns, the 200,000 churches, and use that for the climate cause as envisioned, promoted, enacted by, you know, the global elites and the climate alarmists at the United Nations. That's you know, I I had my thoughts on this before I heard that about Schwarzenegger, but that, to me, kinda makes it not so great.

Yeah. Well, Schwarzenegger is pretty terrible. So I'm not I I have nothing nice to say about him, honestly. But, yeah, good luck with that, I would say to him. You know, the pope can support this stuff, but it doesn't bind the faithful to supporting any particular politics.

For sure. Alright. Let's move on to Anthony Watts' favorite story of the week. And I've titled this, Pen is down one pompous man. And this comes from Anthony's What's Up With That Website headline, doctor Michael Mann finally gets his comeuppance.

Now, Anthony, you wrote this on the website. I wanna read some of it for our audience because I know that some just listen to the show and don't watch it on YouTube for video. And then you can run some victory laps after that. So just get limbered up. Here we go.

Anthony starts. Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall. Humpty Dumpty had a great fall, and all the king's horses and all the king's men couldn't put Humpty together again. For years, doctor Michael Mann has strutted across the climate stage with an air of untouchable figure with an air of an untouchable figure, a self proclaimed champion of science who never missed an opportunity to brand his critics as deniers, drag them into court, or bask in the limelight of a sympathetic press. But now, at long last, reality has tapped him on the shoulder.

After less than a year, the University of Pennsylvania's first vice provost for climate science policy and action, Michael Mann has been forced to resign. The reason, his own mouth. According to the Daily Pennsylvanian, that's the student newspaper there at Penn, Mann stepped down after his partisan behavior clashed with Penn's new policy of, quote, institutional neutrality. His resignation came on the heels of controversy surrounding his social media posts, including a since deleted comment about the death of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. That was enough to draw the attention of senator Dave McCormick, a Republican of Pennsylvania, who publicly pressed the university to act.

Recently, Mann reposted comments calling Charlie Kirk the, quote, head of Trump's Hitler youth. Here's a quote from the story that Anthony has. In a September 29 announcement made on his personal website, Mann stated that his scientific advocacy work conflicts with Penn's, quote, established institutional neutrality policy. Particularly at this moment in time, I don't feel I can forsake the public scholarship and advocacy that I am doing and have thus decided to step down from the VPC role, unquote. In other words, writes Anthony, Mann wanted the perks of authority without the restraints of responsibility.

When the university reminded him that administrators are supposed to represent everyone, not just his chosen cause, Mann packed up and left. And he just left the provost position because he's apparently staying on as professor at Penn. So, anyway, Anthony, as you said, Mann, this is a person who could be fairly described as cruel, and now he has had his just comeuppance. So enjoy.

Yeah. You know, it's it's really interesting. I you know, I think congratulations are really in order to doctor Mann because not everyone can boast of being the first vice provost of climate science at Penn and then also the first provost of climate science to get taken out in less than a year. Now that takes some real talent to pull that off. You know?

But, you know, what's interesting about doctor Mann is that unlike climate models, based on his behavior, his outcomes are far more predictable than climate models are. Right.

Yeah. Yeah. I mean, you don't like to see it's it's sad. I mean, we we talk about Michael Mann from time to time when he hits the news for doing terrible things, but we try to be especially just after we just talk about the pope and faith and all of that and being a good person. I try not to enjoy the, you know, the misery or the misfortune of anybody, but Michael Mann really is a horrible person.

He's a terrible human being. Yep. He has no charity in his heart. He has no understanding in his heart, and he has gone out of his way to try to attack and destroy anybody who just committed the sin of disagreeing with him. And he is relentless in that in that pursuit and has been for for decades, James Taylor.

Yeah. Well, I I don't think there's any misery or misfortune. I like you, Jim, it does pain me even when people who I disagree with, who I think are pursuing evil objectives. Nevertheless, when personal harm comes to them, I mean, I don't I don't revel in that. On the other hand, I don't think this is really misery or misfortune.

I my understanding is that Penn says you can't do this anymore. And Michael Mann says, well, I'm still going to do it. Well, if you do, you're gonna have to step down or lose your position. Well, I choose to do that. It shows what a radical this guy is.

And if you follow what he posts on blue sky and whatever else, I mean, it's just it's just full of hatred. It's full of venomous I don't know if partisanship's the right word because it's not really political party. It's just from from the far left ideology, and it is it's funny because he clearly wishes harm on people who he disagrees with. But I think most people like you, like me, Jim, we don't wish harm on him, but we are glad that he is not able to have all these perks and benefits at a university, which is supposed to, be encouraging open thought disagreement. But if you disagree with Michael Mann, be prepared to get slapped with a lawsuit.

My goodness.

I, you know, I've met him. I've I've dined with him. I spent two or three days with him at a conference hosted by the Social Philosophy and Policy Center. We actually published in the same journal. And, we had he he then converse with me a couple of times, and, we had a couple of interesting conversations.

But, you know, look. He's a liar. He lied about winning the Nobel Prize for two decades. He finally got called out for it directly in court, and he's had to say, well, yeah. No.

I didn't win. Yeah. Yeah. They said that I didn't win it. You know, he he what I what I find interesting about this whole affair is what they said about his resignation is they said he wasn't forced out, but they're saving face, and they're saving face for him there.

But they said because he wanted to pursue what was it? His his role as a public intellectual or something like that. They were basically saying that what he was saying is is is, academically justified, that he he's this public person who does intellectual things. And, yeah, they may clash with our neutrality, but it's still legitimate stuff. And I just thought that that was like, come on.

This isn't kind of intellectual. Saying that about Kirk is not intellectual. Thing saying the things he says about other people is not, an active debate or discussion like like colleagues, like academics should be doing. It's straight activism. He he long ago left academia and became, an activist for the climate cause, and they shouldn't pretend otherwise.

He shouldn't have had a job. They shouldn't have poached him from Penn State at UPenn. It they I think they were looking for research dollars, and he probably brought in and delivered research dollars. Because the government likes to fund people who argue for worse climate and bigger government role in your lives.

Yeah. It's amazing watching him. You know, I've been called every name in the book by doctor Michael Mann. I've been called a denier. I've been called a carnival barker for climate science.

I've been called, idiotic. I mean, the guy has no scruples whatsoever about dissing people, and that's what got him in trouble, his own mouth. You know? Plus that his science ain't that good either.

Right? Right.

Totally agree. In fact, it's so bad that he should be in the state pen.

Oh, goodness. Here we go.

That's that's what that's what got Mark Stein sued, James. That's what got Mark Stein sued. Thank you very much. That's fantastic. Thank

you. Should be in a steak pen. I'll say it again.

You should get a caramel Barker hat. Since I've got the, MITRE, you should get a caramel Barker hat and a striped shirt and a megaphone.

Yeah. Speaking of megaphones, where there was a great video that came out right after Climate Gate in 02/2009, and I thought it would be appropriate if we play it again since many of our viewers may never have seen this. Hit it, Andy.

Day by day. Ignoring the snow and the cold in a downward line.

Hide the decline.

Michael Mann thinks he's so smart. Totally inventing the hockey stick chart. Ignoring the snow and the cold in a downward night.

Hide to decline. Hide to decline. The climate I had to decline. I had to decline.

Tearing dad, it was very thin. You should have chopped more trees instead of hugging them. Ignoring the snow and the cold in a downward line.

Had to

fate. I hope you do a

lot of time

because what you did was such a crime.

I had to decline. I had to decline.

Nice.

I never decided that.

Yep. That was from 02/2009. Imagine that that was not an easy video to make back in 02/2009. You could do that you could do that in an afternoon today. That took some time.

That was Minnesotans for Global Warming, which is a fantastically named group as well. So good call, Anthony. Good call.

Yeah. It's probably the best parody video on climate ever made.

Yep. Yep. That's fantastic. Alright. We're gonna get to our main topic here in a second, but, you know, once in a while, we have a segment on this show.

We we call it the meme of the week or the cartoon of the week. Alright. Well, this isn't a meme, but I I saw this morning that Heartland and our, setting up of Heartland UK Europe as well as this Here Very Show were mentioned in a story published in the Observer over there in The UK. Let me read a bit from it here, and and I know Andy has it on the screen. Reform hosted the Reform Party UK, that is, hosted the Chicago based climate science denial group, the Heartland Institute, at its party's annual conference in Birmingham last month.

Lois Perry, director of Heartland UK Europe, told the conference that the government wanted to get the public to use electric cars, which could be controlled and disabled remotely. Not a conspiracy, Lois Perry said. These cars can be shut down. The Hartle Institute describes the climate crisis as a sham. Farage was a guest of honor at the launch of the institute's UK and European arm last December, and Perry said on a podcast last month, that's this year podcast, that Faraj is proud to work with the institute and considers it fab.

Congratulations, James Taylor. This is pretty good coverage for us, I think.

Yeah. Can we hire them as our PR firm? I mean, this is fantastic. It's all true. But, no.

Thank you for calling attention to that mainstream media. Love to see it. It's amazing what we are seeing in The UK, throughout Europe, and increasingly around the world, and that is people are waking up to the fact that the so called climate crisis is a sham, is a scam, is a hoax. Call it whatever you want. And it's wonderful to see that it's driving the establishment media crazy that this is happening and that the Hartman Institute is driving that change.

I love it.

Yeah. It's great. That's actually a very good segue into our main topic for today, and that is the question of whether the climate war is over. Maybe it is. We touched on this a little bit last week.

This is from the New York Times. They had a headline that says, has the world given up on fighting climate change? David David Wallace Wells is at the New York Times. They put on an event called climate forward at the New York Times, and he, David Wallace Wells, lamented that all the momentum of the climate alarmist social control movement seems to have stalled. And then, you know, since many in this audience may not regularly follow Climate Forward and the podcast that he has over there at the New York Times, I I thought we would play some of this so that you can get a sense for how the other side is thinking and feeling these days about the global climate debate.

So try not to enjoy this too much. No smiling completely throughout, but I've done three clips, and we could play them one at a time. Play that first one for us. Andy?

Obama had won the Nobel Priest Prize sort of just for coming into office, and he seemed to many people in the global elite like just the kind of cool headed post ideological technocratic liberal who should be in charge. Yeah. Paris showed us what that might look like, what kind of future it might point to. The agreement wasn't meant to be a one shot solution. Other steps, it was assumed, would follow towards faster climate action, yes, but also towards greater global cooperation, mutual obligation, solidarity, in part because of what climate action implied and in part because of what a growing sense of climate justice seemed to demand.

That was all ten years ago, and now we are living in a very different world. Paris doesn't look like the future anymore. It looks a lot more like the past, like the last gasp of an end of history fantasy, kind of nineteen nineties liberal internationalism imported into the twenty tens and set to crash upon the rocks of history.

Alright. I told everyone not to smile, and I couldn't stop smiling that entire time. So, yeah, it seems like the the last line you had there, James, was that, it seems like the climate, the global climate agenda is crashing upon the rocks of history.

Oh my goodness. Such drama. I mean, I I I was keeping my smiles to myself until that last line was just so over the top. But, anyway no. He, you know, he hit it on the head when he talked about how the bringing together the world under one he didn't use the term government, but nevertheless, coming together would be required to fight climate change, and that really has been the vehicle, climate change, that is the preferred mechanism of the globalist left to bring the world together under their vision.

We have to do this united have to have this united front to fight climate change. Every nation must be involved. And by the way, people like Barack Obama and the ideology of the left, will lead it. It's wonderful to see that the climate alarmist movement is faltering. But lest we celebrate too much, you know, many people thought the same thing in 2016 after Donald Trump was elected.

Here, we have the repudiation of many things from the left, including climate change. But then under four years of the Biden administration, we had tremendous resurgence in climate alarmism in governments, but also from and and not just from Democrats, from many Republicans. Some of the American public started buying into it. But we've been fighting this. We've been fighting this at the Heartland Institute for twenty years.

We will keep fighting it. Right now, over the past few years, we've beaten it back to the point where the left is so distraught that here you have, you have the New York Times presiding over the funeral of climate change or climate activism. So it's it's wonderful that we are winning this war. I remember many people saying to me, James, why should I even care? Why should I contribute to the cause?

We've lost this battle. The climate alarmists have won. No. No. We've turned it around.

And for now, we're beating the tar out of them. But they will never go away, and there will be times when they will take advantage of circumstances to try to bring this back because it truly is their best mechanism for bringing in global socialism. Everybody cares about the environment. I care about the environment. And if you convince people that carbon dioxide emissions are the biggest threat to the environment rather than the wind turbines that kill millions of birds and bats each and every year, including many endangered species, rather than the rare earth mining that destroys entire entire sectors of the environment, that pollutes the water, pollutes the soil.

Well, you know, there you have it. Okay. Then we have to have this one world government based on climate change. We are winning. We are winning, but we have to keep fighting this battle.

So stick it to you, New York Times.

I like what I what I thought was really telling actually came at the beginning of it. He admitted that, Obama didn't win the Nobel Prize for anything. He got elected. Oh, well, let's give him a peace prize because he got elected. He'd no accomplishments.

And secondly, he said he was greeted by the global elite. He the the elite. Yeah. He was one of their own. He he was an insider, and they wanted someone like him, the the as the face of the global elite, who impose, their policies, which give that that same global elite exemptions from, you know, dispensations for the climate harm that they do while imposing policies that, restrict the freedoms of the rest of us.

They'll take their private jets, indulgence. We can't fly. They'll have their their Tesla trucks. Don't get a lot of actually aren't great for the environment as far as miles per gallon, if you wanna cash it out in that way. But we're told to take public transit or stay home or drive less.

He was representative of that that group and their goals. Global imposition, more power for governments over people's lives. And the New York Times admitted it. That's who he represented. That's who had hope in him.

Yep. There's big money in climate no matter how you look at it, whether it's subsidies, whether it's, you know, government funding, private funding. It's all about the money. It's really just like, you know, Watergate, follow the money. That's all climate is about today.

It's all about who's got

How dare you? Well,

yeah. Right. It is. I'm sorry. That's the bottom line.

It used to be at the very beginning when Hansen announced it in 1988, it was sort of about science, but even he had to fudge it because, you know, when he went to the went to the senate and made that presentation in June 1988, you know, his science wasn't quite strong enough. So he had to make some stagecraft. He had to put in, you know, the fact that he opened the the windows and called the weather bureau to find out what the hottest day of the month is gonna be for the forecast. So everybody in that hearing room was sweating in front of the cameras to make the point. And so that after that, every it stopped being about science.

There was, yeah, maybe a little bit of carbon dioxide warming going on, but nothing like the forecast that they've been making. And if you look at the temperature over the last twenty years, particularly at the USCRN data from NOAA, you know, for the best climate network on the surface, there's not a lot of warming going on there. We're we're seeing temperatures today that are the same as they were in 02/2005. So the big climate scare, no matter how you look at it, just has not happened on every front. And if you go to my website, what's up with that?

We have a timeline of all the different climate scares out there and their failures. And it it every time they make an announcement or a forecast like that, it ends up failing, and then they just keep moving the goalpost.

Yeah. Just for context, when Anthony mentions 02/2005, that's not a cherry picker number. The USCRN, it was put into place in 02/2005. And what it is, it's a system of temperature stations that were in placed at the most pristine locations where that you would not have corruption due to urban heat island effects, asphalt, anything else. This is the most reliable network of temperature stations anywhere in the world.

And so there are a 114, I believe, such stations throughout The United States. They've been in place since 02/2005. So now we have twenty years worth of temperature data that covers the entire United States. And when we look at the data, you don't see any warming. You see ups and downs and dips and, you know, whatever else, but you don't see a trend line.

So when you hear the news stories, you you get this all the time. Oh, because of climate change, trout in Montana no longer can survive, because of hotter temperatures. You can't produce maple syrup anymore in Vermont or, you know, whatever it is. I said, well, that climate change you're talking about must have occurred many decades ago because there's been no warming here in The United States for the past twenty years.

And trout still swim the streams in Montana, and maple syrup still comes from Vermont, contrary to what the media has claimed.

Yeah. Well, look. I have two other clips to play, and I plan to enjoy them with our audience. So

You cut off Renee. She's about to comment.

Oh, no. No. She can come in right off right after the second one.

This I'll comment after these. I I can save my thoughts. I'll write it down.

Alright. Yeah. In the second one, the New York Times guy, you know, forlorn voice, is lamenting that, the world just hasn't seemed to be doing enough to stop it.

And on climate? Well, we haven't saved the planet. Paris helped mobilize an awful lot of green energy, and we'd surely be in a worse place without it. But the more ambitious 1.5 degree target established in Paris is now functionally out of reach. The two degree target is getting pretty close.

These are warming levels which not that long ago, frankly, terrified us. Now we are accommodating ourselves to them, defining our failure to meet those thresholds as a kind of success because we have nothing else to do. Right after Paris, climate was an inspiring global cause. Millions marched in the streets. There were quantum leaps in policy.

Every major leader the world over showed up at climate conferences speaking in existential terms about the risks of warming. And when they were talking about what must be done, doing so in terms of full scale mobilization, a World War two scale mobilization. Now when you go to those climate conferences, most of those leaders are missing. There's still plenty of work to do at COP, but the COPs are no longer a center of geopolitical activity or gravity like they were just five years ago. Countries aren't even submitting their plans to decarbonize in line with the terms of the agreement.

The rich world isn't mobilizing for a World War two against climate change. In The US, Joe Biden seemed to focus his entire presidency on achieving a landmark piece of climate legislation. But three years later, the IRA has been stripped down almost to the bone.

Sterling, the good news just won't stop from him.

I wish it was stripped down almost to the bone. I mean, we we got rid of about a third of it.

I I will I'll stay from

one you want. I want that. 1.5 degrees and all I got with this T shirt.

That's good. We should thank you, Tech. We're gonna steal that idea, and we're gonna put that on the Heartland website. But I I I want to apologize first for, on behalf of my fellow millennials, for the the absolute scourge that is the millennial vocal fry. It is very hard to listen to.

But yeah. Well, what I wanted to say is this guy's I you almost kinda feel bad for him a little bit. Not really because they're trying to push for, you know, catastrophic globalist, you know, policies that they'd push for regardless of climate change. But a little bit because if they're true believers, then this would be very, very upsetting. I wanted to point out that, you know, in the you have this, like, kind of coalition of people in the media and politicians and stuff who keep up this drumbeat about different aspects of the climate debate, like the the idea that the transition is underway or whatever.

The the the transition from fossil fuels is underway. But you look at, you know, charts showing, you know, the energy breakdown. And sure, there are more renewables coming online than in previous decades, but there has not been a, you know, corresponding decline in global use of fossil fuels. So that's just something that's just not true. That hasn't been happening.

They also you know, they have not seen any significant change in carbon dioxide emissions in the atmosphere. They haven't seen, you know, consistent warming anywhere. It's irregular, as James was pointing out, pretty much everywhere. The, you know, various impacts on, you know, glaciers here, or, you know, sea ice there, whatever it is. It's all it's it's not going the way that they have been saying that it's supposed to go.

And and then you get these politicians, these world leaders who will stand and look their activist friends in the face and say, we're winning on this issue. The transition is underway. And and it's very much not. So I kind of I kind of think that, you know, Greta was right a couple of years ago when she stood in front of or stood outside of the IPCC or the one of the COP conferences and said that they were all hypocrites and liars. But she was wrong about what they were lying about.

Right? She she she says that they're hypocrites and liars because they don't actually believe this stuff and they aren't actually like, trying as hard as she thought that they should be to be, like, forcing some kind of a global energy and politic politics transition. And that's true. They they aren't many of them are not true believers, I think, at these conferences. They're just enjoying the benefits of getting to go to cool conferences.

But the the the reality is that they are charlatans and liars and that there's no catastrophe on the horizon. And if we could get that point across, then I think that you could save a lot of people a lot of reasonable pain. You know?

Yeah. So

Go ahead, James.

James. I wanna set up a third clip, which you'll enjoy, but go ahead.

Okay. Well, very quickly then. I I actually do feel for this guy, a little bit. I mean, his pain is real. And when he talks about how there are fewer people going to these conference of the parties, the UN COP conferences, I mean, think of the opportunities lost.

If more people would be going to COP thirty in Berlin, Brazil, think of how much more the Amazon Rainforest they could have bulldozed to set up the, the roads going out there. I mean, they they've only bulldozed tens of thousands of acres so far. I mean, if this guy had his wish, think of the hundreds of thousands of acres of Amazon rainforest they could have destroyed. Think of all the extra private jets and the carbon dioxide that they could be pumping into the atmosphere. I I feel for this guy.

I mean, if we just had more people attending these conferences, the planet would be in such better shape.

Hi. Yeah. I I've gotta say, you know, everyone's said, oh, we can feel this guy's emotion. Look. I'm not, I'm not saying that he has to be more emotive.

I certainly shouldn't be as the archbishop for Brandenberry suggesting how people should do their presentations. But his mono tonic, reading of his, diatribe or his, you know, sort of, to a lost climate agreement that that was really never anything but a paper tiger to start with. This guy I could listen to to go to sleep. I mean, his he he he I don't see the emotion. I see it in his words, but not in his inflection, not in his emphasis.

It's like, he could have done this through AI. Honestly, I could sleep with this guy. It it it it'd be like the surf. Come

on, please,

dude. Sterling.

Yeah. Yeah. You gotta you better rephrase that, Sterling. That's all I'm gonna say. You can run that back and see how that came out of your onto the show.

Before we, just one last clip. This one is is shorter than the others, but it contains he utters the words that fans of the show might recognize. Play it, please, Andy.

The number of climate laws passed by governments around the world has fallen from about 300 just a few years ago to under 50 last year. We hear less about net zero than about energy sovereignty and climate realism, and it's hard not to avoid the conclusion that we're choosing to define as navigable levels of warming which five or eight years ago we chose to define as unacceptable. Politically, the world has kind of just moved on, but that doesn't mean it's all over. Doesn't mean that environmental apocalypse is right around the corner or even that our climate future will be defined primarily by normalization of what once looked like totally inconceivable climate disasters. Because as climate has lost its grip on our politics and our geopolitics, decarbonization and green energy has raced ahead.

Yep. I I like his statement not only about climate realism, but he says, it doesn't mean that environmental apocalypse is right around the corner. It never has been.

Well, I like how in the same sentence, he then proceeds to say, but we are going to be witnessing unprecedented, you know, climate disasters or weather disasters. It kinda does sound like he's saying both things at the same time. It's Mhmm. Bizarre.

Are you saying that the climate alarmist arguments are incoherent and contradictory?

I would believe it. I would never say something

like that. Yeah. No. Never.

It'd be

the first time I've ever been accused of that before.

Yeah. Well, alright. Well, let's, I'm you all enjoyed that. Hope our audience really enjoyed that. I certainly enjoyed that.

But it is interesting, and we will keep an eye on those kinds of arguments. The cop this year in Brazil is gonna be very interesting. We may have some news about people on this broadcast concerning that COP. I'll just leave it there for now. And, we can get on to our q and a because I know Anthony has to has to boogie a little bit early early today.

But before we get to the q and a for everybody, be sure to put those in the chat for us. I wanna tell you a little bit about the sponsor Wally. I wanna tell you a little bit about the sponsor of this show, the Climate Realism Show, and that is Advisor Metals. Now if you listen to a lot of conservative shows, you hear tons of pitches for buying gold, silver, and other precious metals. There are a ton of companies out there, but we wanna tell you why you should trust our sponsor, Advisor Metals, and it's the man who runs that company, Ira Brashatsky.

He is the managing member of Advisor Metals, and he does not employ high pressure tactics or deceptive marketing ploys like many that you find in big gold. He also doesn't deal in so called rare, coins. When you buy gold and other precious metals from Advisor Metals, you are dealing in quality bullion, and that is so much better when the time comes for you to liquidate this very valuable physical asset. And when you buy from Advisor Metals, you'll have your investment sent discreetly directly to your very home. And by the way, Ira is advertising on our program because he is an America first patriot.

He does not donate to Democrats in their causes. He refuses to work with proxies of the Chinese Communist Party, and he, like us, abhor the machinations and schemes of of the World Economic Forum and these other confabs of, climate alarmists around the world. So we are very proud to have him as our sponsor. Oh, if you wanna diversify your investment portfolio, if you wanna back up your IRA with real physical bullion of precious metals, please go to climaterealismshow.com/metals. You can leave your information there, and Ira or one of his team will get, in touch with you and make the process very easy.

Again, that's climaterealismshow.com/metals, and be sure to tell them who sent you because that helps us and this show while you're helping your future. Alright. We are ready for the q and a. Lanea, please take it away. Alright.

Okay. Alright. So our first question here is from a frequent visitor, Albert, says, what's this winter gonna be like? And I'm gonna. My first question is

looks like Lynne, it looks like your audio might be broken. I'll just ask we have the question up on the screen, but it says, from Albert. He says, what is winter going to be like?

Yeah. But he has to say where? I mean, Northern Hemisphere, Southern Hemisphere, Western, Eastern you know? All I can say is is that winter, wherever it's at, it's gonna be cold. That's it.

That's all I can say for sure. And there'll be less daylight.

Colder. Colder. Some of us, you know, live in Florida or Texas or Louisiana or South Carolina, and there's a reason why people flock to the warmer climates, not just in America, but around the world. Look at the world's major population centers. Notice how they are disproportionately grouped around tropical, subtropical climates.

It's not killing us all. So anyway but, hey. But but it reminds me, what is it in in Groundhog Day? Winter is going to be it's gonna be a cold winter. Well, I don't know.

For most of you.

I I I I don't like to make predictions, but I'll make this one. It will snow in some places. Other places will get hit by ice, maybe the same places on occasion. We're already seeing snow falling across, the mountains in Europe, in the Balkans, and, that's pretty early for it. They're falling pretty heavy.

It's you know, the Russian war in Ukraine continues to drag on, and I think they're gonna, you know, run into the to what the the the Nazis did and what Napoleon did once again this year, and it's gonna get bogged down the winter there. So, this winter will look like other winters that we've had in the past. Colder, some snow, but how much and where? Who knows?

Yeah. We should just put in a proposal to replace the entire National Weather Service with Sterling.

Here we go. And and along that line, let's hope that it's a full winter, with a government shutdown in place. That'll make it more

There you go.

Yep. Lanea, how's your audio doing right now?

Can you hear me

now? Yes.

Yes. Okay. Great. It's, I don't know what happened there. I guess my microphone just decided to disconnect or something.

Not sure. Anyway alright. So here is another question from our good friend, Alan, who has been on the who has, you know, been in our comments section since the very beginning as far as I remember. Anyway, he says, hi from a very damp, crawl of UK. Let's say the climate war is over.

What will you guys have to talk about then, and what will happen to your funding sources? James, what are we

gonna do?

No. I mean, that's a great question because I often get accused of, you know, just a Heartland Institute is just a show for these big money donors, and that's all you do it for. Well, first of all, I'll gladly trade our budget with the budget of Greenpeace or the World Wildlife Fund or, you know, you name it, the Sierra Club. They make a lot more money. They bring in a lot more than we do.

I guarantee you we could flip on this issue tomorrow, and Heartland's budget would skyrocket. We'd all be living fat and happy. And the more that, the more we prevail on this issue, we do it because it's right. We believe in truth. But, yeah, if and when we we put the final nail in the coffin of climate alarmism, I I know I'm gonna lose some of our donors who are motivated to make sure that that threat does not materialize, but so be it because we're here fighting for truth.

That's what we believe in. You know, let the rest take care of itself.

I I I I have an experience. So my mother, used to work for Social Security. And at the previous think tank I worked at, we were pretty heavy into, getting rid of Social Security and making setting up private accounts. And I I asked her one day. I said, mom, how do you feel about the fact that, I'm working for an organization that's trying to put you out of work?

And she started to laugh uproariously. She just thought that was the funniest thing. And she looked at me and she said, do your worst, son. Look. Climate alarm isn't gonna go away.

The climate war is not over. But if, as one, alarm climate scientist told me once, over time, predictions continue to be wrong. We may have to rethink this. The environmentalists will, as they've done in the past, jump on another cause to impose restrictions on people's lives. It will be endocrine disruptors.

It will be they're already you know, the plastic we gotta get rid of plastics. The plastic pollution. They will always have a cause, and we will always have plenty of work to do here at the Heartland Institute.

Yeah. And, James, I I will have you know, some of us are fat and happy without being wealthy. That's all that's all I'm gonna say.

Alright. So here's a question from Walter who says, the rescinding of the endangerment finding gives the blue states an exit strategy from their energy predicament of impossible net zero goals. Will they will they take the out or just double down on their doomed policies?

Good question.

Great question.

Well, they're not they they they aren't bound. You know, they they were already doubling down just because the feds aren't the backstop they said before under Trump. All these cities all over the country were saying, we're gonna go forward with Paris whether Trump whether we're in it with Trump or not. We are gonna have our own policies, our own net zero goals regardless of what the federal government does. I do not think so they didn't need, Trump's efforts to give them an out.

They didn't have to join that stuff in the first place. They could back out anytime they want. Will they do so? Well, it's happening in California some. You know, reality is starting to slap Gavin Newsom in the face.

He is not gonna be the president of The United States if he has the highest energy prices in the country. He's driving people and jobs out of his state. They can't his gas prices are high. They're they're changing their laws and not just in response to federal changes, but on their own. So some of them may learn, others maybe not.

California is a case in point. You know, they've got the most restrictive environmental policies anywhere on the planet, you know, and also the most restrictive energy policies. And, you know, they tried to close down their nuclear plant, their one remaining nuclear plant a couple of years ago. And then they realized, oh, wait a minute. If we shut that off, we're not gonna have enough power to keep the grid going, especially when, you know, there's a heat wave or something like that.

And so what do they do? Well, they say, well, you know, we didn't really mean that. We're really gonna let that nuclear plant continue for a little while longer because, you know, wind and solar and all the other green goodies that we promised haven't kept up. And so they said, let's just set that aside. Now they've done the same thing just recently for electric vehicles, not cars, mind you, but for trucks.

They had this insane idea and a law that said we're going to make it that anyone who is doing, you know, trucking in California is gonna have to use an electric truck by 2035. Well, the trucking industry went berserker over that and rightly so. I mean, the electric truck technology still isn't mature. And even if it was mature, it still got its own set of problems. There's no charging capability in California that could keep a fleet of electric trucks running.

And the whole idea was pie in the sky. You know? It was a feel good, we're saving the planet thing. But they came to reality and said, you know what? We're gonna back down on that.

So I look at California. You know, the worst case scenario for green environmentalism is now backing down from it. And if they're backing down from it, you gotta believe that some of the other states are gonna follow.

You know? New Jersey might follow real quickly. Their their governor's race is is up in arms over a couple of things, but the energy prices is one of them.

Yeah. It it's funny in California. Gavin Newsom just last week attempted to take a victory lap on his Twitter account celebrating and bragging about how California leads the country in renewable energy and winds wind percentage and solar percentage and all that stuff. And so I saw that. And, I mean, I I know what's likely to be the case, but okay.

I quickly went to the Energy Information Administration's web page where they have state by state pricing. Yeah. California leads the country in gasoline prices, has the highest gasoline prices anywhere in the country, has the highest electricity prices anywhere in the lower 48 states, and they're approaching Hawaii and Alaska. It's pretty hard to approach that because, you know, they they're far from everywhere else. Their prices are through the roof.

Anyway, yeah, Gavin Newsom, please. Let let's let's talk about let's take victory laps and compare California to the rest of the nation because I don't think that's going to be good for your political future.

Yeah. I mean, I I think David Wallace Wells, who did those podcast clips that we played, at the at our main segment here, gave us a big answer to that question that he you know, he's on the global stage, climate realism is now the name of the game. I think we're already seeing that. And he mentioned that not one, maybe only two countries even came forward with a reasonable plan to meet the to meet the goals of Paris. And so it's actually already happening right now.

Alright. We have this question from Polly who says, why isn't there any cost benefit study made on the climate change before spending any more money? Well, that's what our Department of Energy is attempting to do, I believe.

Yeah.

Anybody have anything on that? Yeah. It's because

of be a thing to do, but nobody seems to be interested in that sort of thing because, you know, it's all about image. It's all about, you know, saving the planet, all that kind of stuff. They're engineering, you know, economics, all of those things don't really go or figure in well, you know, to climate solutions.

Well, what they do, they only do half the equation. Every time they release a new rule, a power plant rule, a vehicle emissions rule, they only do the benefits, their their supposed analysis of the benefits, and they ignore the costs or they minimize them. You know, that's that's what they've done with the mercury rules. That's what they do with the clean power plan. They're supposed to do a legitimate cost benefit analysis, but they don't ever do the cost analysis

or the relative cost

of goods.

There was a study published, 2022, 2023, I forget which, in the peer reviewed journal energy, and you had energy economists. What they did is they broke down the full system levelized cost of electricity sources. And so doing what, for example, what what EIA has done in the past is they will give what they say is levelized cost of energy, but then they don't factor in costs imposed upon the grid, costs imposed upon energy sources that aren't wind and solar. But, anyway, according to this, according to this peer reviewed study, natural gas is far and away if you're if you're gonna going to now build a new power plant or new equipment, wind, solar, whatever it is. Natural gas is far and away the least expensive.

Wind power, I believe, was about seven times more expensive than natural gas. Solar power, more than 10 times. What's amazing so it's it's there you have the cost, which is through the roof if you're going through the preferred energy sources of climate activists. But the you know, when you factor in the benefits, environmentally is where they say, well, these are our benefits. But what we did at the Heartland Institute, we published the affordable, reliable, clean energy scorecard, and we dove in.

We we did a deep dive into the various environmental issues. So it's not just carbon dioxide emissions, but species impacts, land conservation. How much land is required to power the grid with wind turbines? An amazing amount of land. About a third of the nation's land would have to be covered by wind turbines according to peer reviewed study by Harvard scientists.

So if you're going to have a cost benefit analysis, take a look at affordable, reliable, and clean energy scorecard, and you will see that it's not just the cost, but the benefits are entirely on the side of conventional energy sources. Natural gas is the gold standard. You also have coal, nuclear, hydro score very well also. So check that out. There's your cost benefit analysis, and I'm hoping, I won't mention names, but we have connections with people in the administration, that we are providing this information with, and I'm hoping we're gonna have some big announcements soon.

Yeah. Tech, this is this study is on Heartland's website. You can go to heartland.org. Do we have a

I'm I'm I'm gonna drop it in right now. I just read it. Fine. Yep.

Awesome. Thank you very much. So we will we will have that for you. Don't worry about that. Alright.

Couple of great questions here. We have this one from Climate Bell who asks, how motivated is oil and gas to debunking climate change alarmism? Do you think they have self imposed barriers perceiving reduced profits if scarcity is reduced or want to play the ESG game? It's you're you're climate bill, you're really pointing out a lot of the complicating factors here. Yeah.

Oil companies, some oil companies have stronger feelings about this than others. Many others are kind of, in my opinion, and this is from someone who is outside the industry at this moment, kind of pursuing the let's get eaten last approach and others that are taking advantage of all of the tax advantages and stuff that you can take advantage of if you promote ESG or if you pursue carbon capture, you know, and storage, all that kind of stuff. There are a lot of corporate, there's a lot of corporate encouragement to kind of hype climate alarmism even for oil companies. And a lot of them are, you know, diversified too into wind and solar and stuff. So it is complicated.

The scarcity thing, I think, is a little bit of a I think it's kind of too broad of a of a concept to say that they're, like, making decisions at the corporate level in order to promote scarcity like, the feeling of scarcity or whatever. I don't think because that would that would entail basically every company being involved in trying to promote that narrative, and that's not happening. So, you know, there are companies who put out reports saying, like, oh, we're screwed next year. We're gonna be in so much trouble. You know, Permian is gonna be gone or whatever.

And then you'll have another company that puts out a report that says the opposite. So it's there's no, like, oilfield conspiracy to promote scarcity. But, yeah, it's it's complicated.

We we've been in this game for a long time. We've been, we've we've provided material to lawsuits that the that the oil companies have been in. They don't give us money. I wish, you know, I I wish they did. They're not in in fighting climate change alarmism.

They're invested in having a soft landing as possible, from the government. Every lawsuit, they never challenge the science. They never challenge the science. We try and encourage them to do that. They don't do it.

What they say is this will be terrible for the economy. Yeah. The planet's dying. Yeah. We are producing the energy, but saving the planet would be terrible for the economy.

And if you're gonna do it, it should be done at the federal level, not by state.

It's such a terrible argument. It's unbelievable. But Yeah. It's That is the argument that they make.

It it calls to mind a number of years ago. I was invited to give a climate science presentation at the at a meeting of the board of directors for a large coal company. And I walked through that. And, at the end of the climate science segment, then proceeded to, you know, what are what are our courses of action? What is our preferred course of action?

And after I made the case for reducing restrictions on conventional energy, making sure that the federal government does not run coal, natural gas, oil out of existence, I was taken aside afterwards and said, James, it was a great presentation on the science, but we have some disagreement here. We're not opposed to eliminating coal power and other sources of power so long as the costs are socialized. In other words, give us enough money, we'll go away. And it's funny. You know, we never got a dime from them, But it's it's amusing how oftentimes the argument is is that the big oil companies are funding climate realists or climate deniers, whatever it is.

They don't give any money to any organizations that I'm aware of. Long time ago, they gave a little bit, but it they're more interested in preserving their profits, and they see the federal government hand out subsidies and sitting at the table as their best path towards more money. And and and the thing is with the Heartland Institute and Climate Realist across the board, we don't have any particular love, affection, or loyalty to a particular coal company, oil company, or even the coal or oil industries. We're looking out for consumers. That's what we care about.

We don't want our cost to go through the roof, our freedom to choose be taken away, and, basically, people being stopped, the American people, and our standard of living being destroyed by wind and solar power. If wind and solar power become affordable, if they can cut their cost by a factor of 10 so that they can compete with natural gas, you know, I'll be cheerleading them as well. I don't care what what industry it is.

Well, if they're also reliable like natural gas. I mean

And reliable and not destroying birds and bats and taking up the American landscape. Yeah. There's a lot of obstacles. But the point is we don't care about any particular industry. We just want the best deal for the American people.

Yeah. What do want?

And I sorry, Sterling. I wanted to we can keep talking on this subject because, actually, there's another question that kind of is tangent tangential to this. Sorry to cut you off. From someone that I have not seen in our comment section before. I think they just randomly came across this broadcast.

So I'm excited to have them here. This is atheist gamer who asks, what's your take on importing oil, empowering Gulf countries, and leading to an increase in money for terror? Is it strategic to have alternatives? And, Sterling, if you can take that on.

No. I will. But I I wanna say I wanna state Heartland's standing pretty clearly. We are energy neutral. We want all energy sources to complete to compete in the marketplace on a level playing field.

Not we don't promote subsidies for oil and gas or coal. We fight the little subsidies they actually get, which is carbon capture and storage. But we think they should all be treated equal and let them compete. And if they were competing on a level playing field without regulations restricting one and and promoting the other, without, subsidies, massive subsidies, wind and solar on the grid scale just wouldn't exist. They they just simply wouldn't be there.

So but if they get to the point where, as James says, they and battery backup are cost effective and reliable, all for it. We we take no preference. We want what's what works. What keeps the lights on, keep the refrigerators running reliably. Now concerning strategic concerns with The Middle East.

Donald Trump is the first president in a long time, and this this started back when he was the first, you know, president. The first was he wanted to make America not just energy independent, but energy dominant. And one of the reasons for that strategically is he wanted us to be less reliant on foreign sources of energy, which funds terrorism. And so he's actively doing that. Right?

He doesn't wanna be relying on China for, rare earth elements. He wants to do that mining here. He wants to do the refining here. He wants to make us less vulnerable to the geopolitical machinations of foreign countries, whether they're in The Middle East, Asia, you know, or up in, you know, in Russia. He wants America to be the shining city on the hill that leads by example and in part leads through energy dominance.

Totally agree. And it's not just an opportunity to wean ourselves or wean other nations of the money we send to them that are hostile to us. But in America that is taking the shackles off energy production, keep in mind that America has more coal, oil, and natural gas resources than any other nation in the world. It's not even close. There's only one nation in world that has even half as much of our cumulatively cumulative oil, coal, natural gas resources.

That's Russia. Nobody else has even half as much. If we were to produce effort or take the shackles off of that, if we allow energy producers to simply do what they're set up to do, not only do we reduce prices here, not only do we immunize ourselves against energy shocks. If Iran says, oh, we don't like this, so we're gonna shut the Strait of hormones hormones and drive energy prices to the roofs, great. Saudi Arabia loves it when prices go up, so will we.

Go ahead and do it, Iran. Make our day. But on top of that, we have the ability to export coal, oil, natural gas around the world. And rather than nations right now being beholden to Russia, to China, to hostile actors in the Middle East, and then following their lead and doing their bidding in the geopolitical realm, well, heck, they'll be lining up to align themselves with America and please us. And there's nothing bad that can come with that, at least not not today.

Who knows? We get another Barack Obama administration. But, anyway, that's what we should be doing.

Absolutely. So to that to that, mister Gamer, sir, yeah, it's it's complicated, but, basically, America First Energy is kind of the cure all to a lot of this stuff. Alrighty. Let's see.

Short margin is good for us, it's good for the world.

Yeah. Well and and to his point about, you know, is it strategic to have alternatives? Because I think that this is something that the, British government has been saying for a while. They say, like, we have to put in more wind turbines in order to break us from Russian gas or whatever. And it isn't breaking them from Russian gas.

It's it's not helping them at all. It is it would be strategic to have alternatives if those alternatives were actually alternatives and not things that actually burden the grid further. Wind and solar as they stand right now, even with, you know, modern current battery technology is not an alternative. It's just basically a burden. It's it's like I don't know.

I can't come up with a good example off top of my head, but it's it's not helping any. So what is strategic is to be producing here so that we don't have to import from elsewhere. And, also, there's some, you know, reg weird regulatory and, like, legislation and stuff that we could get rid of that would help us to not have to import, like, Russian oil to or Russian gas to the, the East Coast and that kind of thing. So, yeah, it's there there are a lot of moving parts there. Okay.

Let's see. Stan Pickett asks, what are your expectations for when Lee Zeldin will make a statement regarding the endangerment finding? Anybody? Bueller?

I saw Sterling lean forward there, unless it was unrelated to the question.

Well, I'm not sure he's gonna make any kind of announcement while the government shutdown is going on. I'd like him to go ahead and make the announcement and let it be a fait accompli by the time anyone comes back to work and lawsuits are filed. But they, you know, they've taken they've taken our not just ours. They've they've put out the proposal. They have taken the public comments.

They're considering the public comments. They have a a deadline for doing that. I don't know what that deadline is. But right now, unless they contracted it out, they don't have anyone working on the public comments. So I think they'll move forward with it, but I can't give you a timeline.

Alrighty. Great. Let's see. We don't have a whole lot of time for other questions here. Let me find one more.

Unfortunately, Anthony had to duck out. So any for him, I can't I can't take. Let's see. Oh, okay. We're gonna end on this, and I'm gonna pitch it to you, James.

Has anyone done a study to determine how much warming the trillions we've wasted so far has prevented?

Well, it's it's funny. EPA has, you know, their model that, you know, forecasts how much warming would occur or would be averted based upon the amount of carbon dioxide emissions released. And and, basically, if if the entire American economy went to zero carbon dioxide emissions, which is impossible, but let's just say in theory, it could happen. It happened immediately, you know, by the end of the century, the amount of warming that would be averted, I forget the number, but it's, like, zero point zero something degrees. And it's just silly.

And on top of that, keep in mind that and we discussed this before, but it's important to remember that carbon dioxide, it's it's it's a law of diminishing returns. When there's very little carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and you add some, it is going to prevent or prevent much more radiation from going back into space than when you already have more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. In other words, the first the the first initial portions of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere cause a lot more warming than what is added later. And right now, as doctors Happer and Linsen, two of the most brilliant scientific minds in the world have shown, the atmosphere is essentially saturated with carbon dioxide. So if we're gonna add more and more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, it's not gonna have any measurable, any noticeable increase on temperatures.

And of late, what we've added at the past, you know, few decades has had very little impact as well.

You know, I think we we had this guy on the The New York Times audio. I think he said something in his presentation. Like, if we hadn't acted, it'd be so much worse now, but we're you know? It's like, well, what what evidence do you have that it would have been appreciably different today if we hadn't signed, the Paris Climate Agreement and basically met none of its targets? You know, where's the where's the proof of that other than you saying it?

Yep. It's it's a mystery, Sterling.

It's a mystery.

Alright. So thank you very much, Lynne. Thank you very much, everybody, in the chat for your questions. We've always enjoyed that part of this show. I want to point out that the over under on myself, Jim, pulling a Jim, was 2.5, and the answer was zero.

So if you took the under, congratulations.

I just left the $100.

Yes. With money on the line, Jim comes through.

It focuses the mind. That's all I could say. So thank you to Anthony Watts, who was on the show when he had to bug out a little bit earlier. Thank you, James Taylor, president of Heartless too, for joining us today. We hope to see you again soon.

Thank you, of course, to Sterling and Lanea, the usual people that are on this show along with me. And, again, I wanna thank everybody in our audience. Without you, this show doesn't happen, and we appreciate that. And be sure to go to heartland.org/tcrs so you can help support this show and bring it out here every single week. I wanna thank our streaming partners, Junk Science, CFACT, c o two coalition, Climate Depot, What's Up With That, and Heartland UK, Europe.

Thank you very much, Andy, our producer behind the scenes. Fantastic show today, and we will see you again next week. Bye bye.