Heartland Daily Podcast

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

We are in the beginning of a mass extinction.

The ability of c 02 to do the heavy work of creating a climate catastrophe is almost nil at this point.

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

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

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

You know who's trying that? Germany. 7 straight days of no wind for Germany. Their factories are shutting down.

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

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

And, you know, there is nothing else quite like the Climate Realism Show streaming anywhere online, so I hope you will like, share, and subscribe, and also leave your comments underneath this video. Those actions that are completely free, and we are very appreciative of them, convince YouTube's algorithm to smile upon this program a little bit more so that this show gets in front of more people. And as a reminder, because Big Tech and the legacy media do not approve of the way we cover climate and energy on this program, Heartland's YouTube channel has been demonetized. So if you wanna show your support to this program, please visit heartland.org/tcrs. That's heartland.org/tcrs, which stands for the Color Realism Show.

Or if you're watching right here, you can just grab your phone and scan that QR code over there, and you can help, give us a little bit of money and help us, bring this show to you every single week. Any support that you could give is warmly welcome, greatly appreciated, and also deductible on your taxes. So before we get going with a very big show today, we also wanna thank our streaming partners, those being junk science.com, CFACT, Climate Depot, What's Up With That, and a new streaming partner, the c 02 Coalition. So, all of our allies are coming together, to make this show possible, and we appreciate their work with us as well. Let's get rolling.

So we have with us today our usual crew, Anthony Watts. He's the senior fellow for 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? Doctor h Sterling Burnett, he's the director of the Arthur b Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy at the Heartland Institute, and, also, Linnea Lukin, research fellow for energy and environment policy at Heartland. And we are so happy to welcome to the show for the first time our old friend, Myron Ebel. He, well, he's semi retired, I guess, from driving the environmental left nuts.

He's a proud climate criminal, and he used to work at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Now he is chairman, of the American Lands Council. So, and he was also and which is why we're so happy he's on the show today. He was the leader of the EPA transition team for the well, the transition team for the Environmental Protection Agency during the first Trump administration. So there's really nobody else we can have on that could better talk about the flurry of executive orders that, Donald Trump has issued when it comes to climate and energy.

So welcome, everyone, especially you, Myron. Thank you.

Good to be back.

Linea, it's actually good to see you at all, just before we get into the show. Linnea, you went to Washington DC for the inauguration. You, you smoked some cigars. You you put on some nice clothes, and you had a really nice time. And, then you got stuck because winter arrived.

Well, let's just say Midwestern winter arrived into, South Carolina and all across the South, and so you were stuck in DC a lot longer than you wanted to be.

Yeah. I I mean, regarding the cigars, Mark Mark Marano was nice enough to share a pipe with me. So it was a pipe. It wasn't a

service price.

We have photographic evidence.

Yeah.

We we have photographs.

Yeah. I, I had the most frustrating travel experience I've had in a very long time. I was supposed to fly back home Wednesday morning early. That flight got canceled, but I booked for another one, you know, and later in the afternoon. You know, hopefully, Charleston Airport would thaw out, and I'd make it home.

I'm sitting at the airport. That one gets canceled. Thursday morning, I go to the airport or, no. It was Wednesday that I was sitting in the airport, and it got canceled. And then I went to a hotel for the night thinking I was gonna catch a flight Thursday morning, and I'm getting ready for bed at the hotel.

And my Thursday morning flight gets canceled. And then I hear from United that they're not going to have flights into South Carolina until, Saturday. And he said, nope. I'm going home now. So I rented a car and drove.

It's just the 8 hour drive. It wasn't too bad. And the roads were clear all the way until I made it to Charleston. And then as soon as I hit Charles, and went to the airport to pick up my car and drop off the rental, and it was like I have I have some interesting pictures of, that I probably shouldn't have taken while slowly creeping down the highway, but I just had to share the highway covered in snow because they have no snow removal whatsoever. So there's just, like, a pair of tire tracks going down the highway in white.

And, it it was, yeah, of it was a very interesting time, and my house is covered in snow. So that's fun, for my my tropical island paradise has been destroyed.

Aw. Well, you said like, you you lived in Northern Illinois for a long time. You just Yeah. You just

I know. And Wyoming.

So And Wyoming. Yeah.

Yeah.

Just just wait 10 years. Linnea won't know what snow is.

Yeah. Exactly. I keep getting I'm never gonna see snow again, and it's following me. I can't you know, this joke has been made a bunch of times, but I'm gonna make it again anyway for the for the benefit of our audience. But I'm really pretty ticked that Trump didn't wait until after I got home before he canceled global warming.

So

That's right. That's right. The the all powerful Donald Trump. And we'll get to that in a moment because one of our topics is the snow across the southern states. But having said all that, thanks thanks, Elaine.

Glad you're safe. Glad you're home. Let's start off as we always do with Anthony Watts' very favorite segment. That is the crazy climate news of the week. Hit it, Andy.

Alright. Yes. Thank you. Thank you very much, Bill Nye. You could use some of that heat down in in South Carolina right now, but, it'll come eventually.

It's called spring. Anyway, our first item here is, from Facebook. Actually, it's from a a local news report out of, Wilbraham, Massachusetts, which is near Springfield. Anthony Watts had, shared this with us in our, group Slack here at the Heartland Institute. And, well, there's really no need to explain anything more.

If Andy displays the video, you'll see that there was a problem with the electric school buses in Massachusetts.

At home now and new this morning, an investigation is underway in Wilbraham to determine how multiple school buses caught fire earlier this morning. Take a look at this video. This is how the scene looked when first responders arrived at the Lower Pioneer Valley Educational Collaborative Garage in William Wilbraham. You're looking at about 4 to 5 buses engulfed in flames. Fortunately, no one was inside any of those buses when it happened.

According to the Wilbraham fire department, the first reports came in a little before 2 this morning, and the flames were out before 3. A message from the school district superintendent sent out this morning says the buses that caught fire were new electric buses that have not yet been placed in service.

Well, well, well. Well, you know, you know, fortunately, guys, you know, the big yellow school bus fan, Kamala Harris, is not president, so we don't have to witness her crying on camera about this calamity. But, again, you found this for us, Anthony. And, yes, it's fortunate that there were no children on those buses. They were just brand new, never used electric school buses charging overnight, and poof, now they're all gone.

Yeah. Well, you know, if you're a parent and you see that, would you wanna put your child on one of those damn things? I sure would not. The whole idea of electric school bus is just for it's virtue signaling. That's all this is.

You know? We're saving the planet because we're using electricity instead of, you know, gasoline or whatever, diesel fuel. But the bottom line is is that once again and again and again, we see these things just don't hold up. And, you know, when they're brand new and they get fire, I mean, what kind of warranty have they got, I wonder? Is there are are electric cars and buses now going to have a no fire clause built into their warranty?

Oh, if it catches fire, that's not under warranty. I I don't know. But this has become so common. It's laughable.

Well, it's it's not laughable if you junked all your diesel buses as soon as you got your new ones. As a lot of these, contracts require you to do, you can't just set resell them. You actually have to get rid of them and make them unfunctional, And then suddenly, you don't have a bus to take your kids to school. Not that you'd want your kids on these buses. It's, it's a stupid stupid idea that only government could force the market to take.

You know, there would be no electric buses were it not for the government. There wouldn't be the huge influx of windmills or or solar panels were it not for government pushing them. They don't make sense on their own. They can't compete on their own. And, of course, there were stories this week that showed that, you know, one electric van manufacturer, another one declared bankruptcy.

Wind turbine manufacturer has said it's going to cancel, even before the subsidies disappear just because Trump's in office and he says no more wind turbines. It's like, well, we can't compete on our own. We can't we can't sell our wares in the marketplace without the subsidies and support. So we're just closing the doors despite the fact that I'm told constantly wind and solar are competitive. They're cheaper than the other forms of energy.

We're never going to see a reliable electric vehicle until we get away from lithium based batteries. It's just that simple.

Yeah. It's true. It's true. Alright. Let's move on to our we'll keep an eye on that.

We do like to, highlight how often and how, prominently electric vehicles just catch fire spontaneously in the worst places possible, and then that was one of them. So stick around. Maybe this madness will end now in the next 4 years. We shall see. Alright.

Our second item today comes to us from that commie newspaper, The Guardian. And, a little self indulgence here, but this is a feature story and expose they did on the Heartland Institute titled, revealed, US climate denial groups working with European far right parties. Yeah. So the lead says that, climate science deniers from a US based think tank have been working with right wing politicians in Europe to campaign against environmental policies. The Guardian can reveal.

The thing that they're talking about is us, the Heartland Institute. And by revealed, they mean that, stuff that you can find on the Heartland Institute website, things we put out in emails to the public and to the media. But, you know, they're a bunch of clowns, and so they call that being revealed. Anyway, the upshot here, is that the story reveals that we now have green ministers of European Parliament, MEPs, spreading, quote, the rise of the Heartland Institute in Europe. Though this part here might be my favorite part.

I'm just gonna read from it. Kenneth Haar from the Corporate Europe Observatory added, quote, it is really bad news to see the Heartland Institute moving to Europe. At this point in time, we should be scared that we will see a revival of grotesque climate denialism. The their presence in Brussels and European politics is bad news. The coming years were looking difficult enough with corporate lobby groups pushing successfully to roll back climate policies.

The Heartland Institute is likely to become one of the helping hands to create a close personal alliance between conservatives and the far right that will be very destructive. Well, we can only hope so. I joked earlier this week with Lewis Perry, who is the executive director of Heartland UK slash Europe, that we should send the authors of this piece in The Guardian a gift basket. Well, she did. So wherever you are and if you're watching today, Helena Horton, Sam Bright, and Claire Carlyle, I hope you're enjoying the gift basket that was sent to The Guardian's newsroom in London this week.

Guys, to me, this shows that we are winning. We are winning, and they are running literally scared from, climate realism.

I I like how they tried to portray this as some breaking news from investigative journalism that they discovered something that they hadn't been writing about, by the way, for 3 weeks since we launched Heartland UK Europe back in mid December.

Right?

They've already had articles on it. The Telegraph ran articles on it. The, Sun ran on it. You know, multiple, multiple articles have been running on this. And as you say, we've been putting it out.

We haven't been hiding our light under a bushel on this matter anywhere. We're talking about to anyone who ask us a question and but it reveals something. Well, you know, boy, the Guardian is on top of things.

That's all

I can say. They're on top of the fact that, you know, climate realism works in the US, and increasingly, it looks like it might work in Europe. They they might get it. They might understand that they're destroying their economy. They're putting their people in, shivering in the winter and molting and sweating in the summer.

And, they don't like it any more than anyone else would.

No. Myron, you're smiling. But, you know, I was thinking you might be jealous. I mean, you know, usually, you're the biggest climate criminal I know, you and Molloy. So, you know, maybe next time.

No.

You you, you know, you guys are doing great work, and I'm I'm glad that you're entering the fray in the declining continent of Europe and and, the UK. You know, they have they are so far in denial, of what what they've done to their economy and what what the cause of it is, namely moving from reliable, affordable energy to squirrels running in, little, you know, wheels. Treadmills. Yeah. Treadmills.

And and so anything that you can inject in terms of actual facts and and what the reality is is it can only help, but, you know, they're they're very far gone. You guys have a lot of work to do.

Yeah. Well, we're we're ready for it. That's for sure.

Yeah. You know, given the fact that we're now given the sort of nefarious, image by the Guardian, I think we need, like, a pirate flag or something for

for us,

you know, that we can fly proudly, you know, put on our cars and so forth.

I'll try and get a a an eye patch and a tri corner hat, a black tri corner hat to wear next time.

We should just do an edit of the black beard flag, the Edward peach flag with the

Yeah.

Wine goblet and the yeah. We should do that. Alright. I'm already Donnie, do it.

Oh, yeah. Donnie, our graphic designer, and,

you can get on that. Know.

Yeah. Put Sterling's face on, captain Jack Sparrow, and we're off off to the race.

We we have a lot of viewers from the UK here, on the Climate Realism Show, and I I wonder what their thoughts are on us invading their space and, coming to I don't know. Would this be like a liberation campaign to save them from from climate crazies in their own country?

Well, what I what I announced when we announced this and I wrote the press release, I I said that the harless dude was establishing a beachhead in the United Kingdom in in, in Great Britain to then eventually take over Europe, much like, US forces in World War 2 were staged from the UK to liberate all of Europe. So, it's coming. You guys gonna have to be patient.

We we should call our effort the normalcy invasion.

Yeah. We know the Normandy invasion.

There you go.

Man, again, there has to be a secret hand signal when you have a good joke coming, Anthony, so we can get the rim shot ready for you. Alright. Alright. Let's move on. Let's move on to our our 3rd item here because we got a lot to talk about.

And this one is about the snow in the southern states. There's gosh. There were so much to choose from. And, Linae, I apologize for not grabbing some of your wonderful photos. Maybe we can share one before the show is out.

But I did come across this pretty funny, ex post from former West Virginia led state legislator Derek Evans. It's a little video he took. He said, Trump has been in office for one day, and he has already saved us from global warming. And I do I must say that this is my favorite executive order from Donald Trump in that global warming is canceled. Signs his signature on it, and then that's that.

There you go. Yeah. We had, I think I sent a photo. I don't know if y'all have it. I sent a photo.

We we actually had the beaches in Galveston covered in snow.

Yeah. Yeah. I mean, all across Houston, everything. Yeah. So, Anthony, I know you wrote, you know, the companion website to this show is climate realism.com.

And, Anthony, of course, this was a pretty big, weather event that is being blamed on climate change that it snowed so much in the south, but it's hardly unprecedented.

Oh, yeah. Well, the media media immediately jumped on this and said, oh, you know, the polar vortex is getting deeper and more and more often and because of climate change. You know? And I wrote an article on climate realism that completely destroyed these claims. Peer reviewed research basically says there's no signal whatsoever, and there's contrasting information about the polar vortex.

And the only reason that they're talking about this is because it became popularized when we had a big cold break outbreak in 2014. And so, you know, the media just jumps on this, and they keep repeating the same thing over and over again. They don't learn anything. They just repeat memes. I mean, they're that dense.

And so, yes, the polar vortex is getting worse because of climate change. There's absolutely no evidence in the available science that suggests that this is happening. It's a giant load of crap. I'm sorry. That's what it is.

But the media is, is schizophrenic on the matter. Right? Because every couple of years, they polish a new article, often not very originally named called the end of snow where they're telling us what we won't see any soon. Children won't know what snow is. You won't see snow.

There's there's no no snow for Christmas And then they get massive snow for Christmas for the first time in a decade. And they say, oh, let's see. That climate change is really mucking up the weather. It's, you know, it's they they do the same thing with monsoons. Do you have a bad monsoon season?

And they'll say, oh, climate change making monsoons worse. Then you have a monsoon season that's not so bad, and they say climate change is taking away the monsoons, which is gonna kill people because they won't have water for to grow their crops. Every year, it's, climate change is doing this. And then the next year or sometimes the next month, climate change is doing just the opposite. It's, climate change is sort of amazing thing.

It's it's, if you were selling it on TV, it'd be Ronco product, and it could do everything. It could open a can. It could, it was a it would be a floor cleaner. It would start your car. It'd be amazing.

Hey, Sterling. At least the pocket fisherman works. You can catch a fish with that.

I have one I have one in my garage.

I but, you know, as as Anthony is part of saying, the you know, just as just because there's a heat wave doesn't mean that we're experiencing, you know, that it that it's proof of, like, accelerating warming or something. So too, you know, I don't want people to get too excited jumping on the cold down there and start saying, you know, this is evidence that we're headed into an ice age, actually. Now a a cold spell is a cold spell just the same way that heat spells a heat spell. As Anthony likes to point out, it's weather. It's not climate.

Exactly. And it's happened before. It's happened before. New Orleans, for example, they got 10 inches of snow, and the climate crazies are up. Oh, no.

It's global warming. It's climate change. It's polar vortex. Well, a 130 years ago, they had 10 inches of snow, and it was tied by this research storm. So what was causing the, you know, the the the snowmageddon a 130 years ago?

Was it climate change? No. It's just weather. Weather is a part of a a chaotic system of the planet. The planet the planetary weather systems are chaotic, and they will occasionally burst out in large amounts in one area or another.

You know, super dry, super wet, super snowy, super dry again, whatever. It's natural for our chaotic system to do these things, to have these outbreaks. There's nothing abnormal going on.

Right. If if carbon dioxide emissions by humans caused, you know, this weather in New Orleans, then what's the excuse in 18 95 when they got 10 inches then? These are these things happen.

I mean, I would say that it is abnormal, but it's abnormal in the scope of, like, things that can happen. It's abnormal, not impossible, and certainly not unprecedented, which is probably Okay.

Imprecedented is the right word here. It's not unprecedented.

Yeah. It's it's not it's not unprecedented is probably my biggest pet peeve in journalism today. It is so it's probably the most abused word in the English language right now other than literally.

Yep. That's right. Climate change is responsible for all 90 90% of clickbait headlines. You know? It it's just it's amazing the lengths that the media will go to to make a headline that looked like disaster is just looming right around the corner next week.

And if you don't do something now, like buy an electric car, you're doomed.

I suggest everyone go back and watch the old, South Park episode, the day before the day after tomorrow. Oh my god. It's today, and there's a big shadow coming down the street, climate change.

Very good. Alright. Alright. Let's get to our main topic today, lady and gentlemen, and that is, Donald Trump making climate policy sane again. Now, the lead essay for Climate Change Weekly this week, that Sterling Burnett, produces for us is, dominated by the I think by your count, Sterling, at least 47 executive orders Trump had signed, dealing with climate and energy policy.

And and most of these things were expected, you know, previewed from, stories or things that he had done in his first administration. And that's, you know, exiting the Paris Climate Agreement, ending the electric vehicle mandate, no more all of government approach to stop climate change, no more restrictions placed on federal infrastructure, buildings and repairs to ensure sustainability, reversing the offshore oil drilling ban, offices of environmental justice in every federal department, gone. See you later. Opening up ANWR, the, Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, to energy exploration and extraction once again, lifting the ban on liquid natural gas exports. And, of course, the, coup de grace, Trump instructed the EPA to revisit the endangerment finding.

Oh, and ending the wanna focus on that.

Ending the EV mandate. Ending the EV mandate.

Oh, yeah. I had that was second one I said. You must

have missed it. Sorry.

Yeah. The one the one that doesn't exist, but it's good that it's there and it's terrible that he's getting rid of it. Exactly.

Right. Right. Right. So so I wanna go so I wanna go around the horn. Like I said, there's 47 of them.

I wanna start with you, Myron. And and I do wanna we can save the discussion of of, you know, vacating the endangerment finding by EPA. Aside from that one, I assume that's everyone's favorite, what what are the ones that stuck out to you that was that were terrific that, Trump did with his EOs?

Oh, well, it's a long list. And, as you said, there's there's a bunch of them, and, you know, everybody ought to look at them. They're on on white house.gov, the the official, president's website. And, you know, there's a lot of detail there. Some of them are very complicated, unleashing American dominance and declaring an energy emergency, and they they interact in various ways.

But I would say, in the short term, you know, he stops offshore wind development. He, says you can't use the social cost of c o two or the social cost of carbon in regulatory rule making, so you can't add climate into every policy decision and every permitting decision. He reopens up the north slope of Alaska to oil and gas production and makes a huge number of changes to, the way, energy is going to be handled. More of it is gonna be produced in Alaska by removing a bunch of obstacles, some of which were very surprising. And,

the

the funniest thing, is, of course, that Trump undid a lot of what Obama did. Biden then undid everything that Trump did, and now Trump has undone every single thing that Biden did, plus a lot more. He's gone much further than the first time. So some of these things, I I think have problems, but I think by and large, if this really is just a revolution. I mean, it's it's without I mean and he's gonna go to congress for more more changes because the EV mandate is baked into into the so called inflation reduction act.

So that's a big. There's a lot more to do, but he's he's he's made a pretty good start.

People talk about a president's first 100 days. He did more in the first 100 hours than any president I can imagine doing in in a 100 days or a month.

And a lot more than the first the first Trump term, they dragged it out over many out over more than a 100 days. So

this is

he this is much better.

He learned a lot. Right? Yeah. You know, he came in wanting to drain the swamp his first term, and he was sincere about that. But to be fair, he was he was not a politician.

He'd never been in politics. And he had no idea what the swamp really meant. What was involved in overcoming that bureaucracy? He was a businessman. He was used to being able to say, you're fired and it stick.

You know?

You're He was You're right about that, Sterling. But remember, one thing you haven't said is there were a lot of swamp people in the first Trump administration, including the White House. And it took the president quite a long time to figure that out, that he was getting bad advice from his White House chief of staff and many of his closest advisers in the White House because they were really not with the Trump agenda.

Yeah.

I think it's different this time.

Yeah. No. I think he he learned his he learned his lesson. He's a smart guy. He he saw, the problems that he confronted, and he had good people to work with, while he was out of office.

It's hard to believe he could get any work done with all the lawsuits and the criminal, you know, the investigations, but he did and they came in with these this massive number of well, bought out executive orders. I'm with I'm with Myron. I think there are 2 or 3 that won't stick that will not just be challenged, but be successfully challenged. I think there are some that he just has to has Congress go in and change laws, to prevent some of these, the really awful things that say Biden did like his banning offshore oil in all these areas. The law gives the president that authority.

It's not clear it gives the president the next president the authority to withdraw it.

Yeah. And another good thing is that he's learned is, you know, Myron pointed out about these people that were swamp critters that were still in the administration. Well, Trump is cleaning house now. He's basically saying, get out, and he's replacing them with his own people. So he's not gonna be in the situation where some of these people are are kinda like, malingerers, you know, and and sabotaging his efforts.

So he's getting those saboteurs out, which is a good thing, and, he has a much higher chance of success by cleaning house and getting out the potential saboteurs first.

Yeah. Well, Myron, you know, with you being head of his EPA transition team, back in, you know, in 2017 2016, 2017 as he entered his first term, you know, I was extremely hopeful because I've seen wanted posters by the climate left with your face on them. And so that's the guy I want leading the EPA transition team, somebody who's wanted by the environmental left for, crimes against the Earth or something. I don't know. Or, you know, blasphemy to Gaia.

But, you know, I I I will just confess, you know, you and I, you know, we talk a lot, and we have in over the years about these things in groups and in in person. And, I think it's safe to say a lot of people in our in the climate realist movement, while hopeful, very hopeful when Trump first came into office, were frankly pretty disappointed with what he was able to do, how dedicated he was to to enacting climate realism and sensible energy policy. And it you know, people have talked about a vibe shift, you know, in the country that the election was reflective of. I feel like if there's a vibe shift that's going into everything right now, and I think his vibe has shifted on on climate realism, and he's taking it way more seriously. Because if you read the language of a lot of these executive orders, they are very precise.

They seem designed from the beginning and carefully edited to survive legal challenge.

Yes. That's right. Absolutely, Jim. You know, this time, instead of assembling whatever he could to to get ready and and then get into the new administration, this time, he he had his own think tank, the America First Policy Institute. And, they have been working on this ever since you know, for the last 3 years to make sure that that president Trump, Mark 2, is better prepared and that he has a much stronger agenda and a and a much better team.

And so, you know, I think, we're all sorry that he didn't get reelected in 2020. We wouldn't have had all the damage that the Biden administration and the Democrats in Congress have done. But on the other hand, he's come back with all the energy of a 1st term president, but having learned, what what works and what doesn't work and what he needs to do. So he he's he's got a lot more energy and a lot more direction this time.

Yep. There's almost

Go ahead.

Sorry. No. Go ahead.

I was

gonna say there's almost a a feeling of, like, unreality that this has happened, that we got president Trump back. And he's, like, you know, the first second after he, is done with his initial speeches after the inauguration, he's, you know, signing them 200 executive orders on things. As one of our, commenters said, and I believe as Chris said yesterday, though, it would I mean, we as the executive orders are really good to get thing the ball rolling, like, right now and to get your foot in the door, but we really need a lot of this stuff to be passed legislatively. And we only have, like, 2 years to do that probably. Right?

Myron, would you

Well, you know, it's gonna be hard to get anything through Congress that, the Democrats in the Senate don't like, and they they don't like anything that Trump is trying to do because of the of the cloture rules, the so called filibuster. But, you know, we've got the reconciliation process, which is a way around that. Budget reconciliation only requires a simple majority in the senate. So, you know, Biden got through the so called inflation reduction act with all the subsidies for EVs and windmills and solar panels and carbon capture and storage and everything else. He got that through budget reconciliation.

So the Republicans are gonna have to bear down in congress and get this get all this stuff undone and then do the new things through budget reconciliation. And, you know, they have a very tight margin in the house, and I think Trump is gonna have to be the leader there. He is going to have to tell the speaker of the house and their house Republicans what to do. And he's and then he's gonna have to tell the senate Republicans what to do, and they better march because if if this agenda isn't successful, the Trump administration isn't going to be successful, and the Republicans are going to get wiped out in the next election. So I I think this is very important that that he show a lot of leadership in telling the congress what they have to do.

Yeah. You know, we we talked about this other, executive orders from the president on yesterday's show in the tank seen Thursdays at this very time, 1 PM EST and 12 PM, central time where we are here. At least, I am here in Chicago. And we we wanted to save the climate and energy ones for today's show. But, I think it's important to to know that and what's it's amazing that there were, I think, 200 executive orders, at least, that he had signed within the first not even 12 hours of his of his, new administration.

He had a he had a signing desk set up at his rally at his celebration rally on stage, for crying out loud. That's some that's some WWE style, you know, Vince McMahon stuff there. That was pretty funny. But, you know, the important thing is that there needs to be follow through. The the idea that a new president can come in and basically change the law of the land with the stroke of a pen for 200 different aspects of our life and policy, it seems crazy to me.

And we need a congress that is going to follow-up. We need legislation that is going to make these things actual law that would need to be repealed by a future congress instead of being just, you know, flip flip flip flip, you know, every time a new administration comes in.

Yeah, we may not have weather whiplash, but we do have policy whiplash often.

Absolutely true.

And, I know we want to talk about the endangerment finding and it may be the most consequential portion of a single bill of a single order. But I want to talk about one thing before we move on to that. And that is we talk about Paris, right? So he withdrew us from Paris. That was probably his biggest signature, achievement in the sense of very visible during his first term.

Oops. Sterling is frozen. Mhmm. Sterling

entered the frozen.

We're out in a rule. We're out in a year now. But he he went a step farther. It wasn't just getting us out of Paris. He passed.

He signed an executive order called Putting America First in International Environmental Agreements. And that's a bigger thing because there's a lot of environmental agreements. And, when it comes to the climate agreements, Paris isn't the only one we've signed. Under Clinton, we signed on to something called the Kyoto Protocol. Now it's it's it's come and gone.

No one met their conditions of the protocol, but we've signed on to a variety of them saying we're going to do this kind of funding. This gets us out of all of them. Just getting out of Paris wouldn't have done that. This order because they were not treaties. None of them since the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change was a treaty signed by the Senate.

Everything else has just been a president saying, Yeah, yeah, we're gonna send you some money. Yeah, yeah, yeah. We agree to these this language. Well, he's now said, no. No.

No. We're out of them all. We we're not gonna call any of them. We're gonna take the money back, and we're not giving you any more. I just assume him not go to another climate conference, him or any of our people waste resources there.

But this order, I think, was important.

Absolutely, Sterling. I think, all the it it it explicitly says we're out of the Paris Climate Treaty, and we're out of the international climate finance mechanisms of which there are several. Now we the US has never put much money into those climate finance mechanisms compared to what was promised, but still we're talking about a a a whole lot of international UN bureaucracy that that we're not gonna be part of. I think also it opens the door to getting out of the u the underlying treaty, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change or the Rio Treaty of 1992 because it directs the the Secretary of State and others to look into, what what our international environmental commitments are and what ought to be done about them. So it it's as you said, it's much deeper than just getting out of the Paris Climate Treaty.

Yep. Yep. Alright. That's very good very good point, and and that's something we can talk about on the show moving forward for sure as we keep an eye on these things. Anthony Watts, you shared a couple of, links in our private chat here, you know, maybe with some proof of policy change already.

Well, not quite proof yet, but I would like to see president Trump cut the head off of the climate snake. And and and the head of of the climate snake is NASA Goddard Institute For Space Studies. These are the guys that started it all. Back in June of 1988, doctor James Sampson went before congress on the hottest day of June, which they scheduled in particular to be the hottest day of June. When they called the weather service ahead of time, said, what's gonna be the hottest day over the next couple of weeks?

That's when they scheduled their hearing. Then they went in the night before, sabotaged the air conditioning, and opened the windows so that the people were sitting in there sweating for the cameras while they talked about the dangers of global warming. That is the most dishonest piece of policy in science I've ever seen. You know, if your if your science is so strong, why do you need this stagecraft bullshit? In any event, NASA GISS was gonna be on the way out.

It was formed as a planetary research group for the Apollo landings, also for potential Mars landings, Venus landings, the whole works. But, basically, once the Apollo program got canceled in the seventies, they didn't really have a mission much anymore, and they were languishing. They were in danger of losing funding. And until they came up with, oh, no. We're all gonna die of climate change unless we do something right now in June of 1988, they basically were, you know, they were just getting scraps of funding.

And then all of a sudden, of course, congress freaks out and says, oh, well, we better throw some money at this. Boom. They threw 1,000,000 and 1,000,000 of dollars at NASA guests, and these guys basically set the tone for all the other climate alarmism down the pike. Does NASA GISS have to exist today? No.

And I wanna tell you why. Let's go to the next page. They have, of course, their GISS temp graph, which they is the one that is the highest sloping one, out of all of them. It just just it it it is sloping high and, have a higher magnitude because they're still using a base period of data from 1950 to 1980. They refused to change it.

Why? Well, if they changed it like everybody else does, like UAH, RSS, all these other groups, it would go down a little bit. It wouldn't be quite as dramatic. Oh, they're keeping that up there for stagecraft again. But here's the thing.

NASA GIST doesn't even gather their own data. They get all their data collected by NOAA from the GHCN network around the globe. It gets collected in Asheville, North Carolina. NASA GISS takes that raw data, applies their own secret sauce, and comes up with the worst case scenario graphics for, you know, increase in temperature. So the the need for having a global temperature, which isn't all that much important anyway, isn't even necessary with NASA guests.

They're just a hanger on. They make their own stuff with their own secret sauce. My advice to president Trump, get rid of them. They are these head of the snake. I wanna go to one other thing, and that is Noah, the NCEI.

These guys talk about $1,000,000,000 disasters. This is their $1,000,000,000 disaster page. These guys are also doing something very unscrupulous. They're calculating $1,000,000,000 weather and climate disasters without taking into account, you know, the gross domestic product, inflation, and all these other things. They're using raw unadjusted data, you know, and which is funny because they're all big about adjusted data when it comes to temperature.

But when it comes to billion calculating $1,000,000,000 weather and climate disasters, we're no. No. We're not gonna look at any of this other GDP stuff and percentages of GDP and all this other thing. Doctor Roger Pilkey junior has been a strong advocate for saying this is wrong. It's wrong because it gives a false picture of what we really have in terms of disasters.

My advice to president Trump, shut these guys down. Alright. Rant over.

Rant over. Anthony rant. That's usually my dig. Well done. Well done.

Yeah. And so we'll keep an eye on that. Actually, I as you were going through that, Anthony, I remembered that in the first Trump administration, I think very quickly within a few days, a lot of the climate climate alarmist narrative pages and stuff from, from EPA and other places were taken down. We'll have to I didn't even think to look to see if that's that, alarmist BS was taken off of the government sites or not, but we'll check it out, for you. But before we get to q and a, I wanna dive a little bit deeper into the endangerment finding because this really is, in a lot of ways, kind of the, you know, the holy grail.

It's it's the linchpin of the regulatory state when it comes to carbon dioxide. And in today's climate change weekly from Sterling Burnett, he cites, section 6 f of 1 of Trump's climate executive orders. And it says, quote, within 30 days of the date of this order, so that clock is already ticking, the administrator of the EPA in collaboration with the heads of any other relevant agencies shall submit joint recommendations to the director of the Office of Management and Budget on the legality and continuing applicability of the administrator's findings, quote, endangerment and cause or contribute findings for greenhouse gases under section 202 a of the Clean Air Act, final rule 74, blah blah blah blah. And that was from December of 2009. So this I'll leave it to you guys to tell me if my assumption is correct, but this does read to me that the endangerment finding that EPA has has depended upon to regulate every molecule of carbon dioxide admitted by human activity is itself now endangered.

Well, Sterling, Jim, I I let's go back a little and explain what the what what endangerment means. In the Supreme Court in Massachusetts versus EPA in 2007, ruled that, yes, the EPA did have authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate c o two emissions from vehicles, and and there was an implication from stationary sources like power plants, coal coal and gas power plants. If certain conditions were met. They didn't say you have to regulate it. They had they said you have to look at it under the law and see if c o two qualifies as a pollutant and if you have the tools in the Clean Air Act to regulate it.

So the Bush administration took a pass on doing on doing anything either one way or the other. The Obama administration in 2009 made the endangerment fighting, and that's what started all these efforts to regulate cars, trucks, coal plants, gas plants, and other things to to reduce c o two emissions. Well, the fact is that the the Clean Air Act is not designed to regulate c 02. It's designed to regulate air pollutants. And so it's a it's a total mess.

It has a huge cost. It's pointless. But even if you don't think it's pointless, even if you believe that we should be reducing c o two emissions, this can't possibly be the way to do it. And so, I think, what you said about the, you know, the the administrator of the EPA in consultation is ordered within 30 days to look into this. I think they've got it ready to go.

My guess is that they they already have the, the repeal or the revocation of the endangerment finding ready to publish in the federal register. That's that's my guess. So I I think we're gonna see some I think Trump wants to act much more quickly this time than he did last time. He learned a lesson, which is it takes a long time to to undo and redo regulations, and he's not gonna mess around. So I I think it's all ready to be published.

Yeah. Lee Zeldin was asked about that in his, in his hearing for confirmation. He was pressed by, I believe it was senator Markey, or maybe it was Angus King. Can't remember.

No. Yeah.

Whatever. He was pressed on that on that question, though. He's like, you know, basically, he was he was asked, do you believe in the endangerment finding and that you have to enforce it? And he goes, it says we may we may. So he was hinting that what he said was in trouble.

Markey said that you have to you're obligated to. And he said, no, we are authorized to.

Right. Right. Huge difference. Huge difference. Yeah.

So this so he signaled this was coming. And and, again, you know, that was one of the top agenda items I I know of of you guys at EPA transition was to tackle that idea, and it was basically ignored. It was just not touched. They figured what they did was enough. And what we learned of the the last 4 years, in the interregnum between the two Trump administrations is that it was necessary to do that.

That that, you know, you had to go as far as he's going now and maybe even farther in order to, as Anthony put it, you know, cut the head off the snake or strangle, you know, strangle this this this whole thing and and get back to having science based policy, not alarmist, you know, BS fake science based policy.

Yeah. That's right. I I, you know, I I have a little inside knowledge in the first term. The administrator was Scott Pruitt, he who had come from, the Oklahoma attorney. He was the Oklahoma attorney general before he was appointed, and he was very tied into the Republican attorney attorneys general association and also the Federalist Society.

And these are all good conservative lawyers, but he asked some of some he asked the wrong people his contacts through the Federalist Society. He asked the wrong people whether he he should or needed to take on the endangerment finding, and he was told, no. It's not necessary in any way. It's way too much work. And so I think you can see that the thinking has changed and that there's a lot more ambition and a lot more energy and a lot more fight in president Trump and the team that he's putting together.

That is fantastic news. We seem to have lost, Anthony Watts here. Hopefully, he'll come back, probably have some technical difficulties. That's why it's nice to have so many people on the show at once. So it's, it's good to cover our bases.

I think unless, anyone I think we've covered that pretty well. We will keep an eye on this for sure. We We will probably have updates on this as we go along. Sterling, one last word before we get to Yeah.

One last thing about why the endangerment signing is, finding is so important. One little rule. Right? One little rule. But it serves as the foundation for every regulation, every department.

The clean power plant, the EV mandates, the, the social cost of carbon, everything that's been built, the whole edifice of climate, policy and rules and regulations depend upon carbon dioxide being considered, an endangerment under the EPA. So if it goes, there's no justification any longer for any of the other things built upon it.

Yeah. Kicks the legs out from under it, and then it's not getting back up. So that's, that's pretty big. So we will keep

an eye on that.

We'll be reporting on this on this show, so stay tuned. Come back every Friday where we will talk about this. Well, let's take some of your questions and comments, from the always lively chat here. Linea, please take it away.

You got it. Alright. Well, first, once again, as usual, we have a very funny audience. The, we have this great comment from Kite Man Music, which I would like to highlight. Hello, Kite Man, who says with the arrival of Trump back again, does this mean we have reached a tipping point with the fake climate change agenda?

This this may be one of the tipping points that actually are real.

Yeah. No. It's it's a golden age. We've entered a golden age. I I say that sort of somewhat tongue in cheek, but the president is determined to to make this more than a tipping point.

There's he he this time, he doesn't wanna make it possible to go back to the, the rubbish pursued during 12 out of the last 16 years.

Yeah. We've got, we we we're we're exiting the winter of our discontent. And, it's my hope, you know, we we discussed earlier. It's nice that Trump is doing this. It's clearly they they thought it through and it's well thought through.

They have a series of things that build upon each other, but some of this stuff needs congressional action. He needs to

be able

to find stuff Whether they are, congressional review act things, and and he can sign some of those now that congress will pass some for rules that were enacted since August. But they need to change some laws fundamentally. They need to change the NEPA law. They need to change the, antiquities act. They need to change wetlands law, and they need to change some of this other climate stuff.

So he needs some help. Let's hope that, Congress gets the message that he is the leader of the party, and they should follow his standard.

It's only been a 100 hours, Sterling. Just calm down. Just have some patience. It all happened.

Right. But, you know, the the, I would definitely like to see more repeals than new bills go through. I think repeals going would do a lot more for us than new legislation.

I think you said something like, I'm going to get rid of 10 regulations for every new regulation. Last time it was like 3. But I'd like to see 10 laws gone for every law enacted.

Alright. So we have this good question from Chris Shattuck who says, can Trump impose sanity upon California? My take, and it looks like Anthony's take too, is no. But he can make it so that California's insane disease, does not infect other states quite as badly as it currently does.

Well, that's correct. The the the the exec one of the executive orders says that they have to review everything and they have to get rid of the EV mandate. What is the bait the worst part of the the leading edge of the EV mandate is the California waiver. And I don't wanna get technical, but what what was done first under the Obama administration and then redone under Biden was to grant California the authority to make vehicle policy. What kind of cars and trucks can people buy to make California's policy the national policy?

So this is sort of a kind of perversion of federalism. We want the states to have a lot of authority to decide how they want to run things, but we don't want one state to be able to control how all the other states do things. That's that's federal policy. That's not state policy. And so revoking the California waiver is gonna take some time.

It's it's gonna take some legal action, and it will be it will be litigated. There will be people, California and all their allies in the in the climate environmentalist movement will will defend it. But until the California waiver is revoked, California is essentially running the auto industry, and that that cannot persist. Yep.

Well, I've got a different way of getting rid of it. Let's let's let's all push clicks it. California exits from the United States. The the several they have to they actually have to show an ID to come into the rest of the United States.

Yeah. Sterling, I I love California, and it's got more going for it than any other place in the world, and it's just been politically ruined. We can't give up on it. You know, politics is shifting sands as we found it dramatically in the last few decades. And so don't give up on California.

It it sanity the it things when things get bad enough, sanity will set in. And I think these fires in Los Angeles are are, you know, are are really bad, and that that might that's already causing some some very wealthy people in LA to start rethinking their political views.

I I, you know, I hope you're right, Myron. I hope I hope your optimism is warranted, but I was long a person who believed reality would make politicians change their mind about things. About 15, 18 years ago, I was talking about coal fired power plants and how coal they need base load power. You have to have you won't be closing these coal plants. They'll they'll come to their senses on wind and solar.

And man, was I wrong. Reality slapped them in the face, and they turned the other cheek, and they said, we don't care. We're gonna keep building wind. We're gonna keep building solar, and we're gonna keep closing coal. And the and the grid and the grid is amazing.

Kicking the butt has happened in California, though.

I'm not just

talking about California. I'm talking about nationwide.

Yeah. But Sterling, the the look. The problem is that the people who operate the grid, the are much too clever, and they the we should have had catastrophic black cats all around the country for years now. That will change people's mind, and it is coming unless the Trump policies are successful. So, and I don't think there's enough reliance in the Trump policy so far on the grid.

There's too much on oil and gas production and not enough on on on the power plants, but I hope they will turn I hope Doug Bergamas, the National Energy Star, will turn his attention to the grid and how to what needs to be done to save it because the the grid operators are very clever at keeping it get up and running, but we've reached the point now that people are gonna be without electricity for long periods and quite frequently. And I don't think I at some point, the American people are not gonna take it.

I would point out, Sterling, you know, you're talking about that politicians don't pay attention to the reality. That's mostly true. But when it really comes down to the nitty gritty, it's happened in California, and a gruesome Newsome actually changed his policy, because they were gonna shut down the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant. And then when everyone said, hey. Look.

This thing is providing, you know, such a big chunk of California's baseload electricity. If you shut that thing off, we're toast. And he's like, oh, oh, in 1922, he's reversed his position on it. Now they're letting that thing stay open. They rescinded

their possible. They rescinded their rules on on trucks, you know, large vehicles, for for electrification. But I think it's tinkering around the edges. I'm sitting here. I'm in Texas.

This is not a blue state. This is not a blue state.

Except for Austin.

Except for Austin. But Austin does not run the state. And yet 200 people died in the middle of winter 3 short years ago, because the power system did fail. And a lot of bad decisions were made by the regulators as to how to manage the power system. But the largest reason for the failure was the reliance on wind and solar.

And we had a legislature that came in, vowing to fix the problem and didn't. And so now, every day this week, I'm getting warnings that the power system might fail. Now, there's no reason. This is Texas. We have coal and we had coal plants until we closed them.

We have lots of natural gas here. There's no justification for us to continue down the path of wind and solar, but they haven't halted it. And people died. It's not

it's not esoteric for us.

It's much worse in Texas than you're making out, and it's all due to starting with governor George w Bush in 1999 and the influence of Ken Lay of Enron and the fact that the utilities and the legislature are now controlled by wind and solar because Texas is now the largest producer of both wind and solar, and you guys are the leading edge of disaster in terms of electric reliability. It's you you know, it it's because you have allowed big money from wind and solar to to essentially buy the state legislature that you're in this fix. And I don't you know? Again, you may have to have some more blackouts. I hope they're in the summer, not in the winter because people a lot more people die when it's cold.

Yep. Alright, Lanae. Let's get some more questions in here because we're running short on time.

We are are yeah. Our our question our answer period there went so long. I forgot who asked that last question. I was gonna type in the chat saying thanks a lot for that question that led to the whole discussion. I think it was Chris Shattuck who asked, if California is gonna be crazy forever.

Okay. Let's see. I have, actually, I have a couple of science questions that I wanna pitch to Anthony, and I wanna preface it by saying, right off the bat that this is a it's a it's an area that's up for debate, I think. And so, while Heartland does have studies or or rather does platform people who take this position, not everyone of goodwill on the climate issue does. So the question is, this person made comments about how we're going to enter into a grand solar minimum, and we're gonna have a new ice age, that kind of commentary or at least a cooling period.

He asks, has Hartland done studies on this? And I think if someone else also asked, let's see. It was a similar kind of a question regarding ah, okay. From our friend Albert who says on the Tom Nelson podcast, people like Willie Soon and Will Happar all say by 2031, we will be in a significant cooling period. So what does the panel think about that?

And, Anthony, I'd like to pitch it to you because these are our friends. I mean, we love Willie Soon and Will Happar. They've come to our climate conferences. We platform their research. But there is a difference of opinion in this area.

And I want to emphasize to the audience before we get your answer that if there's significant disagreement, it doesn't mean that you are, like, in opposition to them or they're, you know, there's like some kind of contention or something. There's not. It's that there's legitimate scientific disagreement in these areas that are not, like, corrupt. You know?

I I wanna before Anthony answers the question about the science, I want to say one thing because the first question was, have we published anything on this? And so I've been here for, I think 9 years now. And, we publish, we republished one book, that was out of Europe by Veron Holt on the Sun, but we haven't published other things on the grants were minimum. We haven't published studies or anything. We republished one book.

It was called, the the something sun the something sun.

Something sun.

Yeah. And, that was a few years ago, but it was republished. And, but that's the only thing we I won't say we haven't published stories or op eds, but we haven't published another study. I'll leave it to Anthony. I just wanted to answer that.

I didn't know if you'd know that.

Okay. So on the question of, Williston and Will Happer say it'll be cooling by 2031, well, I'm gonna refer to Yogi Berra. It's difficult to make predictions, especially about the future, and I think that falls into that category. I mean, it could go either way. The bottom line is is that I've looked at solar a lot.

I used to be a big proponent of the idea that sunspot numbers indicated cooling periods and so forth, But, my resident, amateur scientist, Willis Ettrenbach, has done several publications on whats up with that dot com about the correlation or very the lack of correlation between sunspots and cooling weather around the planet. And he's done some very, very, very robust analysis of this stuff. And from my perspective, there is not a clear connection between sunspot numbers and, cooling or warming of the planet. There are some false starts to some of this. You know, way back when we started, the famous Maunder Minimum, we also had some volcanic eruptions that started that around that time, and then we had the famous year without a summer.

And so the volcanic eruptions cooled and obscured the skies. And so it's possible that sunspot numbers, went down naturally, but were also, and the the drop in numbers was enhanced by the fact that some astronomers couldn't see them anymore due to the haze and so forth. There's that possibility. But the bottom line is that every time we go and look for a statistical a a correct, I should say, statistical correlation between sunspot numbers and global climate change, it just does not hold up. Now that's not to say that the sun has no effect on climate.

By far, that is not what we're saying. The sun does fluctuate in its output of of, solar, irradiance, TSI. And so there is fluctuation involved there, but we've also got other mechanisms going on. You know, we've got global sulfates, we've got clouds, got all kinds of things going on on the earth itself, which can actually factor larger. And then, of course, we've got the crazy thing with the temperature stations where, you know, we're getting warmer and warmer because the temperature stations are next to heat sinks and heat sources.

So all of this figures in. Whether we're gonna cool, you know, around 2031, it's anybody's guess.

Thank you very much. That was very thorough. So that Yeah. That works for me. I hope the audience appreciate appreciates it.

Just one last thing. Just quick thing. The the book is The Neglected Son by, Fritz Baerndold and Sebastian Loening, and and we've yeah. You probably have a copy there, Linae.

I I sent a link to the, to the to the page.

This one.

There it is. Yep.

Yeah. And that was 2015. That was the year I came on board, I believe. So

Yeah. Heart Heartland has probably distributed a 1,000 maybe several 1,000 copies of that book around the world to to people, and we've always had it at our climate conferences. So yeah.

It's a good one. It's very interesting. And it's not too bad of a read either for for people who aren't super well educated in some of the science they're talking about. It's it's very accessible as well. Let's see.

We have we can answer this question really fast from above us only sky. Wasn't Chicago once under 3,000 feet of ice? Yes. And then some. It was more than 3,000 feet of ice, on top of the East Chicagoland area.

Let's hope that that never ever happens in anybody's lifetime. That would be pretty that would be catastrophic climate change. I'll tell you that.

I would say that if an ice age occurs naturally through changes in precession or other thing about Earth's orbit or other factors, there's not one damn thing we can do to stop it.

If if if we could get all the right politicians there at the same time, I'd almost be willing to sacrifice.

Put them all on ice.

Instant yeah. Instant glaciation. Okay. You'd have to get, like give you, like, a Batman villain, like like mister Freeze.

Mister Freeze. Yeah.

Yeah. There you go.

What a good movie, Batman and Robin. And I say that with sincerity even though it's famously one of the worst. I love it. Okay. From Christine Laurel, she asks, how hard will it be for the new administration in congress to untangle all the horrible energy policies from the last 4 years.

Myron, I'll pitch it to you.

Well, it's a lot of work, and, unfortunately, I'm not really that fond of of, masses of lawyers, but it takes a lot of really smart regulatory lawyers because undoing regulations and then redoing them, you have to go through the processes of the Administrative Procedures Act. And there's a lot of a lot of obstacles, including public comment periods and then once the rule goes final, lawsuits. And so there will be a lot of lawsuits, and the left has an awful lot of lawyers and a lot of very clever lawyers. And I think just to say something encouraging, Trump's pick for EPA administrator, the head regulator of all this, is Lee Zeldin. And Lee Zeldin does not have experience in these in in the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, Superfund, and so on, but he is a very sharp lawyer.

He's a regulatory lawyer. He's very energetic, and he's a very he's very enthusiastic about deregulating. So, I think starting with the top at the EPA, they're going to assemble a very strong team. And, also, at the Department of Justice, we haven't heard who's who's going to be the assistant attorney general for energy and natural resources. I hope they they can't get anybody as good as last time, Jeff Clark.

But last time, Jeff Clark didn't get confirmed until 2,000 18 in the in the fall. It took a year and a half. He was so controversial. So I hope I hope that there's going to be a a really strong team to go through all the regulatory, legal hoops.

Alright. Thank you. Let's see. We have a we have a lot of questions that I start. Some of them that we will probably not be able to get to, but because we're already a little bit over time, but I wanna get to a good chunk of these.

So I'm trying to pick and choose which ones follow each other the best. Here's one from Donald, who says, what do you think about Trump's statements at Dave Davos suggesting the National Energy Emergency Declaration was done to facilitate the energy production needed for the Stargate AI infrastructure plan? Likewise, there's another question here that kind of relates to this, which says, when will slowing the energy hogs happen? Can we allow 10 fold energy electricity demand by data tech, AI, and EV manufacturing and Bitcoin mining? Can we stop these hogs?

Conservation used to be a word. And to that, I would say, I don't think the Bitcoin mining thing is so much of of an energy hog anymore. I think that's kind of died off. Andy would know better than me, but I don't I don't think that's quite as big of a demand, but the AI stuff definitely is a big energy demand. So I pitch it to anyone on the panel that wants to weigh in on those.

I'll just say that on yesterday's In the Tank podcast, that which you can find on our YouTube channel, we did cover this, on on that program. So definitely check that out.

Yeah. And I would add, I was at a an all day seminar last week on grid reliability and and whether AI data centers are going to be another hit on grid reliability. And the answer is, well, yes, sort of, but mostly not. And the reason is because the big tech companies do not have the patience to wait for utilities to to 2 or 3 years to get the permits to build a a power plant and then a 2 or 3 more years to build it. They are very impatient, and they have a lot of money.

And they're gonna build their own power plants to run their own data data centers. And these these power plants will not be on the grid, and and so the I think to I think the answer is data centers are not going to threaten the grid, but the grid is in such deep disrepair because of the closure of coal fired power plants and the building of wind and solar that, you know, thank god that AI isn't gonna add very much to that. But but, you know, there's a lot of work to do anyway.

It may be a blessing. You know, we debated this a while ago when we had a show just after Microsoft said they were going to restart the nuclear plant with Constellation, 3 Mile Island and whether we like the idea of AI getting their own power. And I asked at the time and I still believe it. Look, if they're no longer drawing power from the grid, the a that's benefits us, it benefits average folks, but B, they should also no longer be lobbying for certain types of, energy production and grid. No.

You take care of yourself. The rest of the country will take care of ourselves, and we're gonna do what you did.

Which is

build baseline reliable power.

Yeah. Yeah. Once they have to build their own, they're gonna build gas turbines and and, nuclear is a long ways away except for reopening this one plant. But I wanna point out, reopening an an existing plant, which is a lot cheaper than building a new one, Microsoft is still going to pay more than twice the going rate for electricity, and they're willing to do that.

Got it.

Yeah. We we've brought it up a few times that we're a little bit worried about a, like, a tiered electricity system where big tech gets to have their own private nuclear and gas and and maybe even coal in some cases. There's a coal plant in, I believe, Iowa that's that was allowed to remain open longer, beyond when it was supposed to be shut down because oh, Kansas. Okay.

Well, I

was on the right side of the Mississippi anyway. It doesn't narrow it down too well, but I knew it was something like that. But they're they're being permitted to keep that power plant open because of a data center that's going in, into that area. So that's we're a little we're keeping our eye on that. But, if they did stop petitioning, you know, and lobbying for, unreliable energy for the rest of us, that would be fine.

I I can't see anything wrong with someone having their own personal power plant. Let's see. This is a question from one of our viewers on Rumble. BSCI Peony. I don't I'm not even gonna try.

Sorry, friend. Can the EPA submit endangerment evidence based on the flawed models?

That's all they've ever done. I mean,

that's what they did. Yeah.

Yeah. That's what they do. We're hoping we're hoping that the the new new regime under Lee Zeldin will say, hey, we're only going to take actual climate science, not fantasy, and not, you know, models. You can get any answer you want out of a model.

When when they did the endangement finding initially, they did 2 things. They looked at models and they looked at the IPCC summary for policymakers, and they said this is the gold standard. And they say it's a danger and the model say it's a danger. So it's a danger.

Yeah. Yeah.

Okay. Rhys Reid asks, how can we make sure repealing the inflation reduction act gets through reconciliation?

Well, support all the groups that are pushing for it, like the Heartland Institute. You know, I I've been we we've been talking about this ever since the Inflation Reduction Act got passed through reconciliation. Not a single Republican senator voted for it, which is surprising considering where some Republican senators are. And then the next year, every Republican in the house voted to repeal it. So so there's very strong support, and now all of the industry lobbyists who get handouts, and that includes the American Petroleum Institute, not just wind and solar, they are all going up to the hill and telling the Republicans, oh, no, we can't repeal the whole thing.

We just need to make surgical cuts and be really sensible and just take out the bad stuff. Well, everybody who's getting a handout thinks that what they're getting is good. So every you know, it's some other guy's handout that's bad. So we have to get unite, and we need to push the Republicans. And Trump has to lead it.

But, groups like Heartland and and others in in the coalition, the cooler heads coalition, need to be pushing to say the whole thing has to go, and it will save so much money that that we used to pay for the the tax cuts. So, this is a huge issue, and I'm glad it was brought up. I mean, it's a it's a colossal issue, and it's gonna be a colossal fight.

Yep. Thank you. Here's a good question from Chris Nisbet who says, will any of these executive orders have any impact on state based policies like the New York drive to destroy their electricity grid and bans on gas stoves and buildings, or can they continue regardless? Anybody?

Who wants to answer? I Yeah. This is gonna be a big fight. I mean, that some things if you look at the executive orders, some things are already the states are already being pushed, or they're gonna they're gonna try to push them. And in the the the executive order that says that declaring an energy emergency, It particularly calls out problems on the West Coast, California, Oregon, and Washington, and in the northeast, New York and New England and Alaska.

And it says, there are there is there are going to be attempts to break the the 3 governors on the West Coast. Their, the way they have stopped coal ports being built to ship coal from Wyoming and and also pipelines. New York has stopped pipelines that New England wants, gas pipelines so that they they don't have to import LNG from Russia. And so, I think there's gonna be a concerted effort to do whatever is possible, but let's face it. And we I think I agree with this.

The states have a lot of authority on their own, and we shouldn't we shouldn't trample it, but we shouldn't let let them try to get away with making national policy.

It it could be the case where you have a sort of a energy apartheid in the United States to some extent.

We already have this.

Yeah. Well, you know, that's true. You know, but I mean, where where you get some real reforms pretty quick, you get pipelines built in some places and not in others. And not because, like I said, Trump's executive order energy emergency should reduce some of that. But in the end, it's not like some of these states where their Executives, their AGS, their environment heads, their heads live firmly in the sand, or, you know, their pocketbooks live firmly in the pocket of, green energy, politically connected green energy elites.

They're not going down quietly for these rules. They're going to keep fighting. Some states may have to withdraw from, for instance, RGGI to get more sanity in their states. So that they're not doing this trading stuff, which only harms them.

In some states, some states have already announced that they will keep their the United States's commitments under the Paris Climate Treaty to reduce c o two emissions. They will keep them in their state. I think Wait. Let me ask

you about that, Myron, because I've never understood how a state or a city could do that because it's very clear that only the United States may be party to international agreements that, that, you know, it's not just interstate commerce that's controlled by Congress supposedly, but it's international agreements. And so how can a state say, no. No. We're going to do what what the UN wants, not what the United States government wants. I've never understood that.

Well, they're they're not saying that they're a party to the treaty. They're just saying that the the United States under the Biden administration and

the Obama administration made

commitments to cut US emissions. Commitments to cut US emissions and that California share is x%, and they will keep the commitment to cut by that percentage. That's, so that's that would be something that they would adopt through legislation or regulation. It's not it's not that they're a part of the treaty. However, RGGI I'm glad you mentioned RGGI.

California is, and maybe Washington and maybe Oregon are part of a a an emissions trading scheme with certain Canadian provinces. And that seems to be clearly unconstitutional because you you can't make these kinds of compacts without the approval of congress. And so the first Trump administration, Jeff Clark and and John Breitbull, sued in court to stop this, to having a deal with Quebec or Ontario. And they they lost the 1st round, and then they lost went out of office. And so the the case was lost, but this needs to be refought.

It's very important that states can't can't mess around internationally.

Yes. Yes. Appreciate that, Myron. And, yeah, I mean, there's so much that we went over on this show. There's gonna be so much more to go over in the future, as the Trump administration.

It god. It feels like it's already been in place for months, not hours. It's amazing how much has been done. You know, you get a second chance, and he is taking advantage of it in every single way. Right before we go here, because you can hear the music as we're leaving, I wanted to show some, some funny stuff that we didn't quite get to earlier in the show.

This meme has been going around with us and our climate realist friends. If you're cold, they're cold. Bring them inside. And the image of a alligator in the snow, it's pretty funny. And we mentioned in the beginning of the show that, Linnea Lucan was enjoying herself with a pipe at a, inaugural ball in DC.

So the story is true. Look how much fun that was. I really wish I did not miss it. And she also mentioned her, her pork chickens, and they are alive. Here they are, enjoying their self their themselves in the snow.

Chickens are pretty tough birds, and they will live through this. That is for sure. I wanna thank, as we as we wrap up here, I wanna thank Myronie Bell, from American Lands Council, and formerly of CEI, one of the number one climate criminals on Earth. Hopefully, you will remain out of climate jail, and you can come back on the show in the future. Appreciate that.

Thank you, Sterling Burnett. Thank you, Linnea Lukin. Thank you, Anthony Watts, who had to bug out a little early, and thank you very much to our producer, Andy Singer, in the background. Always visit climaterealism.com. Visitclimate@aglance.com.

Go to what's up with that.com, and always go to heartland.org where you can subscribe to get the Climate Change Weekly, newsletter. Thank you all in the chat and everyone watching and listening today. Bye bye.