Heartland Daily Podcast

That's right, Greta. It is Friday. It is the best day of the week, and not just because the weekend is almost here, but 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 years and is known as the leading global think tank pushing back on climate alarmism. Heartland and this show bring you the data, the science, the truth that counters the climate alarmist narrative you've been fed every single day of your life. And we try to have some fun doing it as well because there is nothing else quite like the Climate Realism show streaming anywhere. So I hope you will like, share and subscribe and leave your comments underneath this video and also bring your friends to view this live stream every Friday at 1PM Eastern Time. All of these activities convince YouTube's algorithm to smile upon this program and that gets it in front of even more people.

And because big tech, you wouldn't guess it, And the legacy media do not approve of the way we cover climate and energy on this program. Heartland's YouTube channel is continually demonetized. We're trying to work on getting it back. We will give you an update when we get one, but it is demonetized at the moment. So if you want to support this program, and I really hope you do, please visit heartland.org/tcrs.

That's heartland.org/tcrs, which stands for the Climate Realism Show. And you can help keep you can help us make sure that this program comes out every single week. Any support you can give us is warmly welcome and greatly appreciated. And we also want to thank our streaming partners, Jungscience.com, CFACT, what's up with that? The c o two coalition and Heartland UK Europe.

So welcome to all of you who are watching on those extremes. I hope you will follow all of those accounts and become a subscriber to this show on our YouTube and Rumble channels of the Heartland Institute. We got a big show today, so let's get started. Have with us as usual, Anthony Watts. He's a senior fellow at the Heartland Institute and the publisher of the most influential website on climate in the world.

What's up with that? We have Sterling Burnett. He is the director of the Arthur B Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy at the Heartland Institute and also known as the archbishop of Renterberry here on this program.

Hello, everybody. The archbishop is in the house.

Yes. Very good.

God bless you all, my children.

Thank you. Blessings be upon us. Linea Luken is also with us as usual. She's a research fellow for energy environmental policy at the Heartland and also the host of the Heartland Institute's In The Tank podcast, which is streamed live every Thursday at 1PM Eastern Time, except yesterday. We apologize for that.

Will we always never like to miss a week, but we had to miss one yesterday because of internal heartland stuff that we had to take care of. So welcome all of you, especially you, your x one c.

I just wanna say this, the miter, well deserved by the way, was a gift from Anthony Watts who has an excellent sense of style and humor. So, here we are.

Right. Well, we all aspire in life to earn good nicknames. The only good nickname is one you earn, so congratulations Sterling. We're going have a lot of fun with that.

Just let me say, I'm quite pleased with myself.

You you should be. Even if I misidentified it yesterday.

Yep. No problem. Alright. Well, we got a lot to get to today. It's gonna be a great program, and we do look forward to seeing your questions and comments in the chat, which we will handle at the q and a section of the program near the end.

But for now, let's start as we always do with the crazy climate news of the week. Hit it, Andy. Yes. Thank you, Bill Nyein. Thank you, producer extraordinary and Andy Singer in the background, making sure this program runs very, very smoothly every week.

Our first item here is pay up Michael Mann. Regular listeners listeners of this program know that we've been following the case of Michael Mann suing National Review and our friend Mark Stein in a completely frivolous defamation case. And, you know, I used to joke that every time the left put a torpedo in the water to get Donald Trump, those torpedoes like in Red for Red for Red October always came back and got them instead. This is another wonderful case of that. Michael Mann puts a torpedo in the water, and he's the one who has to pay.

So this is from our friends at Climate Change Dispatch. Pay up. Judge deals Michael Mann major blow in bid to delay paying legal fees. Let me read a bit from this and we'll get some commentary. A Washington DC court rejected University of Pennsylvania climate scientist Michael Mann in his bid to postpone his required payment of hundreds of thousands of dollars to the National Review on Thursday.

The Superior Court of the District of Columbia ruled in January that Mann owes National Review approximately $530,000 to cover the outlet's legal fees after spending more than a decade locked in a defamation litigation against the organization, and Mann subsequently requested a stay to postpone those payments. You would note here that when he if he won or when he did actually have the ruling in his favor in the beginning before it was reversed in appeal, he obviously insisted on being paid right away. So tough noogie. Anyway, on Thursday, the court denied Mann's request, meaning that he will likely have to pony up cash to an outlet he once described in emails as a, quote, threat to our children. Mann initially sued National Review in 2012 when Canadian conservative Mark Stein knocked Mann and his famed hockey stick climate model in a post on the National Review's website.

In filing a in in a filing opposing National Review's request for compensation, Mann argued that the move was a, quote, mean spirited and unjustified request by a powerful organization, unquote, intending to intimidate and silence him. Notably, judge Albert Irving wrote in March that Mann and his lawyers had presented misleading information to the jury while the defamation case was at trial. Now, Anthony, I know that you are one of Michael Mann's most famous admirers, but this is pretty rich, isn't it? I mean, Michael Mann saying that National Review is mean spirited and, you know, and he is the one being intimidated and silenced coming from him of all people. God.

Come on.

Yeah. He's his sense of sense of self is just highly distorted. He seems to have no idea how he appears to others except for his acolytes, you know? And he is so inconsequent about everything. It's just amazing.

I mean, it's very few people that have a personality like his that I know of. The fun thing is is that he can't tolerate alternate opinions. He just can't tolerate it. He was known as the blocker in chief on Twitter, and he left Twitter because there's too many damn climate deniers on Twitter. You know?

They went over to this blue sky thing where he and Gavin Schmidt and a couple of the other bigwigs on the climate cabal can talk amongst themselves without being interfered by us mere mortals. So, you know, I'm not surprised by any of this. He's gonna dodge and connive and everything that he can do to prevent paying this because in his mind, he's right.

Yeah. Well, Sterling, the archbishop archbishop, excuse me, your excellency, there are a few people in the public sphere when it comes to the debate on climate change that are more mean spirited than Michael Mann. And he specializes in insults and then blocking you from his social media accounts. He calls everybody who disagrees with him all sorts of names and a threat to the very existence of humanity on this earth. So I see you're smiling that Michael Mann is getting a come up, and it's even better than we actually would have expected.

Yeah. Well, you know, maybe, when Mark Stein pays him the paltry sum that he now has to pay, He can use that as a, what, a half a percent payment on what he actually owes the national review. The what Anthony's right about is that he will he will fight this. He I I my suspicion is he will go to his grave never having paid this. He already lost a case in Canada where he owes money.

Yep. Tim

Paul. I think, three years ago, it now it's been since he lost that case. He has steadfastly refused to follow the law in Canada and pay per the ruling. The the gentleman that he destroyed died. He had to use GoFundMe to to help pay for his, funerary expenses.

Man is a a smarmy individual. He will not be getting a dispensation unless, you know, I guess, by canon law, I'm I'm I'm obligated if he comes to me for forgiveness to, to do that. But, a, I don't expect it having met the man and dined with him. And b, I might have to give up the the hat and the and the job if that came to it.

Yeah. Yeah. Well, as Christine Laurel points out, he was rotten to Judy Curry as well. But the good news on that, we didn't have the clip. I didn't think to grab it.

But, you know, there was a great you could find it. If you put in Judith Curry and Michael Mann in YouTube, you could probably find the clip of them giving congressional testimony in which he tried to, you know, basically step to step to Judy Curry, and she destroyed him, in front of everybody. So, you know, I I don't like to wish ill upon anyone, but if there's anyone who deserves to be getting his ass handed to him in court over the last six months, it's Michael Mann.

Well, let's hope let's hope let's hope that they, I mean, it'd be good if if the court said, you will pay. We have ordered it. If not, they start garnishing his wages or, going in and seizing assets that he has. The the the the university, University of Pennsylvania that he's associated with should disown him at this stage. Yeah.

It's shameful. It's shameful. Disavow him.

Yeah. Maybe you could assign some penance to him, Sterling. I

don't know that he has enough time to do all the penance I would assign.

Yeah. Well, he could he he's welcome to come up on this program. That would be penance. I don't know if, he'd probably rather, he'd probably rather not and just take his chances in the great beyond than to come on this program. So anyway, Michael Mann, we'll continue to watch and see how this works out.

We just really enjoy it, and we like sharing this news with our with our audience. Alright. We got our second item here, and this is Trump Trump targeting green states. More good news. This comes from the Associated Press.

Trump's new energy order puts state's climate laws in the crosshairs at the Department of Justice. A new executive order from president Donald Trump that's part of his effort to invigorate energy production raises the possibility that his DOJ will go to court against state climate change laws aimed at slashing planet warming greenhouse gas pollution from fossil fuels. Now again, this is the AP. I'm reading it verbatim. So it's gonna have a certain spin for which they get paid to do the alarmist spin.

Trump's order signed Tuesday comes as US electricity demand ramps up to meet the growth of artificial intelligence and cloud computing applications, as well as federal efforts to expand high-tech manufacturing, it also coincides with the climate super fund legislation gaining traction in various states. Trump has declared a national energy emergency and ordered his attorney general to take action against states that may be illegally overreaching their authority in how they regulate energy development. American energy dominance is threatened when state and local governments seek to regulate energy beyond their constitutional or statutory authorities, unquote, Trump said in the order. He added that the attorney general should focus on state laws targeting climate change, a broad order that unmistakably puts liberal states in the crosshairs of Trump's Department of Justice. Okay, so Linea, you're a former oil drenched rig rat.

How would you feel if the president?

A rig oil drenched rig rat.

Man. I made I made that up. I don't know if that's a term of of endearment.

It's definitely not. That's okay. I'll take it. I'll take it.

Alright. Yeah. I used to call myself a ink stained wretch when I was a journalist. So it's it's it's one of endearment for sure. But how would you feel if the president was doing this kind of thing when you were in the industry?

And I see this really as a real turning of the tables because it's usually the government activists in collusion with the government that is going after the energy producers to stop energy production. And now the table seemed to have turned.

Yeah. Well, I mean, obviously, the industry is going to like that we have more opportunities. You know, if if they're withdrawing a bunch of regulations and stuff, it'll make it less expensive to drill. Right now, the industry is not happy, not doing well. It's a bad time to be in the oil field right now because price of oil hit, I think, around $50 a barrel the other day, which there is a danger with some of this stuff that you get it cheap enough that you actually can't afford to produce.

So that's kind of the precipice that we're at. I know a lot of people who are laid off in the last couple weeks or so. So it's we're in, like, kind of a weird position right now. But if anything is going to be able to stabilize the industry and make it last long term withdrawing from all of these crazy climate things is gonna be one of the necessary steps for that. But it's a it's a complicated it's a very, very complicated industry.

I want to point out this comment before I yield the floor for a second here that Jeff has here who says use a climate model to calculate the interest due on punishment for Michael Mann. And I think that they should use RCP 8.5 because they definitely that'll get you the biggest numbers you could possibly get. So let's do it.

Yeah.

Great.

But yeah, no, it's it's I mean, it's necessary. I've been floored and so happy with the way that all of the kind of energy related cabinet positions have been speaking publicly on these issues. Zeldin has been just a absolute slayer of climate nonsense. I did not see that coming at all since he was on some of the kind of wishy washy climate. What are they called?

I've lost my words again. The, like, groups that they have in Congress committees. Right. One of the committees on climate change, he was part of it. And so I was kind of dreading him coming in because I thought that he was going to be, you know, kind of wishy washy on it.

But he has been stronger than almost anybody else. It's it's a wonderful thing to see. His enthusiasm talking about it on hostile news networks has been great, too. It's really fun to watch. We're just I mean, we have thrown the window to the right on the climate issue and on energy issues.

So it's a great, great thing to see.

Yeah. He was in those caucuses, some of those caucuses.

Yeah. That's right.

But, and it's not just this this order. Who knows what effect it'll have? This is one of those instances, that are have been that were all too common over the past couple of decades, actually, where the courts just opened the doors and and refused to throw out cases that that lacked merit or that were in the wrong forum. In the end, if anything is implicated in interstate commerce, it is energy, energy production, energy use. Interstate commerce is the sole province under the constitution of the congress of the United States, not state courts, not federal courts even.

It's it's specifically a provision of the constitution, congress, and congress alone. So the court should have looked at every one of these cases as a sorry. This is both a national and international issue. You can't use nuisance lawsuits to, run up the bills of rape, of of gas users everywhere, which is what's happening. Right?

The they're not spending millions. It's hundreds of millions and billions to defend against lawsuits in every forum. And the truth is they should have all been consolidated into one case, and the court should have spoken unanimously to say, this is congress's job. We don't have a role. You can't sue.

Same thing should've happened to man on First Amendment grounds. You know, it's time and again, the court says, oh, we'll let the jury we'll we'll let the courts decide. No. No. You have a role, and congress has a role, and congress is specific in the constitution about interstate commerce.

So these never should have gone anywhere. Trump is, it's not just this. You know? He he did several good things this week. But once again, we'll we'll see where where where they, what impact they have.

He said that in the Western States, they won't have to do the same kind of environmental reviews they did in the past for oil and gas production. I don't know why he just didn't make it nationwide. The Western States aren't the only ones that do these things.

I guess that's because most

of public land is out there. He also and we're gonna get talking about this later, corralled the, the climate alarm as we're gonna talk about. But, I mean, he's just, on our issues, Trump has been gold, and, it's it's a it's a glorious thing to see.

Yeah. I mean, Lynea, you you had mentioned basically that it seems like like the Overton window has moved a little bit, and I want to ask Anthony if he feels that too. Know, lot of this, you see it, but there is a lot of feeling I think, and you have been in the climate realism business longer than anybody here, Anthony. Do you see or feel the Overton window on climate and energy policy genuinely move?

Yeah, I think it has moved, because a lot of people's eyes have been opened, particularly because of the waste and so forth that they're finding in government, the waste and the corruption and money that's being funneled to all kinds of crazy projects. And so the trust in government and thereby by association, the trust in government science is starting to slip. And government science is the basis of all of the climate claims. And so, yeah, the window's moving because people are starting to turn skeptical, which is where we've been all along.

Not let's not assume everyone knows what the Overton window is. Can one of you concisely say it? Well, mean,

it's basically the window of what's politically, socially and culturally acceptable. What the majority of people consider the conventional wisdom. There's lots of different definitions of it, that's generally the case. And the Overton window on the climate has been moved so far to the left. I mean, radical leftists have just grabbed the edge of that and exited stage left with it to the fact that we have indoctrination of children in schools who believe that they're responsible for the death of the polar bears when both of those things are incorrect because humans are not responsible and the polar bears are fine.

You know, things like that. And now we're living in a place, again, this election in November was very important and it has changed. There's been a cultural vibe shift. I think there's been a political vibe shift and there's been a you know, the news industry has destroyed itself to the fact that the Associated Press continues to report alarmist, you know, in an alarmist fashion on climate and energy because they're being paid to do it by left wing organizations. And now we see that, you know, with the Doge, that the NGOs, all of these left wing climate and energy radical NGOs that are out of step with the opinion of the American people, are out of step with reality when it comes to science and our energy needs, that's being exposed and that may dry up.

So yeah, the Overton window in almost every aspect has been moved more toward realism and away from radicalism, I think.

I I feel with that last explanation discussion, Jim, probably I should be passing my miter off to you.

Oh, well, I'm I'm feeling a little under the weather, so that wasn't quite a rant, was more of an explanation, so that's why we have to do it. All right, let's move on to our next one. This is actually happy news. This is evidence perhaps that the green movement is dying. We do kind of cover this constantly on this show.

So let's see what the latest news on this is. This is from TIP Insights. Americans skeptical of climate change movement support, quote, rolling back green rules in INI and TIP poll. Now this is from Terry Jones, he's the author of this. He's the former editorial page editor at Investors Business Daily and the editor of Issues and Insights.

I've actually met him. He's a great guy and a fantastic journalist. The subhead on this piece is this, Is the green movement dying if not already dead? And it sure looks that way, that it's trending that way. So here we go.

In a national online poll taken March 26 through the twenty eighth, INI TIP asked fourteen fifty two poll respondents the following question. Which of the following best describes your view of the current climate change movement? The first answer was that the climate change movement quote is a necessary response to a serious global crisis unquote. Now that garnered 39% support more than any other single response. However, taken together, the five remaining responses portray a broad range of skepticism of the Green Movement among the rest of those who took the poll.

Within this group, 16% said, quote, it has gone too far and is driven more by politics than science, while 20% agreed, quote, I am concerned about the environment but skeptical of climate alarmism. Another 5% said, I used to support it but now question its motives and impact. And 11% noted, quote, I don't believe climate change is a significant issue, unquote. And the remaining 9% said they were unsure. So as Terry Jones points out, a majority, 52%, expressed different degrees of skepticism about the climate change movement, its motivations, its impacts and its significance for the future.

Now Sterling, you were quoted in this story and you said in essence, actually kind of what we were just talking about in the last segment, that Donald Trump being elected president has really changed everything.

Yeah. Well, it it's it's it's a lot of things, but I think Trump being elected president was certainly the spark. Since Trump, took office or actually since his election, company after company, bank after bank, investment house after investment house, you know, fund managers, they're all pulling out of international climate, coalitions and cabals. Now it may just be on the surface. They may still be doing this stuff in the background, but visibly, publicly, they are disavowing that former their former associations.

If you look around the world where these protests, these climate protests have taken place, the people have absolutely no sympathy with these people at all anymore. They're now being convicted in criminal court. They're serving time for the stuff that they did. They were they were called heroes. They were called martyrs a a few years ago.

People were saying it's a peaceful protest. Blah blah blah. Yeah. They did you know, that sure. They destroy a few works of art.

They block some traffic. They, you know, make give us their flights, but, it it's for the climate. Now it's like, no. Now they're getting hit on the street. They're getting arrested.

They're going to jail. And it's not just here in America where the politics have changed. In Europe, they are delaying some of their sustainability directives. They, you know, right right of center coalitions are coming to power or near power, and it's changing the politics over there, delaying their climate commitments. It's it's all over the world.

And and, of course, the IPCC goes merrily on its way. They're gonna hold the next conference. And what are they doing? They're cutting down rainforest to build roads, for the next conference, showing that they're really not that concerned about climate change either. It's really about power, and the people in power are being threatened by the public finally saying enough is enough, and, they're getting the message.

Well, know, I mean, opinion, I think that, you know, this story as much as I want it to be, you know, I think it might be a tad too optimistic. I mean, I think the green movement will only be dead when the money dries up. You know, you see how it works in The US with these green NGOs that I mentioned earlier, collecting billions of our dollars to advocate for fake stuff like environmental justice. You know, so until the government mandates for green energy are canceled, you know, only then will big business, you know, end its collaboration with government for, you know, for all of this nonsense from the science end to the energy end. What do you think, Anthony?

Well, you know, that's a tough one to to comment about. But it we've seen this relationship again and again and again where the the government sends out money. NGOs scramble to get it, write up all kinds of creative grants, some of which are not many of which are not based in reality. And then they produce some kind of, I don't know, some theme based output that really doesn't address the problem or the issue, but it's more of a talking point narrative. And this vicious cycle has been repeating over and over and over again.

And as a result, it's become predictable. I mentioned last week that this the whole climate cabal has become so predictable that we could probably write up a forecast at the beginning of the year for stuff that's gonna happen based on, you know, weather events and seasons and so forth. There's nothing new in that industry whatsoever. They repeat the same tired old talking points again and again and again, hoping that if you, you know, say it enough, people will believe it. The bottom line is, though, is that people are starting to wake up to this.

And, you know, with Trump basically shutting off the tap of money flow, they've got nowhere to go. My advice to them is learn to code.

Yeah. You know, it it's funny you should say that, Anthony. You're right. We could almost set up an editorial calendar for the year in advance and saying, okay. This is when we'll be talking about wildfires.

This is when we'll be refuting stuff about hurricanes. This is when they'll talk about allergies, and we have to take them down. And and we could do it month month for month, week for week when we when we expect to see certain stories come out. And and and the coverage you get from certain stories you know, it's a weird thing. People are dying all over the globe, for a variety of reasons.

I I covered a story a few weeks ago on the cherry blossoms blooming, quote, early in Washington DC, and, and it it was a lesser extent addressed Tokyo. That story got more pickup in coverage than stories about people dying everywhere. It's weird what people care about. If, you know, you you put there's a story about what dogs panting. I'll wager that got more readership.

I'll I'll wager that got more readership than stories about crop failures in in Africa, for instance. Not that either one of them are tied to climate change, but, it's, it's amazing to me.

Yeah. They'll they'll grab on anything and try to turn it into, you know, something caused by climate. I mean, there was a website a few years ago. It's since gone dark, but it was called, The Warm List. And it was, run by a professor at a university over in The UK.

And it became so big that he had trouble keeping up with it, and he finally gave up. But basically, he wrote up a list of headlines and links to all these headlines of things caused by climate change. And it was hilarious to read because, you know, we would, for an example, with Sterling's reference, we would see a story, climate change is causing dogs to pant more. That's one headline. But when we'd also see in the same list headlines that say something like, dog dogs are panting less due to climate change.

I mean, it was just hilarious to watch these completely opposite claims being published by different media outlets. These folks don't have any ability to discern reality from fantasy. And so they publish mostly fantasy.

Yeah. Yeah. Well, well, we can hope the Green Movement is dying. That's part of the point of this program. It's not, we don't don't mean any any harm to anybody, but we believe strongly that the truth will set you free, and that's what this program is about.

It'll set you free from our next issue, which is defunding climate anxiety. We do cover this topic on this show quite a bit. Hopefully, we won't have to cover it as much in the future, but this is from the Washington Post. Trump's new reason for canceling grants, climate anxiety. The decision coincided with cuts to other federal climate initiatives, a move that could imperil a key report detailing the escalating effects of climate change in The United States.

And this relates very well to our main topic for today. So let me read a bit from this from the Washington Post. The Trump administration administration this week offered a new reason to stop climate change research. It scares children. Officials cut $4,000,000 in funding to a climate research center at Princeton University that is affiliated with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA.

Commerce Department officials who oversee NOAA said that they were canceling federal support to several of the center's projects that predict the ways global warmth will disrupt Earth's systems. The initiatives, quote, are no longer aligned, unquote, with agency objectives, the officials said. The research, quote, promotes exaggerated and implausible climate threats contributing to a phenomenon known as climate anxiety, which has increased significantly among America's youth, unquote, said the Commerce Department announcement. Quote, its focus on alarming climate scenarios fosters fear rather than rational balanced discussion, unquote. Well done, Commerce Department.

But experts, according to the Washington Post, said canceling support for one of the nation's top climate modeling programs would not make young people less anxious about the changing planet. It would just give them less information about the threats they might face. The cuts at Princeton also coincided with changes to another federal climate initiative, The US Global Change Research Program that could imperil a key report detailing the escalating effects of climate change in The United States. Now, Lynnae, let me start with you here. I mean, because we've we've talked about climate anxiety a lot on here.

And what we learned from this story is that climate anxiety is made worse thanks to government grants that the Trump administration is now canceling. That's gotta be good news.

The well, I'll say this. The fact that the experts, right, are coming in and saying, no, we actually do want to to, you know, make kids believe that we are experiencing accelerating and advancing, you know, catastrophic effects from climate change is just kind of a roundabout way of them saying, well, actually, we think that they should be anxious about it. And they are them and the media are the reason why kids are this terrified and this despondent. The the main issue is that they are completely wrong about the impacts of climate change and the speed at which they occur. There is no reason to be in despair over climate change.

I just think that they are some of the most disgusting people out there. And to be to be reinforcing this, it's a it's a death cult that is desperately trying to hang on to the influence that they have. I couldn't be happier than to see it slipping away from them.

There is a dark cloud to this silver lining, however. I saw another story, and maybe we'll cover it in future events, but it's tied to this, that said the people that suffer from climate anxiety are democrats in blue cities. And there was an overlaid map that showed where there's no anxiety, and it's all red country. And you see, so do I really care that Democrats in blue cities or or do I want to stoke their anxiety and, and drive them to more despair? The children, an awful thing, but but, liberals in cities suffering climate fear, I just find that sort of funny.

Yeah. But they're, like, destroying property and stuff over at Sterling.

Yeah.

I mean

Well, but now but now they're getting arrested for doing this. Find out.

Yeah. I guess the find out part is satisfying, but it's still not good that someone's, like, vehicle and potentially home could be destroyed by this.

Yeah. Yeah. Well, there's two bits about this that I want to ask Anthony about, and that's, this idea that's put in the story that this is going to be giving, especially young people, less information about the threats they might face. That's the definition of scaremongering. There's no reason to be telling them constantly about the threats they might face if the worst scenarios come true, which have never come true in any of the predictions they've made over the last several decades about what they predicted for the future.

And then secondly, Anthony, this idea that refusing to continually fund climate anxiety reports threatens the advancement of science. Neither of those things seem very plausible.

Science has never been about anxiety. That's a social issue. And I wanna go back to this map that we had up a second ago and point out something. If you look at that map where all the green is, where the high anxiety is, that looks exactly, almost exactly like the the voting map of the twenty twenty four presidential election. Yep.

It seriously does. There are some exceptions, of course, but, you know, most of the anxiety is concentrated in the blue cities and the blue states. And that's really what's going on here. The Democrats or the left, whatever you want to call them, progressives, have always been about emotion over facts. And when you try to give them facts, it just, oh, my brain hurts.

I can't accept that. We're going to die. That's all they want to say. And so, you know, anxiety being pushed is just a tool. And that's all they're doing.

They're pushing it as a tool to make people want to believe in their cause, fund it, tax it, whatever it takes to make it happen. But again, when you look at the bottom line, we cannot tax or worry the climate into submission.

Terry, Terry Barnes, he says maybe, I think he was the one. So somebody in the in the chain said we need a climate, anxiety vaccine, and we have one. We we actually have two. They're called climate@aglance.com and climaterealism.com. If you get your daily it's a daily vaccine in climate climate realism.

Climate at a glance is not, it's one that can last a lifetime.

The booster.

You go yeah. It's you get your booster at climate realism and your your vaccine at climate at a glance. Go there, and you will be inoculated against climate anxiety.

Yeah. And this show, of course. Share them all over. Share the show with your friends and and spread good good climate health to as many people as possible. So, all right, actually, is a great segue into our main topic today because I think this is happening on many fronts.

And it's the idea that The United States, under Trump's leadership, is exiting the global climate alarm cabal. So this story that prompted this to be our main topic today, it's going take a bit for me to set it up, but please be patient. This is from Scientific American. This is actually a reprint from an E and E news article from Scott Waldman, is very familiar with the Heartland Institute, has covered, if you want to call it that, several of our climate conferences and knows my email and phone number. Did not reach out to us for any comment, but that's where it is anyway.

So this is, I think, very encouraging news. Here we go from the story. The Trump administration is dismantling a thirty five year old effort to track global climate change that was used to shape regulations and policies across the government. Federal employees at The U. S.

Global Change Research Program were removed from their positions on Tuesday, and a government contract with ICF International, which has supported the National Climate Assessment for years, was severed according to two former officials who were granted anonymity to avoid reprisals. The move marks a key step by the administration to undermine federal climate research as it rolls back environmental regulations and promotes additional fossil fuel production. Yeah, the typical alarmist line. This program was established by Congress in 1990 and signed into law by President George H. W.

Bush. Thank you very much. In addition to climate science, focused on land productivity, water resources, fisheries, ecosystems, and the atmosphere. Its most visible product was the National Climate Assessment, a congress mandated report that comes out every four years and is used to help shape environmental rules, legislation, and infrastructure projects. There's a little more to it than that, and we'll get to it in a minute.

The changes mirror the writings of Russ Vogt, director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, who wants to eliminate the program so its work can't be used to bolster federal climate regulations in court battles. Vogt wrote a chapter, oh my gosh, in project twenty twenty five, the conservative blueprint that has been closely followed by president Donald Trump in which he outlined how to, quote, reshape The US global change research program and related climate change research programs. All right, now here's where the story gets very interesting and showing how this program and the Heartland Institute, but this program in particular has a lot of influence. The story quotes David Legates from this very program from a few weeks back, and they put this in their story. Here, I'll read from it.

Vote has been aided by David Legates, who briefly served as head of USC GCRP in the waning days of the first Trump administration. Legates was removed from his post after he attempted to publish research papers that questioned basic climate science. Stop you right there. He did not try to publish bad research. He wanted to have balanced research.

It didn't question basic climate science. It actually added to basic climate science. Anyway, quote, take a look at The US global change research program because that needs to be closed down, lock, stock, and barrel, unquote, Legate said recently on a podcast hosted by the Heartland Institute. Legate also said on the podcast that Elon Musk's Doge had, quote, been alerted to the need to eliminate the program. Guys, isn't this great?

This is the Heartland Institute and this program, we're very happy to be of service to our country and to climate realism. And thank you, Scott Waldman for including this. It would have been great for another phone call, but thanks for watching. And I hope you'll leave a comment for us.

You know, if we were Michael Mann, there might be some lawyers to talk to about these kinds of comments.

Is that right?

Or like Legates being smeared this way in this publication. Yeah. But

I'm not sure he was removed. He moved to the White House office and then he resigned. But but regardless, the story is is I'm wondering if if what Trump is doing, will stick because as it said in the story a couple of times, the report itself is actually required by law. Now you can defund the, the, consultants, the the multibillion dollar consultants, Deloitte and, I forget who else, that assemble the report, that we we pay billions and billions of dollars to to assemble the report. And you can stop the coordination between the agencies that they've been doing to produce the report, but a report is required by law.

So maybe the report comes out and says we have nothing new to report since the last report, or we've decided we can't trust any of the model. One one sentence. We've decided we can't trust any of the models or predictions from the IPCC, so we can't do an adequate assessment of, regional US greenhouse, you know, impacts. But they have to issue a report. Now a lot of times government agencies are slow to issue their reports and are late in issuing, new rules.

So maybe that's what happens. I just what what he's disassembled is who who produces the report. The report itself still has to be done, so wonder how that's going be handled.

Well, Anthony, I to ask you about the history of the National Climate Assessment because that's what the big news here is. As Sterling points out, it is required by law that we do a national climate assessment. It's just like when you went to the Fyre Festival, they were required by their contract to give you a meal. And that meal ended up being two slices of Wonder Bread, a slice of cheese and a tomato, a piece of tomato. And that was dinner.

So technically, you were served a meal. It was pretty crummy. But talk a bit, if you could, about the history of the National Climate Assessment, you know, its quote unquote scientific rigor and accuracy and its place in the climate debate in the country and internationally.

Well, this thing goes back all the way to, I think, to around 02/2005 to 02/2007. I don't know the exact start date, Adam. I'm just going from memory here. But it has gotten increasingly alarmist as years have gone by. It started out being relatively fair, in its assessment, you know, kind of balancing risk versus reality.

But it it kept getting more and more alarmist, you know? And then Noah started doing things like publishing a page called billion dollar climate disasters, and that became part of it. You know, they would reference that, you know? And then the words would be things like, well, you know, because of billion dollar climate disasters that are happening more and more frequently. And that's how the rhetoric kept getting ramped up.

And so it became so bad that I stopped reading them the last couple of years. I mean, it was almost like, you know, before we're talking about the prediction of what we could do for a calendar for the coming year. I could tell you almost exactly what the climate assessment is going to be based on what's happened in the previous year. It was predictable and it was tiring and it was the same old talking points again and again and again wrapped up in a nice big pretty bow with the word science attached to it. But mostly it was about policy.

And so, it it became very tiring. And lots of people, I think, shared the same kind of viewpoint I did that it just simply became so predictable that it wasn't even worth reading anymore. So to this, I say good riddance. We don't need it.

Yeah. I mean, and mister Sterling, I mean, the national climate assessment, can't they just issue a report saying, no. The climate's fine. You know, there's your national climate assessment. I mean, they're required by law.

There's nothing in the law that states exactly what that national climate assessment must state or how long it is or what's cited in it. You know? Just say, hey. Everything's cool. There you go.

Right. They could they they could even keep the same chapters. They could, you know, they could go over the past. They could take their framework, and then under each chapter, they could say, we find no disturbing trends here. And then the next chapter, we find no disturbing trends here.

Agriculture. Oh, crops are increasing. Crops continue to increase. Lifespan. Deaths due to cold are decreasing.

Deaths overall tied to temperatures and weather are decreasing. They could do that. You're right. It doesn't specify what the, you know, what the reporting must be, just that they produce a report. So I'm willing.

I would I would, I would have to resign from Heartland, but I'm willing to take a fraction of the money they were paying Deloitte and them, say $500,000,000, and produce the next, climate assessment. And then after I've collected my check, I'd come back begging for Heartland to take me back, or maybe I'd just retire actually.

Yeah. Well, bad news, Sterling. Unfortunately, we can't spare you. So you're gonna have to remain with us. That's just the way it goes.

Correct me if I'm wrong, anybody in the group, but even the UN's IPCC reports, the actual reports, the ones that are that thick, are not nearly as alarmist as the quote unquote summary for policymakers, tend to pick out worst possible scenarios and give them to the media and the press because a lot of scientists that we work with cite and I know you guys do this too cite actual data from the IPCC reports themselves this thick that show that, for instance, trends in extreme weather are not increasing and things like that. So I don't know, I know that a lot of realist data driven scientists in the climate space that we deal with a lot at the Heartland Institute have been itching to kind of get their hands in something like the National Climate Assessment, But it appears like that's not going to be the plan. The plan is just to ignore it altogether and not do it. Yeah,

I would actually I would be in support of a general aimed at the public like climate and weather education program from the government to publish like, here's all the data, actually. We're not skewing it in one direction or the other in order to try and hide something or in order to try and reinforce like a climate alarmist position. But just to say, look, this is the state of changes that occur in average weather patterns, mostly for better in the case of climate change as it exists in the North American continent. It's not alarming. It would it would do wonders to tamp down a lot of the fear mongering and the fall.

And it would it would actually it would be hard to refute. You know, the the Michael Mans and the Al Gores and all those kinds of people can scream all they want. But eventually, people are gonna start to wonder like, Okay, so why are you trying to remove information instead of giving all of the information? You know, if you show if you have your less of a like projection into the future kind of an emphasis and more of a this is what has happened in the last, you know, two hundred and some odd years. I think that would be actually useful so that people can have like the context of of the environment that they live in, which I think is an important thing to understand.

Obviously not if they're just going to use it and say the billion dollar disasters thing, which is actually that is the most by far the most offensive part other than all projections saying, you know, we're not going to tell you what the data that exists says about what's happened so far of all the warming that we've had already. But we're just going to, like, guesstimate into the future. And that's what we'll report on as though it's said and done. What would be I totally lost my train of thought there. But anyway, would be interesting and useful to actually have a report that has all of the information so that people don't freak out every time there's a hurricane or something.

I I'm gonna disagree with Lynea there. I I hate to disagree with Lynea.

It's okay.

What I want what I would prefer is to have the existing reports scrubbed

Yeah.

Thrown onto a a wood pile and burned, and no new government reports. I don't trust government to do an accurate assessment of the climb, a fair, accurate, honest assessment, and then teach it to children. I don't want the federal I want the federal government out of education. Now that's my rant. I want them out of education.

I don't want them producing report that then goes into science classes because even if they got it right once, it doesn't mean every other report because reports never die. Just like the national climate assessment every four years. I don't trust the next administration, the next congress to do an honest report. So I want them out of the game altogether. I want the federal government out of education altogether, leave it to the states, and the states can then come to Heartland for information.

I wasn't I wasn't trying to say that this report should be taught in, like, school curricula. I was just saying you have NASA, you have NOAA, you have these agencies that collect satellite data and stuff. Why not just publish it? Just Why you put the data up and put in your report?

Anthony, you want to tie a bow on this, Boris?

You know, as I look at this, not just the National Assessment Report, but all of climate science, I keep going back to one famous phrase issued in the seventies with Watergate, follow the money. Seriously, if you look at the amount of money that's been thrown at climate over the past three decades or so, It's humongous. It's mind blowing. And more and more money. They need more and more money for more and more studies.

More and more, you know, data. Whatever it is. More and more money. It was always the answer. And what has it done?

Nothing. If you look at the at the curve of CO2, the Keeling curve, it's still going up. It has not changed. They have not had any effect whatsoever. Government has been completely ineffectual at changing the climate.

So shutting off the money tap is the right idea, and good riddance to the climate assessment report and all the other ones associated with it.

Well stated. Alright. Well, thank you thank you everyone for getting us through those wonderful topics, and thank you all for your wonderful comments. A lot of fun as well. It's time for the q and a part.

So, Lanea, why don't you take it away?

Sure thing. You've got it. Alright. So we have a very important question that we're gonna start this off with, and it's one that I have been wondering for years as well from Jeff who asks, where can we get a Heartland baseball cap like Anthony's?

You know, we need a Heartland store now. We do.

Yeah. Jim, explain.

Oh, well, yeah, we're actually out of those Heartland hats. We've I guess we need to start ordering some more if we're gonna have people to get our merch. I hate that word merch, but that's what that's what they say on YouTube channels. So, yeah, we're gonna have to step up our merchandise game.

Absolutely. Alright.

I would like to have a hat made up that we could sell that says make climate great again. Cut off the money.

Yeah. Tom White says he has a request. He says, please put dates on Climate at a Glance articles. Do you mean climate realism articles or Climate at a Glance, Tom? Because

well, climate a glance articles are dated. That's for sure.

Yeah. And that's that's by design. You know, it's these are it's basically everything you see at Climate at a Glance is the the very latest science and analysis of of the data that is available. It's constantly updated.

It's all written documents. So I update these frequently. So putting a date on it is counterproductive, really.

Right. Yep. So as long as the like charts on Climate at a Glance are updated, that's kind of how you can tell whether or not it's been recently updated as if the data itself is. All right. So Michael Johansson says if he doesn't oh, if Michael Mann doesn't pay, how many years in prison will he get?

My guess is zero, unfortunately. What do you guys think?

Well, it's a civil suit, so I don't think he could spend any time in jail. It was a lawsuit. Yeah. It was not a criminal trial, even a misdemeanor criminal trial. So I think the most they can do is is fine him.

Like I said, I at the outset, I think they should garnish his wages. They should take his assets, but it's a civil suit, so no jail time.

Alright. Kite Man Music asks, will the time come when worn out panels and wind turbines are not replaced? The time has already come. Yep. The time has come for for many, many years as long as I can remember in the Palm Springs area of Southern California.

We we've driven past we've driven near the what casino is it? Agua Caliente?

Wind farm.

Okay. Yeah. And those have been dead and still for years and years and years. They just

In Hawaii, there's great pictures of wind turbines in Hawaii that are just literally falling apart. The blades are falling off. The the metal towers are rusting. They haven't functioned for years, and they're just sitting there. In other places, you know, we're we're tearing them down.

We're trying to find places to store them. We have a large, well, Texas is pretty big, so not large relative to Texas. But a lot of acres being devoted to just dumping wind turbine towers and blades and, and used solar panels are just sitting there just taking up land. Now those aren't all not being replaced. That's the that you know, he's right.

That's the goal, not to replace them, to dismantle and, never replace them again.

Right. Thank you. So this is a question on Rumble from L. T. Oracle of Truth, who says, when will Trump replace our strategic oil reserve that Biden drained?

I hope he's doing it right now. I haven't looked into it yet. I tried to a little bit when I saw the question come up, but I had to bring some comments up and stuff. I couldn't go away from the stream for too long. I don't know actually if he's doing it now, but he better because oil prices have just taken a nosedive in recent weeks.

So he better.

Yeah. I think the price of a barrel of oil was like 60 something bucks last week.

57 yesterday.

57 yesterday.

Yeah. I can pull it right now. I

mean, what was it during the Biden administration? Most of it was over $100

WTI is back up to $61 right now. So that's unfortunate. From what I've heard from a lot of drillers is that they prefer it to stay around the $70 mark. So they're all kind of dooming right now. They're like, it's over.

We're done for. But it's just one of those things in the oil field that it crashes and comes back up.

In answer to the question about the strategic oil reserve, I'm sending our producer Andy a link where we can see a chart. And it's been very slowly filling up. Oh, Over time. Good.

Yep. There we go. There it is. Good. Good.

Nice. See, that's the responsible thing to do.

Yeah. Yep. Filling it back up. We're good. They should should make a big purchase like yesterday because they

don't fill it slowly right now while the prices are low. Fill it back.

Yeah. Imagine. Yeah. Poor Jacob Thibodeaux down there. How are you doing?

I hope you're not laid off if I think you work in the oil field. All right. So we have this question from Chris Nisbet, who says, Will the removal of the endangerment finding be the straw that breaks the climate alarmism back? Anthony?

Oh, from a policy standpoint, probably. You know, without that, all the policies that sprung forth from it are gonna be at risk or reduced or whatever. But as far as the true believers are concerned, no, it's not gonna make a dent. These folks don't deal with rational facts, and they're just gonna continue to make climate the biggest caterwauling event they can possibly make it. It just, you know, burn Teslas, whatever it takes.

We have to get attention because we want you to think like us. That's the whole thing. Really, there's nothing else beyond that. So I think, yeah, they're gonna continue. They're going to get more shrill.

The rhetoric is going to get ramped up. The ridiculousness is going to get ramped up because they're going to try to recover that attention that they used to have. And so they're going to have to make more and more crazy claims in order to get attention.

Well, the the endangerment finding is not gone yet. It's it's actually, you know, a fair ways from being gone. I would say if if it goes at all, it'll be a couple of months or more. It is the foundation for all most all climate policy, so that will undermine that. But, of course, what will happen is lawsuits will be filed.

It'll be in court for the entirety, my suspicion, of the Trump term. We'll see what happens after. But, to some extent, Anthony's right. Climate alarmism is not built on the endangerment finding. It it preexisted and drove the endangerment finding.

When will climate alarmism go? My suspicion is is when they find the next big issue comparable that can be used to take power from people and to take money from people. You know, they're at the same time as they're doing climate alarm, they're also doing plastics alarm. A lot of people don't realize there's a big treaty before the UN right now. Archbishop for rent.

There you go. There's there's a big treaty right now that would, sharply restrict the use of plastics, and that would be detrimental for society in the world. But they'll find something else. There there were there were issues before climate change. And if climate change is finally if climate alarm is finally defeated, they'll just move on to the next big issue, because it's it's never about climate.

It's never about the environment. It's always, always, always about power.

Yep. It indeed is.

Yeah. I mean, we we might bring this up on next week's show, our friend Steve Malloy at JunkScience.com and Junk Science on X, he has been focusing on the idea that, you know, remember the Chevron decision where the Supreme Court said that anything that is not explicitly laid out as a congressional, you know, for an agency to do that's not explicitly laid out in detail by Congress is not, valid. There is talk that they're going to be enforcing and citing Chevron in all sorts of different federal agencies, including EPA and other climate stuff. So stay tuned. We're going look more into that, maybe talk about it next week.

Yeah, it'll be great. I mean, I wonder what the next, like, silent spring will be. We'll see. We'll find out. There's always gonna be some kind of a doomsday fad.

That's what I have come to the conclusion of. So maybe the climate thing will end, but we'll have something else to fight over shortly. Okay. So we got that. It is I too says, did Trump stop funding the NGO for just stop oil?

It is interesting timing, isn't it? Yeah. A lot of these a lot of those USAID groups were pretty much just front groups, it appears, which is not surprising, and people have known that forever. So, yeah, I think Trump did stop funding just stop oil.

Yeah. Yeah. I think the money that came from, you know, EPA and other places that got clawed back somehow found its way to these groups or was going to be going to these groups. And well, I think, yeah, the coincident it's more than a coincidence.

Oh, there's another thing going on too that we a little bit beyond the scope, but a lot of these environmental groups were funded directly or indirectly by Russia, trying to block our fracking development. They wanted to rule the world with their oil. They wanted us to decline. And so they were promoting climate alarm. They were promoting wind and solar.

Well, Russia didn't have a lot of money to fund a lot of, things going on right now. They're they've got a a little thing called a war going on, and their oil supplies, because of the war are also being disrupted. So that money is not flowing to those guys either.

Yeah. They're having a very, very bad time. Let's see. Bob Johnson asks, should teachers be examined on their STEM knowledge? Probably.

I don't know. What do you guys say?

That's kind of outside of our wheelhouse here, really.

Yeah. I mean, it depends. I there's plenty of people who are homeschool teachers who do just fine teaching their kids science even if they don't totally understand it. So I wouldn't be too worried about it.

I would have to I would have to know what all the all the STEM, requirements are because if it's been bastardized like the, the national science standards has been on climate change, I would not want them to to say, oh, well, I've got STEM knowledge. It says climate change is a disaster. And that's what I'm saying.

Yeah. It it depends on the on the materials that they use because no teacher can be an expert in every subject that they teach. It's just not possible. So, yeah, maybe like basics exam. If you can pass, like, a sixth grade science test, then you can be a science teacher.

But if you can't, then you can't. That might be fair. All right. So Walter oh, boy. Jacobowski.

Jacobowski. I'm sorry, Walter. We need someone with the influence of Michael Crichton to change the world to climate realism. Realism? Could Elon Musk be our man and what are his views on the climate issue?

Anthony, I saw I think the first time I ever heard of Elon Musk was in some of your websites, articles, probably mostly by David Middleton. I think he's got a bit of a spat with him, especially over the, like, EV issue and some of the oil stuff. Elon Musk is definitely or was definitely on the climate alarm side, but I think it might have evolved in recent years.

Well, he's a smart man. He has a high IQ, and he's also a pragmatic man. I mean, he's he's taken the electric vehicle, of which there have been dozens, if not hundreds of failures by companies claiming to make that world's best electric vehicle. And he's actually made one that's been successful and well accepted. So I think if he were to get behind climate change and point it out for what it is, he would be a big help in in being able to, stomp down some of the alarmism.

Although based on what we've seen with the reaction of people, you know, to when he says things that they don't like, you know, the world may really be on fire after he starts talking.

Well, Elon used to used to say all the time all the time that his cars were, you know, the development of Tesla was important to saving the planet. He didn't talk like that anymore. I haven't heard him mention that anywhere in at least a year. And so I consider that a good sign, but he was at least the most charitable he was a passive climate alarmist believer, but as you say Anthony, he is a very very intelligent man and maybe he is now able to see the truth.

Well, as as as, racer Dave points out and and Jason Isaac, who we've had on our show, points out, whether he's talking about it, he's still making a lot of money off the climate grift. Right? He sells carbon credits. Every vehicle he he sells gets a lot of carbon credits that he can then sell to Ford and GM for the carbon dioxide they are emitting. It's my understanding that Tesla was only profitable two years ago because of all the carbon credits they could sell, not based on the sales of their vehicles.

So, he may not be talking about it, but until the carbon credit thing goes away, he's still profiting from alarm. Yeah.

Although I do think that he recently said something along the lines of that he wants all of the subsidies gone for No. No.

He said he said he said take away the $7,500 tax credit, but that's not what I'm talking about.

Oh, yeah. So he might be being a little bit sneaky with that.

Yeah. Every everybody gets the tax credit. He he take that away. The smaller companies lose more than he does, but they get something called a carbon credit that he sells on the open market under program setup. And, that that has nothing to do with that $7,500 tax credit.

He's doing so much good right now. Frankly, I'm willing to look the other way for another year or two, to be honest, for the greater good.

Chris says, you guys won't be needed if climate alarmism dies. Let's hope you lose your jobs. Thank you, Chris.

I told my mom that years ago. She used to work she used to work for Social Security before she retired. And I said, mom, how does it feel? This is when I was working for another organization. I said, mom, how does it feel to know that I work for an organization that's trying to put you out of work?

And she laughed. She thought that was so funny. And she looked at me and she said, son, do your worst. Because she knew Social Security was gonna survive her. Climate alarm may go away, but environmental problems, environmental alarm is not going away anytime soon.

Right. And there will always be crazy people writing stories for us to, you know, make rebuttals on.

It's too well funded to have us go away. Believe me.

But but but we do hope. We do hope legitimately.

All

right. Diane, this was already addressed at the beginning of the show. She asks, how do we watch in the tank on Thursday? Did YouTube drop it? No.

We were too busy to host it yesterday. We had way too much going on at the office and some other stuff. Everyone had like a million things in their plate, so we just decided to drop it yesterday. It takes it doesn't appear maybe on screen, but it does take quite a significant beforehand effort to put it together and to prepare for it and everything. We just didn't have the time.

So thank you, though. It warms my heart that people are asking where we were. Right. Roxanne Oil says, why does everyone assume modest warming is not a benefit and not always a disaster no matter how small the change?

That's a tough one to answer. I I guess there's this I think it had to do with with Carl Sagan and and Venus, early explorations of Venus. I think that's really where the alarm got started about carbon dioxide. There were stories being published shortly after the Venus landings of probes that, you know, they have such amount of carbon dioxide, such a large amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and there was this runaway greenhouse effect that was being talked about. And this, remember, it's also in the era of nuclear winters and other types of doomsday scenarios.

So the whole runaway greenhouse effect took off as almost like a meme in some ways. So I think that influences the thinking towards even that little bit of temperature rise is a prelude to disaster because once it gets past that tipping point, you know, whatever the tipping point is, five years out, ten years out, fifty years out, whatever it is, we're gonna go into the runaway greenhouse effect, and we're all gonna roast. I think that's where that comes from.

You gotta remember when the the godfather of global warming, of c o two driven global warming, Nobel Prize winning physicist Sven Arrhenius from the eighteen hundreds, I think I pronounced his name correctly, he predicted global warming. That's when everyone said, oh, they said he says c o two is gonna drive warming. He thought it's a benefit. He said it'll you you'll have more people fed. It'll be good for us, a warming.

Can you imagine going back and trying to convince, the Vikings that a little bit of warming, would be a bad thing or, going back even farther, say, to early civilizations as the glaciers are still in evidence in a lot of places. Oh, you gotta stop, doing what you're doing here. Modern agriculture is putting out CO two. You're gonna the glaciers will disappear. Be be it'd be like, the Monty Python's characters in in oh god, the holy grail when brave sir Robin got killed, and there was much rejoicing, with the warming.

It's only this very highly educated, very highly wealthy, and very highly guilty, cup last past couple of generations for their wealth, that something that would have been considered a blessing in any other epoch in history is considered a terrible thing.

Yeah. I I would add too that I think that it also plays a bit into the natural human resistance to change. Like people don't like change. And so the idea that like the environment around you might change is very uncomfortable. What was it that the the German council that came up with the 1.5 degree threshold stated in their documents where they published that process of coming up with it, they stated that their their goal was to preserve creation in its current form, which is mad.

That's the quote that they that these German scientists and economists and psychologists, for some reason, had with this report that they put together that all of the IPCC stuff was based on and like the 1.5 degree warming limit was based on was preserving creation in its current form, which is a statement of nonsense and hubris that I think is a little bit confounding, actually. It's it's even if you believe that human use of fossil fuels is contributing significantly to the overall temperature of the planet. To say that you want to preserve all the way it is right now is an act it's impossible. It's not even close to possible.

I I want to comment on that. A few years ago, Stephen McEntire of Climate Audit, came up with a phrase to describe this. And, he actually used it with James Hansen of NASA Gifts first because NASA you know, Hansen said some similar things. But now that you pointed it out about the Germans and that 1.5 degrees and preserving creation, what McIntyre said was these people have Jorrel syndrome. Now I don't know if you know who Jor El is, but if you if you are a Superman fan and you go back to the comics, you know, at the very beginning, the father of Superman, Jor El, puts his baby son into this rocket to shoot off from the planet Krypton to preserve the legacy of Krypton.

And and that's really what these folks are trying to do. They're trying to preserve the Earth's legacy by doing these things.

But it's it's but it's it comes it it stems a lot of that stems from early ecology where they believed ecosystems or or ecological niches. They reached a state called the climax state that they would they would stay in forever. And the problem is that's just BS. They no place ever stays in a specific state forever. And so they're always picking and choosing.

They they think of themselves as gods, and they know this particular time, this particular time slice of history is the perfect time slice for all of the earth, for all of humanity. And if we can only keep it right here, you know, if it was Goldilocks, it's just right now. It's not too hot. It's not too cold. This is where we want it to be.

And if we can just keep it that way, like, under a bubble, but that's not how the environment has ever worked. Early colleges were wrong, and these idiots in Germany are wrong.

Right. Well, we have a couple more questions, but I think we're gonna leave it there because, we are really trying not to run an hour and a half every single week. We keep failing at that mission because you guys have such good questions, and we have a lot of fun engaging with you all. So I'm sorry for the ones that we did not get to this week. We really appreciate it anyway.

Jim, I am tossing it back to you.

You're muted, Jim.

Pulling a Jim. And we finally got Can't go a single show without it.

Can't go through a single show without Jim pulling a Jim. Alright. Well, I was meant to say, if you could read lips, you watched me say thank you so much everybody for listening to this week's The Climate Realism Show. We especially wanna thank those of us who view us live every week on YouTube and Rumble, the channels of the Heartland Institute. I wanna thank Lanea Lucan, Anthony Watts, and the archbishop of Renterbury, Sterling Burnett, for joining us today.

Always visit climaterealism.com every single day. Visit climate@aglance.com. Go to what's up with that. And also, of course, go to heartland.org where you can subscribe to the archbishop of Brantaberry's climate change weekly newsletter, which is delivered to your inbox if you sign up for free almost every single Friday. Thank you all for being here, and we will talk to you next week.

Bye bye.

How dare you?