Heartland Daily Podcast

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 tried 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 because this is the day the Heartland Institute broadcast the climate realism show. My name is Jim Lakeley. I'm 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 truth to counter the climate alarmist narrative you've been fed every single day of your life. There is nothing else quite like the climate realism show streaming anywhere. So I hope you will do us a big favor and bring friends to this livestream every Friday at 1PM eastern time. And also like, share, and subscribe. And be sure to leave your comments underneath underneath this video.

All those very simple tasks help convince YouTube's algorithm to smile upon this program, and that gets this in front of even more people. And as our reminder, as we do every single week, big tech and the legacy media do not really approve of the way we cover climate and energy on this program, so Heartland's YouTube channel has been demonetized. So if you wanna support this program, and I really hope you do, please visit heartland.org/tcrs. That's heartland.org/tcrs, and you can join other friends of this program to help bring this show to the world every single single week. And by the way, it is a tax deductible donation, just to let you know.

We also wanna thank our streaming partners, junkscience.com, CFACT, What's Up With That, The c o two Coalition, and our friends at Heartland UK Europe. We have a fantastic show today with a very special guest, so let's get started. We have with us as usual Anthony Watts. He's senior fellow at the Heartland Institute and publisher of the world's most viewed website on climate change. What's up with that?

Sterling Burnett, the archbishop of Renterbury, also known as the director of the Arthur b Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy at the Heartland Institute. And, of course, Lynea Luken, research fellow for energy environment policy at Heartland. And, also, wanna thank Andy Singer, our wonderful producer behind the curtain, making sure this show looks and flows awesomely. And let's welcome back to the show one of our best friends and a lot of fun, man named Mark Marano. He is the director of communications at CFACT.

He is a human tornado of commentary on climate and energy. And if you've watched any cable news over the last, I don't know, decade or two, you've certainly seen him on there talking. He's also the producer and star of Climate Hustle One and Climate Hustle Two and the author of several books, including the politically incorrect guide to climate change and green fraud. Mark Marano coming to us from an undisclosed location that looks to be a carbon sink with all those trees behind you. Welcome to the show.

Thank you, Jim. Happy to be here. Happy to be back on the climate realism show. Looking forward to it today. What a great week this has been.

You know, it's a notable week. You may have to change your intro of the Trump clip. There's actually better Trump clips now you could include in your climate realism show intro.

Oh, we're getting to that. That's the star of the show. We got three minutes and thirty three seconds of Donald Trump giving it to the UN pretty good on climate. And, yeah, and I bet you've never gotten an introduction like that on Fox Business. Weren't you just on there yesterday talking about Trump's speech?

Yes. I was on with Varney and how were talk also talking about how China is trying to steal away Trump's thunder by getting the accolades out of the international media, CNN calling it a consequential move on the climate by China pledging. They increased their climate pledges.

No offense, but it sounds like it's some commie gobbledygook.

But, you know, what's funny is I was on Varney. Varney, historically, he's represented Wall Street. He's always been kind of confrontational and adversarial with me. We've debated hottest years. He's been very he's called me an extreme climate skeptic.

But yesterday, at the end of the segment, he actually said, well, you've been vilified all these years as a climate skeptic, and it looks like president Trump now says you're right. So it was way Barney's way of say Barney's way of saying, Stuart Varney, that he's, you know, he's, maybe he's accepted Trump's view finally. We'll see.

We shall see. But, yeah, we're gonna get to that for sure, very soon. It's gonna be the highlight of the, of the show here. But, hey, we like to start this show as we do every week with the crazy climate news of the week. So hit it, Andy.

Alright. Thank you very much, Bill Nye. I've titled this this bit of the segment called Rent A Greta and canceled. And Rent A Greta, I'm gonna credit our friend Steve Malloy. He used that term on x.

I thought it was pretty funny. The story comes from the Daily Mail. Woke on woke fury brings chaos to Greta Thunberg's Gaza Flutilla. Pro Palestine activists quit convoy after learning LGBTQ campaigners are on board, and Swedish eco protester also leaves her role. So, let's read a little bit from this.

Greta Thunberg's flotilla bound for Gaza has descended into chaos after pro Palestine activists quit the convoy when they learned LGBTQ plus campaigners were on board, it has been claimed. The 22 year old she's not a teenager anymore. The 22 year old Swedish eco protester has also reportedly left her leadership role due to disagreements among organizers, but she will stay on board as a participant volunteer. The convoy's journey to the enclave has been anything but smooth with organizers claiming two vessels were targeted in a drone attack outside the Tunisian port of Sidi Bao earlier this month. So now political differences have allegedly plagued the leadership of global Smud Flotilla, which were with reports that Khaled Bujiyama, the Tunisian coordinator of the convoy, defected after learning about the presence of queer activists on board.

The cause of his frustration was allegedly the participation of activist Saif Ayadi on the flotilla, a, quote, communist queer militant who boarded the convoy when it stopped off in Tunisia. Thunberg reportedly stepped down from the GSF leadership in the midst of the drama telling Il Manifesto, that's a great publication, that she believes that the committee was communicating too much about internal affairs and not enough about the genocide in Palestine. Her name was apparently removed from the list of board members on the mission's website, and she was allegedly spotted wheeling her suitcase along a Tunis dock to transfer from the steering committee family boat to another vessel, the Alma. Anthony, you always like to give us all, Greta, updates here. And, you know,

why can't why can't the

woke left just all get along?

Well, because every one of them, I think, is mentally ill. I'm I'm sorry. It just it just seems more and more lately that's the case. And they all have their own agenda. You know?

My version of my complaint is more important than your version of your complaint, and they keep going back and forth with this sort of thing. They're all vying for public exposure, media exposure, you know, getting headlines, all that stuff. And so it's basically just like what's the right word? It's it's a little bit animal for a mission some way, the way these folks behave. And so, you know, I'm not at all surprised.

All all protesters are equal, but some are more equal than others. You're you're right.

How dare you?

I like how Jim said she was still on board as opposed to be being, you know, dropped at sea in a little flotation device. Yeah. She's she's still on board. So they are it it is sort of a crazy I don't wanna say much about the Palestinian conflict. That's not my area of expertise.

But I do think it's odd that, the LGBTQ community has embraced it so strongly when, they complain about criticisms in The US, but they're not complaining about stoning and being tossed off buildings in The Middle East by these people they're defending. That seems crazy to me. Well

trying to trying to make trying to make sense of the, the pyramid of of oppression on the left is a is a fool's errand.

Well The funniest thing about Greta's involvement in the whole Israeli Palestine conflict is that Israel got Greta to to make a hypocrite out of her about her pledge never to fly again when she arrived and they forced her on an airplane. And you have the picture of her sitting there like a little brat on the plane being forced to fly. So all those years of finding the high carbon fiber, c o two intense yachts and everything else she was, sailing the world with to avoid flying, one act, you know, a protest, and there she is on an airplane flying back to Europe. I thought that was, you know, only Israel could get her back on an airplane, and I thought that was, you know, worth it for the photo opportunity.

Well, my question is, you say Israel did that, but so she got back to another flotilla in Tunisia. Did she take a yacht from Europe

No.

That's to Tunisia, or did she fly again to get there in time? She flew. It it's all hypocrisy. It's all show. It's no substance.

Yeah. She just really likes taking boat trips, and I'm kinda jealous.

Oh, yeah. I mean, it's it is a nice way to travel, I suppose. But, yeah. I mean, the reason we bring it up is just just kinda easy to poke fun, but, you know, Greta's second act on the world stage is not really going as planned. And I I just wanna close this segment by showing, you know I mean, first of all, they said they were under attack from an Israeli drone when it you know?

I don't know what happened. I wasn't there, you know, but there's reports that it was just a flare gun that was fired off and came back down and hit their own boat. Who knows? We don't know the truth. All I would say is that if Israel wants to sink your boat, your boat's gonna sink.

It's not just gonna light on fire for a few minutes. I'm just putting that out there as a theory. But, they're not having a really good time. They're I found this video this morning. Apparently, people were jamming their radios so the flotilla could not communicate with each other, And the person jamming the radio decided to have a lot of fun with physical sabotage.

Can you play that video for us, Andy?

I don't know what it was exactly.

And right now, they're jamming RVH app as you can hear. Do not know where this is coming from, the sound, but other vessels are experiencing the same thing. They're jamming our radio.

Well, who doesn't love Apparently, Greta Thunberg doesn't doesn't like ABBA even though they're the most the greatest export from Sweden since, you know, pickled herring. Alright.

Yeah. I'm I'm still hoping maybe they would have remixed that. And instead of dancing queen, they did drama queen instead. Good. Nice.

Good one.

Alright. Let's move on. Let's move on. We've had enough fun at Greta's expense, and we'll probably have to get to her again again soon. Maybe maybe she'll show up at COP thirty.

We we don't know. It's been a while. We'll see.

I I seriously doubt it. She's condemned the whole UN process as a scam, a fraud, and greenwashing. So I don't think she's welcome, and I don't think she'd wanna go. Although you mentioned if she gets desperate enough for for a home of her activism, she would go back at some point maybe.

What you just said, Mark, is that she's finally come to her senses on the top.

Was It a one time we we

we could fully

our side on this matter.

Yes. But she's doing it from the left. She's with the George Mambion, The UK environmentalist, who wants to stop all, you know, animal agriculture, shut down modern farm. He there she's completely just thinks the UN is sort of stodgy and conservative. That's how radical Greta is or has become.

Alright. Well, let's move on to our second item, and this is titled a Trojan horse at Climate Week. If you read the description of this livestream today, you'd you'd realize that whether you knew it or not, this is Climate Week twenty twenty five in New York City. And this is a piece written by a

know what it was.

Oh, this broadcast is being jammed by Andy by mistake. Alright. So this is a piece in The Washington Times by our friend Steve Malloy. There was stars climate week. It's supposed to be there's a supposed conservative named Benjie Bakker.

And I bring this up only because I'd like the audience to be familiar with that name, Benji Backer. Benji Backer. Steve points out that Benji, in his opinion, is a, quote, unquote, Trojan horse for climate alarmism and the ruinous policies to, quote, unquote, climate change. Let me read a little bit from this, and we can talk about it. Climate week twenty twenty five is filling the skies with private jets and the streets with motorcades, while in between cocktail receptions and panels, the emissaries of environmental virtue instruct the rest of us to do it less.

Benjie Bakker, a the 27 year old founder of the American Conservation Coalition and nature is nonpartisan is billed as the conservative voice of the climate movement. Polished and adept at wrapping himself in MAGA friendly language, he is precisely the sort of figure the movement hopes will render its program more palatable to young conservatives. However, his record tells a different story. Mister Bakker has called president Trump, quote, despicable and indefensible, unquote, praised Greta Thunberg's, quote, critical role in shaping climate awareness and endorsed government control over 30% of America's land for environmental purposes. Benji Backer supports many of the policies long championed by liberal climate activists, including subsidies for green hydrogen, government created incentives that redirect markets toward wind and solar and expanded restrictions on fossil fuel development.

Now Steve goes on to write that, in his opinion, Benji is, quote, invaluable to the climate left because he gives off, quote, an illusion of bipartisan bipartisan consensus on the climate. And, Steve almost ends right here. By accepting the left's framing of the problem and the solution, Betsy Bakker offers not a conservative alternative, but a more marketable version of the same failed plan. Fortunately, the Trump administration is intent on moving in the opposite direction. Let me start with you, Sterling.

It would seem to me that, Steve Meloy wrote in this piece that Benji Backer's time has already come and gone. And that it's not gonna it's not gonna traction.

Look. He he doesn't command he he's at Climate Week, but remember, no one cares about Climate Week this this year. It's it's almost gone unnoticed except by the New York Times. And, of course, that's where it is. Backer people say that backer is not a conservative.

What backer is is an old school rhino in the sense that everyone forgets the conservation movement was founded by who? Theodore Roosevelt and his friends, and they believed in conservation. They believed in locking up large amounts of land. The 30% idea, Elizabeth would love that. He believed in big government.

He he was not a conservative by what we mean, sort of a traditional believe in small government, limited interference, free markets. They believe in intervention in the markets just like a Rockefeller Republican, just like RINOs. So this is Bakker is one of those. He has his supporters among Republicans, but remember, not all Republicans are conservative. And he is truly a Trojan horse.

He's he he says, we're Republicans. We care about climate too, and there's a rump that does. But we all care about climate. What we don't support is radical changes and government intervention to fix something that's not a crisis. He believes it's a crisis, or he believes it's an opportunity to gain government power, which is what Theodore Roosevelt and his ilk way back when always wanted in the first place, more government control.

Remember, they broke up the trust. They intervened in the market all over.

Yep. Mark, you want you wanna weigh in here? You're in the you're in the DC area in the swamp.

Benjie Bakker and your illustrious James Taylor and I had a big debate. This was in South Dakota, and I think it was at the Libertarian, which I can't remember the name of it now. The big meeting in it was in July, like, three years ago. We had a big debate with him on the stage, and we were able to publicly excoriate him. Because remember, when he came to DC to testify in congress, Benjie Bakker, 02/2019, he sat next to Greta Thunberg.

He turned to Greta Thunberg and thanked her for her climate activism for making young people aware of climate. That gives you an insight into just who Benjie Bakker truly is. This is a guy who praises Greta's life work on climate and thinks it was a good idea and that she was effective and that she helped young people. And if you look at I I think he's a marginal figure. He does like to pile up with, like, Lisa Murkowski and a couple other a lot of people would say, liberal Republicans.

And I maybe shouldn't say this publicly, but he is piling up with one Trump cabinet member, a one Doug Bergam, of the interior department. They had a picture taken, and he was and Bergam was a keynote speaker. So there's always gonna be that strain of republicanism that is has an appeal to someone like Benji Backer. And he if you listen to what Benji Backer says, if you're not paying attention, 80% of what he says sounds like the Heartland Institute could say it. He'll say a lot of things that just sound, you know, normal conservation.

But what he does is he conceals the other 20%. And the other 20% is all about activism, climate change is a problem, the weather's getting worse, and we need solutions. And that's the part where you just sort of feel deceived by him every time he speaks or you read his writing because it's very hard to actually get him to admit what his group is really all about and what their actual goal is. And their goal is to get young people concerned about climate and get the government to act on climate, and they're scariest about the science. He's always hyping Al Gore style science.

Yeah.

I wish James were here because I believe that we hosted a, a panel at one of the conservative congresses the last couple of years, and Benjie was at, in. And he flat refute that it was about climate science. He accepted. He came on stage, and then he refused to discuss climate science. He wanted to discuss climate policies and market solutions.

Market solutions are not market solutions. Markets develop solutions. They're government solutions posing as, you know, trying to set up full markets.

Even called EV tax credit, a market solution or something. Yeah.

Yeah. And so James just took him apart because he said, look. You're not here to discuss market solutions. You're here to discuss the climate science. That's what this panel is about.

Jim can correct me if I'm wrong about that, but I think that that's what happened.

No. That's that's that's accurate. That's accurate. Yeah. Alright.

Well, look. We can, we can move on. You know, maybe we'll invite Benjie on this program sometime. Maybe, have a nice conversation, and we'll learn something. Anyway, we'll move on here.

Our third item here, this is an important story. This isn't crazy climate news. It's kinda good climate news, but this is an important story, I think, for all of us in the audience to monitor. This comes from our friends at The Daily Caller, Zeldin, bar staff from joining climate activists at fancy dinners, events in any official capacity. The Daily Caller News Foundation has learned that the e p that EPA told staffers they, quote, should not accept invitations from a climate law fair group, quote, in their official in their official capacity over significant concerns, according to an internal memo.

EPA staff received an invitation to the Environmental Law Institute's annual awards dinner, according to the memo, but agency leadership is urging employees not to attend in any official capacity. The House Judiciary Committee recently launched an investigation into the climate judiciary project, a project of the ELI, and its efforts, quote, appear to have the underlying goal of predisposing federal and state judges in favor of plaintiffs alleging injuries from the manufacturing, marketing, or sale of fossil fuel products, the committee wrote in an August 29 letter. It is no longer in the agency's interest for employees to participate in their official capacity in any conference, program, or other event organized by the Environmental Law Institute, included but not limited to ELI's climate judiciary product. Thus, EPA employees should not accept invitations to or participate in such events, including ELI's annual awards dinner in Washington, D. C.

As a steward of American taxpayer dollars, EPA has a responsibility to ensure that staff, time, and resources are spent in a manner consistent with the agency's interests. Given the serious concerns about ELI and CJP that have been brought to the attention of the agency, it is no longer in the agency's interest for employees to participate in their official capacity in any conference, program, or other event by ELI until these concerns have been adequately addressed. I'll just I'll just leave it right there. You know, the reason this is important is because we've covered this story here and there on this show over the last several months, but, you know, there's this there's this cabal. There's this well, conspiracy is one way to put it between environmental leftist groups, nonprofits, a lot of them get taxpayer money anyway, doing education with judges to prejudice them toward the environmental lawsuits that will come before them.

This is a scandal. This is a big deal, and, congratulations on the EPA for at least, at this in this instance, putting a stop to it. Lanea, what do you, maybe I'll start with you. I mean, you've been watching this story as well.

Yeah. Well, I think this is great, from Zeldin. I think that for a long time, many decades probably at this point, it's been kind of, like, just impolite to point out the fact that these groups are trying to influence the judicial system and calling them out like this. I mean, you can see later in the article, the ELI responds, and they're like, we have always been nonpartisan, you know, helping to educate, you know, the judiciary and everything and blah blah blah. It's totally not a political thing.

It's totally not inappropriate, blah blah blah. And it obviously is. We all know what they're doing. They're just trying to sway judges ahead of time so that when those, like, climate, those children's lawsuits come before them or lawsuits that are going to depend heavily on attribution studies, trying to tie, you know, specific emissions from oil companies or whatever to specific heat waves as we've seen in the news. We know that they're just trying to bias them towards giving it to the environmentalists because the environmentalists have been quite unsuccessful in a lot of these lawsuits for a long time.

They're they're desperately trying to keep up the law fair, and it's great to see the EPA smack them around a little bit for their obvious inappropriate behavior.

Yeah. If I can add, I was in the US senate staffer, when James Innoff was there, the environment public works committee. And as employees of the senate, we had so many regulations, restrictions, and paperwork to fill out. So much paperwork. If you had to do any event from an outside group like that that offered food, that offered either travel or an event or some kind of reception, it wasn't like you could just you you in other words, if I if I attended even anything on the hill, it had to be food.

If it was a lobbying organization, they could serve food, but it had to be food that you that was basically you wouldn't wanna eat. Otherwise, it would be considered they were bribing you and all kinds of things. So what Zeldin is doing, and I say he's probably the most consequential Trump cabinet member and certainly the most consequential EPA chief in history, He's recognizing that by EPA employees going to events like this, not only is it a source for leaks of the employees to talk to groups diametrically opposed to everything Zeldin and the Trump administration are trying to do, It gives them also the ability to indirectly bribe these EPA staff like, hey. You know, you would be we could have you over here. And these groups have money.

They could pay much more than they're making at the EPA. And what a way to sort of go out from the EPA, but maybe, hey. Collect some documents, say some bad things. We want you, you know, to, tell us what's happening inside. You'll be our man on the inside until you start over here.

There's all kinds of things, and Zeldin, I think, recognizes the inherent sort of conflict of interest for EPA staff and others to just go to events like this, for groups diametrically opposed to the entire mission of what Zeldin's trying to do.

But remember, the EPA I don't know if it's just lower levels of staff, but certainly career bureaucrats. Most of them are in the EPA because they were already aligned with environmental interests.

Yes.

They are not and and they rise they rose up through the ranks by expanding the EPA's mission and authority and jurisdiction, creating increased levels of bureauxacy and drop bringing in new amounts of funding. And so it's not surprising that the environmentalists and them have always been in bed together. Zeldin is finally calling them on it. I wish he had said instead not to not go in your official capacity, but not to go at all if you wanna continue working here. You have to choose between EPA and its mission or the environmental groups.

Yep. Yeah. I mean, a 100%. I mean, the the, you know, the the I think you made an important point there, Mark, about how what what when you were speaking, actually, it reminded me of, like, for decades, there's this this revolving door Yep. Between EPA and, you know, NGOs that are gonna save the climate over and over and over again.

And and, that has been closed, at least temporarily. You know, I would presume that if a Democrat president wins the White House in the future that those, those revolving doors will be fired back up again. But this is something that is very it is very little known in the public that this is the whole system really seems to be rigged from the government to the NGOs and all the way around.

And and that's what they're finding with the FDA. One of the reforms they're seeking to do is stop that revolving door where you have, you know, Pfizer executives then become, you know, high officials at the FDA or NIH. And you need, you know, serious reforms to do it, but as you mentioned, this is becomes a yin yang between administrations. We need serious permanent reform, and this is why they call it the swamp in Washington.

Yep. Alright. Well, we'll close this topic out. Andy, if you could bring up that tweet from that I found yesterday from from Matt Whitlock commenting on this thing. Somebody somebody in the story that was in in in Greenwire in E and E News said that they were let's see.

It says here, an EPA employee granted anonymity because they fear retaliation, said barring staff from going to ELI events was part of the administration's attack on climate science. And Matt quips, if by climate science, she means law firm paid for open bars, then yes.

That's great.

And that's what this is. DC is full of open bars. That is for sure. Alright. Alright.

Well, let's get into our main event because I know a lot of people in the chat are waiting for it, and it believe me, worth the wait. We normally do not play videos, video clips on this show that are longer than maybe a minute, minute and a half, because in podcasting, that's a long time. We're making an exception this time. Donald Trump gave what I think is one of the most amazing incredible speeches in in history of presidents addressing the United Nations. Before we get into the into the thing, I just wanted to set it up a little bit.

This is a story from our friends at, E and E News. As you might imagine, the climate alarmist press, started to lose their minds over what Trump said to the UN when it came to, the climate. Their headline is con, scam, hoax Trump's UN speech on climate.

Love it.

And, yeah, that's great. Anyway, I'll just read a couple things from here. It says, president Donald Trump rebuked world leaders for being overly concerned about climate change during a speech to the United Nations in which he called global warming a con job. Trump, who spoke for nearly an hour at the UN general assembly in New York, argued that renewable energy such as wind and solar are a scam and that they should be eliminated. He urged nations instead to buy more American oil and gas while also increasing nuclear energy.

Oh, Scott Waldman. Sorry about that. And then hi, Scott. I know you watch the show once in a while. Enough of that stuff.

You guys get the gist. Andy, let's roll tape.

In '82, the executive director of the United Nations Environmental Program predicted that by the year February, climate change would cause a global catastrophe. He said that it will be irreversible as any nuclear holocaust would be. This is what they said at the United Nations. What happened? Here we are.

Another UN official stated in 1989 that within a decade, entire nations could be wiped off the map by global warming. Not happening. It's climate change. Because if it goes higher or lower, whatever the hell happens, there's climate change. It's the greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world, in my opinion.

Like all of these predictions made by the United Nations and many others, often for bad reasons, were wrong. They were made by stupid people that have cost their country's fortunes and given those same countries no chance for success. If you don't get away from this green scam, your country is going to fail. And I'm really good at predicting things, you know? They actually said during the campaign, they had a hat, the best selling hat.

Trump was right about everything. And I don't say that in a braggadocious way, but it's true. I've been right about everything. And I'm telling you that if you don't get away from the green energy scam, your country is going to fail. The carbon footprint is a hoax made up by people with evil intentions, and they're heading down a path of total destruction.

Global warming and the carbon footprint, It's a con job. At extreme cost and expense, Europe reduced its own carbon footprint by 37%. Think of that. Congratulations, Europe. Great job.

You pushed yourself a lot of jobs, a lot of factories closed, but you reduced the carbon footprint by 37%. However, for all of that sacrifice and much more, it's been totally wiped out and then some by a global increase of 54%, much of it coming from China and other countries that are thriving around China, which now produces more c o two than all the other developed nations in the world. You know, it's interesting. In The United States, we have still radicalized environmentalists, and they want the factories to stop. Everything should stop.

No more cows. We don't want cows anymore. I guess they wanna kill all the cows. They wanna do things that are just unbelievable, and you have it too. And if we had the most clean air, and I think we do, we have very clean air.

We have the cleanest air we've had in many, many years. But the problem is that other countries, like China, which has air that's a little bit rough, it blows. And no matter what you're doing down here, the air up here tends to get very dirty because it comes in from other countries where their air isn't so clean. And the environmentalists refuse to acknowledge that. The whole thing is crazy.

The primary effect of these brutal green energy policies has not been to help the environment, but to redistribute manufacturing manufacturing and industrial activity from developed countries that follow the insane rules that are put down to polluting countries that break the rules and are making a fortune. They're making a fortune.

I love Trump so much. It's so funny. Yeah. He's just the funniest guy ever.

That speech was actually more than that part of his speech was actually more than six minutes long. And, you know, when I got done watching it, Anthony, I wanna start with you. What did we do to deserve a man like that speaking to

the United Nations like that? We voted. That's what we did. And and it was a mandate for sure. But I wanna point out something, and I've read this online.

I don't know that it's actually true, but I believe it to be, is that right before he started his section on climate, his teleprompter apparently went dead. And what you saw there was him speaking off the cuff. He had all that in his head. So, you know, go Trump for that being able to to to say those things factually, without having a teleprompter. Joe Biden could have never done that.

But, you know, now that Trump has called this thing a con and rightfully so, because we've seen this for years, I think it's time for us to just start calling at that every time we talk about it. You know? The the whole thing is is wealth redistribution. The whole thing is, you know, funding people that are, you know, doing nothing. I mean, look at what's going on.

We're about to come up on COP 30. Right? 30 of these meetings where they have, you know, wine and song and drink and entertainment and all this stuff at the taxpayer's expense or others expense, and yet nothing really has been done about, you know, increasing c o two. Why? Well, no.

Because they can't. There's nothing you can do about it of any real consequence. We've demonstrated this for years. You know? Everybody talks about regulating it, but the fact is is that China and India and other nations are saying, yes.

We will help with climate. You betcha. Mhmm. But it's all lip service. They don't actually do it.

So the whole thing is indeed a con job. Yes.

I guess I'd like to take up China. I was I was asked to comment for a story recently. And China China said z via video conference said that they would cut their emissions seven to 10% below their 2030 levels, by 2035. There's no penalty if they don't. Under under Paris, there's no penalties.

There's no teeth to it. And it's almost impossible to see how they would do that since they're adding coal fired power plants monthly, if not weekly. These plants will be around for thirty to fifty years. But what he but he didn't say you know? And he was some people are praising him for this.

Oh, they're taking up they're taking up the mantle. They're really stepping up as they add coal power plants. They're stepping up. What he didn't say is what their emissions would be in 2030. Right now, if if their emissions went down from 2025 levels to today's level, 10%, they would still be be emitting more by themselves than The US, Europe, and Canada combined.

If their emissions go up until 2030, which they are on the, path to do, they will surpass us even more. Does anyone really believe who who's gonna hold China accountable if they don't do what they say? And, you know, will China care if they don't do what they say? In the end, this is a slick marketing. China is saying we're taking the mantle of leadership.

And whether whether because they have blinders on or whether because they're grasping at any straw possible to show that the whole Paris and UN FCC project is just not collapsing in a farce, they are latching on to the mere scraps that China offers and saying, ugh. See, the biggie's on board now. Oh, it saved us all. It saved nothing. It and it means I I honestly believe it means nothing.

I I suspect they won't cut 10%. But if they do, if they increase emissions by 15% by twenty thirty, they'll still be half above where they were.

Yeah. Mark Marana, I want I want you to comment on here. I also wanna, alert our audience that I have dropped in the chat, a URL for the transcript of Trump's climate remarks and his things so people could check it out for themselves. But but, Mark, you know, this I I titled this podcast today the the climate realist president, because if you just look at the speech and what he said, you know, he pointed out that for since 1982 was his was his marker, that all these predictions of climate calamity that have a time limit on them, None of them have come true. That, no matter what you do as far as reducing your c o two footprint and then he thought the carbon footprint was a scam and and complete BS.

That's also the case. You know, it's difficult to find anybody in public life, let alone a politician, speak such truth about what's happening on the climate, what's happening on on energy policy, and this was the president The United States. That's why I I it just strikes me as remarkable, and I can't stop smiling about it.

Yeah. Yes. I mean, this speech was, I think, the greatest speech ever given by a US president to the United Nations that I'm aware of at least in my lifetime since, you know, late nineteen sixties, I can't think of anything. I mean, I think back to Republicans like the Bushes and, and I can't even remember Ronald Reagan giving a speech of this kind of narrative flipping. And this is what is so important about what Trump did.

It wasn't the well, it was the fact that he had the receipts. He did the 1982 warning, the 1989, the ten year, all these UN officials. He laid waste to them. He called everything a hoax and a con. The the fact that he just completely flipped the narrative is the most significant thing, though.

Because if you remember back when Vaclav Klaus was the president of the Czech Republic, I remember there was a survey. This was around 02/1011, shortly after ClimateCape, where Vaclav Klaus, the president of Czech Republic, went around at the UN and everywhere. He wrote a book trashing the whole climate agenda, basically calling it a con. That was a country in Czech Republic with the highest rate of climate skepticism, and it was because they had a leader who was flipping the narrative. People were hearing it from their official source.

So when Trump went into this meeting at the United Nations during climate week and did this and made this unbelievable speech, it sent a signal around the world that this is a first. Combined with his Department of Energy report, by the way, they they that was the first official government pushback by any government in the world, that climate assessment report by Judith Curry and Steve Koonan to ever push back against the UN. So you combine all that, and you have Donald Trump up there just laying waste to the UN to their face. This is gonna have consequences, I believe, for the future. You think about Charlie Kirk.

Why was he so effective? Because he took the argument face to face to people, made them confront their own illogic their own illogic, their own hypocrisy. He won hearts and minds. Trump did that today, not necessarily to the people in the UN chamber, but to the rest of the world. And he did it in a way that no one can go through and say, oh, he was misinformed.

He brought receipts. And if you think back, I was at COP twenty nine in Baju, Azerbaijan, which bordered Iran and Russia as a country. Trump talked to the head of Argentina, the president, Moule Mouleu. I can't ever say his name. And within minutes of that conversation, he pulled the whole 100 plus delegation out of the conference.

The French deli environmental minister then canceled the conference. The the the opening speech was about oil being a gift from God. The whole UN conference went to shambles because Trump lit that fire. And now you have, of course, Canada collapsing Carney's first act, a World Economic Forum puppet mass he's not a puppet. He's the puppet master.

Zeroed out the carbon tax. You have the elections in Europe, the halting of the green deal, the farmers rebellion. You have, around the world, this whole awakening of countries. This is how you give the whole climate alarmism and the whole climate agenda a push off the cliff because it's not working. We've had decades of lies and fake promises.

Europe knows it's not working, the whole green energy. Trump was brilliant. This was at his best. And I just wanna say, you know, schoolchildren may be citing the speech in the future, if we can ever actually kill this whole climate, hoax agenda. It's gonna be hard to kill because you have billionaires, corporations, academia, the media, international organizations, all the establishment vested in in keeping this alive after Trump is gone from the presidency.

So, yeah, this is the best you could ever hope for. We're we're only nine months in his presidency, and I'm I'm blown away. Sorry to filibuster there. But No. No.

No. It's great.

I think the only thing that could have improved his speech is if he took his shoe off and pounded it on the lector.

Like Nikita Khrushchev? Didn't he do that? Yeah. Khrushchev. Yeah.

Have to

be a certain age to remember that reference. Alright.

Shade shades of Khrushchev.

Yeah. Alright. Well, I hope the, I hope the audience really enjoyed seeing that whole thing. It was actually only probably not even half of what he said on climate. You can see the entire transcript of it at cfacts.org.

I left a link to it in the in the chat. And, hey. I think we're ready to get to questions and answers. So you can leave more, questions and comments in the chat, and we will address them as we go forward. But before we get to that, I have a little bit of business that I need to take care of, and that is to mention to you that this here stream show is, sponsored, and we have a sponsor, and that sponsor is Advisor Now if you listen to a lot of conservative shows and you hear a lot of pitches for buying gold, silver, and other precious metals, there are a ton of companies out there that do that, but we wanna tell you why you should trust our sponsor, Advisor Metals.

And it's the man who runs the company, and his name is Ira Brashatsky. He is the managing member of Advisor Metals, and he does not employ high pressure tactics or deceptive marketing ploys like many others in so called 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 it's time to liquidate this very valuable physical asset. And, also, when you buy from Advisor Metals, you will, have your investment sent discreetly and directly to your very doorstep.

Ira, by the way, is advertising on this program and also the In the Tank podcast that we do on Thursdays because he is an America first patriot. He doesn't donate to Democrats and their, and their NGOs. He refuses to work with proxies of the Chinese Communist Party. And he, like us, abhor the machinations and the schemes of the World Economic Forum in the United Nations, and we are very proud to have Advisor Metals as a sponsor. So if you wanna diversify your investment portfolio, if you wanna back up your IRA with real physical bullion of precious metals, go to climaterealismshow.com/metals like several viewers of this podcast have already done.

You can leave your information there, and Ira will make the whole process very easy for you. Again, go to climaterealismshow.com/metals, and also be sure to tell them who sent you because that helps us and this program while you're helping yourself. Alright. Thank you very much for your attention to this matter. Let's get on with the q and a, Linea.

Jim. Yes.

Before we get to q and a, I'd like to say one thing.

Alright.

Trump's speech because Okay. So the key elements of Trump's speech that I'd like people to focus on is he's getting fact checked. You see these fact checks on his speech. I think the New York Times did one. Others have done one.

The key things to check out his speech, fact check wise, is have any of the predictions come true that he cited, and they haven't. Every he's right about that. Every one of them is wrong. And are is green energy wrecking, Europe and the countries that have, pushed it? And he's right about that a 100%.

Our costs have gone up as we've adopted green energy. Europe's costs have gone up dramatically as they've adopted green energy. In both places, transmission, the delivery has become less and less reliable with break downs. Check out Spain and Portugal and parts of France this summer. The point is when they try and fact check him, they they don't fact check.

They pick stuff that's not important or that he didn't actually say as a fact check, and they ignore the stuff where he's just dead a 100% right. Jim's pulling the gym.

Pulled the gym. Yep. We could probably self support this program if I was fined every time I left my mute button on. But thanks for that thanks for that, Sterling, even though you kinda ruined our our nice little q and a drop that we all have fun with. But that's okay.

We'll live. Lynea, why don't you take us through some questions?

Absolutely. You everyone for being here once again. We love all of our viewers. Alright. This is a question that I think is kind of a a little bit of a joke based on the the subject of our show here, but this is Chris Nisbet, common viewer of ours, says, somebody tell me, what is the greatest con job con job perpetuated on the world?

I'm gonna go around the the panel here. Jim?

I would have to say it's that give us that skeleton called something man. Tiltdown man? Yeah. Tiltdown man. Which really co opted and made added an end to that to describe one of our favorite climate characters.

Okay. Yeah. I mean, why the heck did I know that off the top of my head? That's odd. Right.

But yeah. I I'll add the Cardiff Giant was another was another con job perpetuated, but I don't think anything tops the fact that the the con that human activity is causing a a glow impending global climate catastrophe.

There's there's one bigger one, Jim. There's one bigger one. That is that communism can work anywhere at any time or has worked anywhere at any time where it's been tried. It's built upon, an idiotic idea of what human nature is, and, it's built upon poor economics because it's built upon the the idiotic idea of human nature. And so everywhere everywhere it has been tried, millions have died.

I'm sorry. That's worse even than climate change. They keep trying to bring it back. We have a mayor in New York that would like to bring it back, and he'll create the same misery there that they've created everywhere it's been tried. I think I think Karl Marx is responsible for the greatest hoax, since, the devil was thrown out of the heavens.

But it just wasn't tried correctly. Come on, Sterling.

Yeah. That's what they keep saying. They keep saying, just get the right people. Just just just you know, as soon as as soon as we reach that level where we have so much plenty, we won't need to work. We'll just sort of divide the plenty.

So the the the grasshopper can eat just like the ant, and we won't go down you know, you can make everybody you can make everyone equal. You can make them equal in in misery. You can't make them equal in wealth, but you can raise the boat for everyone.

I

was Sterling, I I thought you were gonna say that the greatest con job ever perpetuated on the world was the idea that Taylor Swift is the greatest pop star of all time.

Probably be a close second or third.

I was

gonna say We we have people at the Heartland Institute who would contest that.

And they'd be wrong, but you're right. We have people that would contest it.

Yeah. Even though they say such statements are unassailable.

Most recent, the biggest con job was the idea that in order to stop a virus, you need to give government superpowers and emergency powers to bypass democracy and shut down the entire society and cancel weddings, funerals, medical treatment, and issue stay at home orders with no voted democracy. That's how you handle a that was probably and too many Americans bought that. We were too, I guess, acquiescent, and we allowed that to happen. I don't think it'll ever happen again, but that was one of the greatest con jobs ever perpetrated, and the lead figure there would be a one Anthony Fauci.

Awesome. Okay. You've got some dogs there.

Yes. Even the dogs

eating with my dog. Alright. So engineer guy says, I see on the news there are two hurricanes on the way. Will they hit the East Coast? I think the answer to that is the h one.

I don't remember the name of it. No. The I one. Yeah. Probably.

Here it comes for me is where it's going.

Well, you know, Roger Pilkey junior had a great article a few months weeks back about the hurricanes that don't hit, and there's actually a study that claims that somehow climate change could be pushing hurricanes off the coast from actually making landfall. But he was being facetious going through and ain't gonna joke about it. But shouldn't we give it credit when you have a bad hurricane that actually doesn't hit land? Maybe we maybe we caused that somehow. But Yeah.

Who knows? Hurricanes are going to hurricane.

We'll get we'll get world attribution on that. I'm sure they'll do that study for us.

Regarding these two, I think one of them is now a hurricane. The other one's still tropical Depression or Yeah. Cyclone. It's not even tropical stormy, I don't think. But there's some thought that they might actually run into each other.

And if they do 46? No. No. No. If they do, rather than creating one super hurricane, they may dissipate each other, that they may, you know, have conflict.

It's a very rare event. There's a name for it. I forget what it is. But

I'm sure it's made more common by climate change, though, that event. Sorry. Yeah.

Alright. Jeff asks, what is in your pipe, Mark?

Only tobacco. I do not I've never had any any marijuana in my life ever, not even tried it once. This is, I can't remember the name. This is probably Country Squire, I get it, from Mississippi. It's a homegrown US tobacco, and, it's a light aromatic.

Very good. Wonderful. Alright.

Why I'm so mellow today. I feel really relaxed. So it's tobacco mellow, not in anything else.

Alright. Mars Rock asks, have any judicial officials noticed or commented on the education?

Say that again.

Have any talking

about the law fair.

Yeah. With the law fair stuff, have any judicial officials noticed or commented on their

Gotcha.

You know, their their the climate education that they're getting pushed on them?

To my to my knowledge, the court has the Supreme Court hasn't weighed in on lower so the the Supreme Court people haven't been invited to these conferences, but lower courts have, appellate courts. Now the people that attend aren't gonna say anything and complain. Right? They were there. They got the meals.

They got the indoctrination. They've got their marching orders. Their colleagues are low to critique or criticize, the others. So I'm not aware of anyone who said something like, they shouldn't be attending these events. This is indoctrination.

This isn't giving knowledge. This is shaping, legal doctrine, but I could be wrong. Maybe somebody said it. I haven't seen it.

Alright. And I want to point out that we have a a hurricane expert in the chat, Stan Goldenberg, who says, yes. The disturbance soon to be Imelda will likely hit The US and might cause serious flooding. So everybody on that coast that seems to be in kind of the general cone of predictive, strike, please get ready this weekend long in advance before they send out the official you know, before the storm forms and everything. You should always be prepared.

He should have been prepared, months ago for hurricane season. So please now is the best not the next best time.

I'll I'll I'll also add that that Stan just texted me, and he said that the best information that you can get on hurricanes is hurricanes.gov.

Yes. Please do, you guys. Alrighty. This is probably a question for Anthony here. Bob asks, to what extent does post glacial rebound account for ocean level rise?

I don't see how current glacial melt could.

Well, post glacial rebound doesn't cause rise in the sea level. It causes the lowering of the sea level because the land, had been compressed from weight of the ice, is now pushing back up very slowly. And as a result, in those areas where that's happening, sea level is actually subsiding a little bit. So that's really what's going on.

Alrighty. Let's go. Steven Fraser says, it seems like Kessler and his crew successfully negated the DOA negated the DOE report. Chris Wright folded this tent. What do you think?

He means Dessler, not Kettler.

Oh, yeah. I don't

Well, it was yeah. The lawsuit what happened was and this is very unfortunate, is the Department of Energy, when they set up this this DOE report with Judith Curry and Roy Spencer. Apparently, they didn't do exactly the correct paperwork. And as Judith Curry herself said, they didn't cross all the t's and dot all the i's correctly, and it left them vulnerable to some bureaucratic procedural lawsuit in federal court, which then forced them to dissolve the climate group. Now it's a question of whether the report was issued.

Does it still have the weight of law? It's it it has implications on the endangerment finding, the c o two endangerment finding, whether you can regulate c o two under the Clean Air Act. It's unfortunate. I don't know exactly, and I don't know who didn't fill out the paperwork or why there what didn't have better oversight, but it's it's not a shining moment for the administration on that point.

I I honestly don't think they should have had to fill out paperwork. You can have a kitchen cabinet advising you regardless. As far as the Mark's right that the the group was disbanded as an official group, but, the DOE has stood by the report. The report was issued

Yes.

Regardless of the committee, and they haven't, withdrawn it. But I don't think it's critical to the endangerment finding. The endangerment finding rescission, I I think when I read it, I'm not sure. It it references the DOE report. The DOE report came out almost simultaneously, so it would be hard for it to reference it.

So I think the that stands or falls regardless. The committee might be gone, but the report stands or falls. And as far as, Dessler's refutation, it was a joke. It it it it it was it was idiotic. It didn't address the points that, the DOE report raised.

It it used selective data when it did directly address those points. And, yeah, they got a lot of names.

They got a lot

of names. Oh, I can put my name on anything.

Yeah.

Yes. Is. Did they write a report in less than a month that it took the others months and months to do? Just like the NAS's report. Five days after their committee was officially formed, suddenly they had a comprehensive report.

No. It's a joke.

Yeah. You know, on what's up with that, we called it, Charles wrote an editorial about it, science by the pound, which is really what it does. It just it was just throw out as much crap as they could and see if it sticks.

Yeah. The NAS, back when I was working in the US senate again, we were able to get, it was, what was his name? Ralph? What was the old, who's now dead, but the old chairman of the NAS. I mean, he would go he basically admitted that the entire National Academy of Science is doing the bidding of what government pays it to do.

So in other words, it's not like a neutral policy organization seeking truth in science. It's there to essentially do what its paymasters demand. It's almost heavily mostly funded by by government. And he ended up, Ralph Cicerone was his name. He ended up lobbying for Obama's cap and trade bill on Capitol Hill.

I mean, this is a scientific lobbying organization in many ways similar in politics to the IPCC of the United Nations. It's there to push a political narrative that the paymasters insist upon. So anyone out there who I remember I can't remember who did the interview, but someone was like, the hey, guys. National Academy of Sciences set up by Abraham Lincoln to review the scientific latest scientific bullshit. It is a completely political organization paid bought and paid for by the government that insists they use it for politicization of science.

So anyone out there who's delusional and thinks like, oh, wow. The top scientists said this. No. This is just a lobbying organization.

Now and let's be clear. This report wasn't funded by government. They went they took out they say they took out their own money. They do this on their own, right, before someone says, oh, no. This this is independent.

Yeah. Every one of the scientists involved has received millions and millions of dollars in grants to their by the way, if you check out their, you know, I've written about this. If you check out their bonafides, their their resumes, what they do, they all work for climate alarm organizations Yes. Or spinners at universities that are set up precisely to talk about how bad climate change is and how the government needs to expand and their roles as advisers to the government need to expand, take us seriously. And so, yeah, once they see the government suddenly not genuflecting to their power, authority, and wisdom, suddenly they can produce an independent report that says the government is wrong.

Sterling, you need to put your hat on.

I'm going for it now. You're right. It's too late. But

Mark, in case you don't know, we have dubbed Sterling the archbishop of Renterbury, and so I set him in his hat. That's great.

A little late, but here it is, folks.

That's great.

The the the the NAS on this report are liar lying liars who tell lies.

Thank you very much for that, Sterling. Alright. Here is a question from Walter who says, do climate realists need to perform an intervention on those members of the judiciary that are being specifically targeted for propaganda by the climate central alarmists?

Well, the intervention would be the DOE report because it has the, you know, it's the official report of the Trump administration. That helps. What happens is these judges literally don't know anything about the science, and so it's all an appeal to authority when they try to prosecute. Well, the UN has said this, and even our own government has an endangerment finding finding c o two needs to be regulate. So in many cases, these judges, even if they're personally climate skeptics, they're presented with these official government reports, they're like, well, you know, what am I supposed to do?

So, yeah, we need a a better legal strategy, and this is why this is why you need to have reports like the DOE report so you can cite other official reports. Because as a judge, that's gonna be very critical in defeating these ridiculous lawsuits. Many of them, the schoolchildren, eight, 10, 12 years old, suing the government because our climate future is at stake. And by the way, Climate Central is famous for the TV Weatherman indoctrination where they send the local weather. Since 1970, your city has warmed x amount.

Gee. Why did you pick 1970? Oh, that was one of the coldest periods of the twentieth century. Why don't you start in the nineteen thirties and see how much your city has warmed? And they don't do that.

It's it's a pure, you know, just typical propaganda outfit.

Mark, how dare you question Honest Science?

Alright. Charlie b says, now that Google has admitted its prior YouTube sins, are you demanding better treatment for them?

Yeah. Shouldn't the Heartland channel be back in full standing now with YouTube? You guys should have a letter of apology. Check your inbox.

Yeah. Yeah. It'll be in the inbox any moment, I'm sure. Yeah.

No. No. We're we're working

on it. Although, I've I've seen some, commentary on x from people who are complaining that they're being slow walked already by YouTube, Google. So, you know, we'll keep we're gonna keep at it. I mean, they're honest about what they said in that letter, then we should be remonetized. And, you know, look, we we don't make a ton of money on this channel.

Obviously, we never we didn't even when we were monetized. The point is that if your channel is demonetized, it gets severely punished by the algorithm, so the show ends up not flowing into the feed of people who should be seeing it, and not just climate realists, but other people who engage in the the global conversation about the climate. We are suppressed in that regard because we are not monetized. We are demonetized. So, you know, that's what we're trying to fix.

I have the same problem with what's up with that, and I suspect you do too, Mark, with Climate Depot. They demonetized me, I believe it was around 2019, late twenty eighteen. Google sent me a letter basically saying, you know, what you publish does not align with our values and vision. See you. Bye bye.

Sayonara. And so they took all the advertising off of there, you know, because, you know, we were saying truth. And so I suspect a lot of different outlets in the in the conservative side have the same problem. And yeah. And maybe Google is slow walking these back, but we should push hard for this because what Google did was wrong.

Yeah.

Mark, Mark sorry. No. We're gonna make we're gonna make Sterling wear that hat every single show until we are remonetized. Do you hear me? Do you hear me, Google?

Do you nobody wants that. So come on. Put us back on.

I will I will pray that we are remonetized in Yeah.

I'm gonna have to get a burning cream boot from my

a little warm, folks. I don't I don't need to be sweating on TV. So Mars rocks made a good suggestion that we mail our climate at a glance to all these judges. I don't know if that'd be considered lobbying. I don't know how what what the tax laws are with regard to judges.

But I'll say this. We have a second edition coming out. And if we mail it, that should be the one we send. It's all updated and all the sources, all the facts, and it covers new material that wasn't in the first one. We encourage you all when it comes out, which will be next week, to go up and get a copy.

Absolutely. Chris asks, have you noticed any change in visitor numbers since their admission? I don't think so. Now that won't change until they actually change something.

Yeah. I don't think they they haven't actually done anything. They just Yeah. Wrote a letter.

This I'm gonna direct to Mark. Charlie in Europe made our leaders cowards. Yet in America, Charlie Kirk made you all braver. Why?

Jizzy, Charlie? Who are they referring to?

The early Hepto attack.

Okay. Well, Charlie Kirk, the attack here, I think, because of the you know, just this young guy who's really his number one mission was free speech, debate, open society, bringing the debate face to face to your enemies, I think it struck a chord in America that just like his widow, Erica, said it's gonna make his message, his movement stronger than anything we could ever imagine. And I'm really you know, if any good can come out of his death, I'm hoping that's what it is. Europe doesn't have the same constitutional most countries don't have the same constitutional protections as The United States in terms of, their free speech. I you know, in order for Europe to even survive decades in the future, the EU has to be abolished.

It is the most evil institution. Ursula von der Leyen, the whole the whole idea of country's sovereignty being usurped the way they can do it almost doesn't even matter what they vote. The EU bureaucrats have a a hold on it. I I was in we were in a at a conference, I guess, last year in in Austria, and it was just amazing that they were explaining how the EU was founded, how it was how it holds a grip on all these nations, how they can't really circumvent a lot of the EU regulations. That's that's gonna be your number one problem.

Because even if you have a mass rebellion, which you have had, they still can just sort of lie low and the EU can throttle you back down in the future. It's a it's a bureaucratic structural problem, I think, that's occurring in Europe.

It's also a problem of history. Remember, the countries of Europe have been conquered and led by various types of authoritarians throughout their entire history. Monarchy is just another type of authoritarianism, and they have a long history of obey obeying the crown. And when they throw it off, they just put it you know, they got rid of the the the kings in France, and who they replace them with? Napoleon.

Well, that's better. They got they they they had the glorious revolution in England. They got they they beheaded the the king. Who'd they get? Thomas Cromwell.

Well, that's better. We are we're founded America was founded by people who were leaving appeals to authority as the standard, except for for some of them, appeals to god. We have a history of distrust of government. Europe doesn't have that history.

True.

They trust government. They think the government generally has their best interest in mind. They're not guided by Thomas Paine or, or, John Locke. They're guided more by, I I forget the the French philosopher. But Rousseau.

I believe Rousseau.

You're Rousseau. Rousseau. Or in Germany, by Hegel, who believe human people are just part of an larger social organism. The Bali politics, it's important, not individuals. That's not what America is.

So when you have someone like Charlie Kirk, he's hearkening back to the very notion of how this country was founded and the people who founded it.

Well and two, I think, I don't know. It just might be a a matter of personality. I mean, our we have plenty of leaders who immediately, you know, attempted to go on the, like, both sides program as soon as Charlie was assassinated. You know? We have luckily, most of the leaders who are actually in, you know, the White House and stuff right now were not the kind of people that roll over quite so easily, but we have plenty of those too.

So it's, you know, across the spectrum. Who knows? But, yeah, I'm very I'm very sorry that you guys didn't, you know, have your, over there in Britain didn't have the wake up moment after or not Britain. Sorry. It was from France.

Right? Charlie Hebdo? France and, frankly, Britain too didn't have a wake up moment from that event. Let's see. Well, we don't have any more questions.

I have this somebody started this comment for me. I'm not sure why, but that the climate change disclaimer is still on all the videos. So, yeah, they haven't changed anything at YouTube. So not too not too

I know why. There the power grid can't is not powering the AI, so the AI doesn't have enough power to change the algorithm to remove all that stuff yet. It's gonna take a while. Oh, wow. A nuclear theory.

Too much solar and wind on the power grid for the AI to work.

Yeah. Hey. That's a new conspiracy theory. I was kinda getting bored with my old ones, so thanks for that one.

Well, if he's if he's right about that, it will take longer still because the power grid is increasingly still powered by wind and solar, which means lacked of power.

Yep. Alright. Well, that will do it for today's edition of the climate realism show. I believe this is episode number 175, and we hope to see you next Friday at 1PM eastern time for episode one seventy six where we'll be covering the latest in climate news and keeping the world informed from a climate realist perspective. I wanna thank our streaming partners who help us get this show in front of you for more people.

Junk Science, Seafact, that's you, Mark Marano, c o two Coalition, Climate Depot, that's also you, Mark Marano. Yeah. What's up with that? And Heartland UK Europe. I wanna thank Andy Singer, our producer behind the scenes doing a fantastic job today and remind you to always visit climaterealism.com, climate@aglance.com, energy@aglance.com, and always go to heartland.org where you can subscribe to the archbishop of Rancher Berry's climate change weekly newsletter.

And, that'll do it, and we will talk to you next week. Bye bye. You.