Latest / Cultural Wars | America Out Loud News / New economics and science papers obliterate the climate scare

Transcript

New economics and science papers obliterate the climate scare · Cultural Wars | America Out Loud News

• 0:07
  Mainstream media has betrayed our trust.
• 0:10
  Rather than tell us the whole story about the important issues of the day, they tell us only what they want us to hear.
• 0:16
  Your hosts, Tom Harris and Todd Royal will bring you the other side of the story.
• 0:27
  In today's episode, Todd and I are going to discuss how the science and economics of the climate scare is completely collapsing.
• 0:36
  Todd, you discovered an important paper showing that CO2 and methane have stayed approximately constant during the past three million years, despite the huge variations in our so-called global average temperature.
• 0:48
  Can you say more about that, Todd?
• 0:50
  Well, I'm even going to set it up further.
• 0:52
  There is a gentleman I follow on LinkedIn named Doug Sheridan.
• 0:56
  I would tell everybody to follow him.
• 0:58
  I found Doug via a guy named David Blackman, who's also incredible to follow on Twitter.
• 1:04
  What Doug will do is he'll take pieces of climate information, and they'll do a LinkedIn post on them.
• 1:12
  So if you will give me a little room here, and then we'll head on over there.
• 1:16
  I wanted to kind of set everything up for us today, because uh, you know, Tom, we talk about this a lot.
• 1:21
  And let's play the other side.
• 1:23
  They'd go, well, you guys, you never give us any sources.
• 1:26
  So why should we believe you two MAGA right wingers, Canadian who wants to, you know, you want Alberta to leave.
• 1:35
  I mean, you guys are just you're you're you're both two conspiracy theory climate denying cranks.
• 1:41
  Okay.
• 1:42
  Yeah.
• 1:42
  So give us give us the original text.
• 1:45
  Okay.
• 1:46
  So Roger Pilke, who's a professor, I believe at the University of Colorado.
• 1:51
  Yeah.
• 1:51
  P I E E L K E, amazing substack.
• 1:55
  And just so everyone knows, Roger is not a Republican.
• 1:58
  So let's just make that, you know, or he's not conservative.
• 2:00
  Let's just make that.
• 2:02
  I'd call more middle of the robe.
• 2:03
  So here's what he uh here's what he that Doug Sheridan writes about him uh in um from the Wall Street Journals.
• 2:10
  This is from like a week ago.
• 2:11
  Roger Pilke writes in the Wall Street Journal, the scientific journal Nature in December retracted one of the most influential climate economics papers of the past decade.
• 2:23
  My work is in economic development, nuclear power economic development.
• 2:27
  The paper by Maximilian Kotz, Anders Leverman, and Leone Wentz claimed that unmitigated climate change would cost the global economy 38 trillion per year in 2005 international dollars by mid-century, let's just say 2050.
• 2:46
  It was the second most mentioned climate paper by the media in 2014, according to Carbon Brief.
• 2:53
  The paper was cited by central banks and governments like Canada and the former Biden administration of the United States to justify aggressive climate policies.
• 3:03
  Then it collapsed, Tom.
• 3:06
  Yeah.
• 3:06
  The authors acknowledge that its errors were too substantial for a correction.
• 3:12
  You think at 38 trillion?
• 3:14
  Nature retracted the paper more than 18 months after first learning of its problems.
• 3:20
  Okay, that's a bias, Tom.
• 3:22
  It took them 18 months, but they knew it had problems.
• 3:25
  So in other words, there's a bias, it's a scam, you're lying, you're cheating.
• 3:30
  Yeah.
• 3:30
  And so in the meantime, all these banks used it as if it were gospel.
• 3:35
  There you go.
• 3:36
  So most media coverage treated this as an unfortunate aberration in what was otherwise settled science.
• 3:44
  The retraction, however, isn't a one-off.
• 3:46
  It revealed a crack that runs much deeper in the foundation of climate research.
• 3:50
  Economists Finn Bar Curtin and Matthew Burgess at the University of Wyoming released a prepend, a pre-print on the April 20th that points out the broader flaws with current climate change research, making the COTS et al.
• 4:11
  years.
• 4:13
  Their paper, the empirically inscrutable climate economy relationship, starts from the most basic question in climate economics, which by the way, I have a degree in economics, Tom.
• 4:25
  And when I got my degree many decades ago, there was no such thing as climate economics.
• 4:32
  That is a nonsensical thing.
• 4:35
  You put it under economics.
• 4:39
  Can researchers actually measure how climate affects the economy from the historical record?
• 4:45
  Their answer is no.
• 4:47
  This matters enormously because over the past decade, the field of climate economics has generated some of the most consequential numbers in global finance and governments.
• 4:56
  Governance.
• 5:52
  Such studies use sophisticated math to generate numbers, but these numbers don't describe anything real.
• 5:59
  Curtis and Burgess implicate an entire influential field of literature projecting future climate damages.
• 6:07
  They argue that there's no way out of this methodological predicament.
• 6:11
  The future effects of climate change are irreducibly uncertain and could be small or could be large.
• 6:18
  Climate economist Noah Kaufman, who worked under President Obama and Biden in the White House, meaning those are Democrats, not two climate change denying cranks like you and me.
• 6:29
  Tweeted that the implication of this paper is that a lot of policy guidance from climate economists over the last 30 years was built on sin.
• 6:39
  Before I pass the ball over to you, I cannot stress enough.
• 6:56
  You can go into behavioral economics, how people act, how labor acts.
• 7:00
  Essentially, what they're trying to do is take macroeconomics and insert the weather.
• 7:00
  Essentially, what they're trying to do is take macroeconomics and insert the weather.
• 7:05
  And of course, you cannot run the proper regressions.
• 7:05
  And of course, you cannot run the proper regressions.
• 7:09
  You can't do the econometrics.
• 7:09
  You can't do the econometrics and for our audience, regressions is one thing causes another or two things following the same path, or um, econometrics is using calculus and economics.
• 7:11
  And for our audience, regressions is one thing causes another, or two things following the same path, or um, econometrics is using calculus and economics.
• 7:23
  It's doing the math of economics.
• 7:23
  It's doing the math of economics.
• 7:25
  I've done I've done both.
• 7:25
  I've done I've done both.
• 7:27
  They're very scientific.
• 7:27
  They're very scientific, they're very mathematic, and they have very clear parameters.
• 7:33
  So trying to put climate in there is the biggest load of garbage on the planet.
• 7:40
  I passed the ball over to you, my lovely co-hosts.
• 7:44
  Yeah, I started to become aware of this last December when that paper from the Potsdam Institute, which was cots it all, when that was actually withdrawn.
• 7:52
  You know, it's kind of amazing.
• 7:55
  That paper took wild changes in the economy in one tiny country, which was Ubekistan, blamed them all on climate change.
• 8:05
  It turned out the data was really flawed.
• 8:07
  But the the thing is they didn't actually catch it because normally what you would do is you would see if one country had you know massive wild changes, and none of the countries around it did, then you'd say, okay, there's something wrong with the climate data, you know, because that's not going to happen in the real world.
• 8:24
  But they didn't check that.
• 8:26
  And so, as you say, they forecast what was the 38 trillion by 2050, you know, and they they they forecast 38 38 trillion a year.
• 8:35
  Oh, a year.
• 8:38
  Yeah, oh yeah, annually.
• 8:40
  That's right.
• 8:40
  But it's crazy.
• 8:42
  And they also forecast something by 2100.
• 8:45
  I can't remember the exact number, but it was triple all the previous triple all the previous estimates.
• 8:51
  Now, of course, this was very politically correct because they were saying massive damage was being caused to the economy by climate change.
• 8:59
  So nobody checked the data until months later, and they realized that this little country Uzbekistan, which had completely insane data, had completely changed the global average, showing that the earth was much more sensitive, or the, or I should say, the economy was much more sensitive to climate change than it really is.
• 9:20
  And you know, somebody might say to me, well, how could Uzbekistan, a small country, changes there?
• 9:26
  How could it affect the global average so much?
• 9:29
  And and I like to use an analogy, Todd.
• 9:31
  And I'll if you can bear with me for a second to show how yeah, it could show how one outlier can completely mess up an average.
• 9:38
  Let's say you were trying to determine if the average weight of your household family, you know, the five people in your family, if it was in fact, you know, so much that you all had to go on a diet.
• 9:49
  So people's weights were 120, 140, 160, uh, 100 or 190, and 700 pounds.
• 9:57
  Okay, those were the weights.
• 9:59
  And you didn't notice the outlier of 700 pounds because nobody can weigh 700 pounds.
• 10:05
  And you said, well, you know, the average weight is 274 pounds.
• 10:09
  So oh my God, we better go on a diet.
• 10:12
  But it would be ridiculous because that one outlier of 700 pounds threw the whole average off.
• 10:19
  And that's what happened with the Ubekistan data.
• 10:22
  It was fluctuating so wildly during this time period, which of course the researchers blamed on climate change.
• 10:29
  In fact, it was just bad data, that it should it threw off the whole global average.
• 10:34
  And so they ended up saying, oh my God, you know, the economy is so so sensitive to climate change, and we're going to see, as you said, 38 trillion annually by 2050.
• 10:44
  But it was bogus, and they've since withdrawn it.
• 10:47
  But you know, in the meantime, you had all sorts of oil and coal and natural gas companies who were paying far too much for their loans because the banks were used, they were using this flawed paper.
• 10:59
  And now you're saying, and if I understand rightly, this um the second paper that you cited, uh it was well, what did it say again?
• 11:07
  It said something like none of the climate economic relationship makes any sense.
• 11:12
  No, it says, Can researchers actually measure how climate affects the economy from the historical record?
• 11:19
  And they their answer is no.
• 11:21
  Yeah.
• 11:22
  I I mean, I can certainly tell you this is as someone that has done all this amount of professional research, is that it if in my let's say I'm reporting to you, I'm gonna do a uh a big study on hydrogen.
• 11:37
  Well, if I start to find these aberrations, you always report that.
• 11:42
  Yeah, hey, hey Tom, I'm finding actually that the southern part of the United States has enough hydrogen for 25,000 years.
• 11:54
  Like let's just say, yeah, and I go down and dig in the data, and it's like, well, but it's mixed in with this, but I report to you it we've got enough natural hydrogen.
• 12:05
  Any aberrations, you always you always test it.
• 12:09
  I mean, it's a scientific method, but yeah, and just common sense language is I test it or I take my thesis.
• 12:16
  Uh there is uh short, there is an overabundance of hydrogen in the United States, and I'm gonna go the exact opposite way, but all of a sudden I find not only is there an overabundance, there's more than we even even could imagine.
• 12:30
  You always report that, you always have to test that and find that out.
• 12:36
  And there's and so to say, okay, but what factors are causing Ubekistan to wildly vary?
• 12:44
  Did uh there's so many variables that you would always go, well, what's causing this?
• 12:48
  And then you're gonna look up and go, your data's wrong.
• 12:52
  Let me throw another thing at you.
• 12:54
  Okay, yeah, sure.
• 12:55
  Okay, go ahead.
• 12:56
  This is fun.
• 12:56
  And and it really shows how the as they said, this Kaufman fellow, he said that it the whole climate economic policy guidance stuff is built on sand.
• 13:07
  It's built on sin.
• 13:08
  Yeah, and this is the bond.
• 13:09
  This was a Barack Obama and Joe Biden official.
• 13:13
  So the same gentleman, and I think he is Dr.
• 13:15
  Roger Pilke, and I think he's a professor, I think at the University of Colorado.
• 13:20
  So forgive me, forgive me, Professor, if you hear this and I've I got it incorrect.
• 13:24
  My apologies.
• 13:25
  Uh, big fan of his, by the way, too.
• 13:27
  So Roger Pilke, same gentleman, writes in his substack blog.
• 13:32
  You'll love this one.
• 13:33
  The international committee responsible for the official scenarios that feed into climate modeling that are the basis for most projective climate research and the assessments of the IPCC, your your buddies has just published the next generation of climate scenarios.
• 13:53
  But Tom, we got some big news.
• 13:56
  The new framework has eliminated the most extreme scenarios that have dominated climate research over much of the past several decades, specifically, and I've actually written about this this one.
• 14:00
  Scenarios that have dominated climate research over much of the past several decades, specifically, and I've actually written about this one.
• 14:10
  RCP 8.5, SSP 5 8.5, and SSP 3 7.0.
• 14:10
  RCP 8.5, SSP 5-8.5, and SSP 3-7.0.
• 14:19
  This is Mr.
• 14:19
  This is Mr.
• 14:20
  Pilkey writes, this is a professor.
• 14:20
  Pilke writes this is a professor.
• 14:21
  This is an absolutely huge development in climate science, which will have lasting impacts across research and policy.
• 14:21
  This is an absolutely huge development in climate science, which will have lasting impacts across research and policy.
• 14:29
  The future is
• 14:29
  The future is not what it used to be.
• 14:31
  The new CMIP seven scenario MIP framework offers seven scenarios spanning a range from very low through high.
• 14:52
  There is no 8.5 scenario and no 7.0 scenario.
• 14:57
  But as shown below, each scenario has a radiative forcing level in 2100.
• 15:04
  Just before you go on, just before you go on, Todd, this 8.5 RCP 8.5, that was used in a lot of forecasts to get headlines across the world.
• 15:14
  Yep.
• 15:15
  And let it get better for you, Tom.
• 15:17
  And then I want you to obviously explain to our audience what all this really means.
• 15:22
  The new CMIP7 scenario MIP framework represents a real course correction, but with more work to do.
• 15:31
  SSP 5 8.5 is gone.
• 15:34
  SSP 3 7.0 has a successor that is less extreme, but arguably remains implausible.
• 15:43
  The middle of the set is more pessimistic than trajectories of current and announced policies.
• 15:49
  Here's what's interesting.
• 15:51
  They're making assumptions.
• 15:54
  The word trajectories, you are making an assumption.
• 15:58
  You're making predictive analysis or a somewhat educated guess that's probably not even come true.
• 16:06
  And he gets to this.
• 16:07
  The plausibility vacuum at the heart of the architecture has yet to be addressed.
• 16:12
  Absolutely, it has.
• 16:48
  Yeah, sure.
• 16:48
  Well, they work out these scenarios to forecast what kind of climate change is supposed to happen over the next few decades.
• 16:55
  And this RCP 8.5, that's really important because they treated it as a business as usual scenario.
• 17:02
  Okay.
• 17:02
  And what it is, and and you know, it's interesting.
• 17:05
  This is now filtering through even to Google AI.
• 17:08
  And here's what AI says.
• 17:10
  RCP 8.5 is a high emissions climate scenario represent representing a worst-case scenario with continued rapid increases in greenhouse gases through 2100.
• 17:21
  And then they give it the amount of radiative forcing.
• 17:24
  Well, once commonly cited as business as usual, many scientists now view it as unlikely extreme risk scenario.
• 17:32
  And using that, they actually forecast 3.2 to 5.4 degrees warming by 2090.
• 17:39
  So now they're saying, ah, yeah, but this is all nonsense.
• 17:42
  So how many of the headlines do you think, Todd in the past were based on this?
• 17:47
  Probably most of them, eh?
• 17:49
  Oh, of course they are.
• 17:50
  And I think what what's so infuriating to me as somebody, you know, in the business world, is how much I hear about this nonsense.
• 18:01
  And like you just said, when you actually like, let's take this down to a granular level, because what do we hear?
• 18:08
  We hear this often now in the United States, affordability.
• 18:12
  You have incredibly high taxes in Canada.
• 18:16
  I mean, one of your provinces wants to secede for that very reason.
• 18:20
  Also, they're not allowed to use their natural resources because of these they're either evil or they're fools who are in charge, you know, in these urban areas, Democratic Party, the Greens of Canada, you know, these folks on the left are so into this, but what it does, Tom, is that it makes everything else more expensive.
• 18:38
  So every time I go to a bank to get a loan, if I'm not thinking, if I have to throw climate change in there when it means nothing to begin with, well, why do people think think things are so unaffordable?
• 18:50
  Why do you think homes can become so expensive?
• 18:53
  In California, they don't allow you to build homes because of climate change.
• 18:57
  Yeah.
• 18:58
  Yeah.
• 18:59
  It's maddening to me.
• 19:00
  I I want to take these people and I want to throw them off the highest mountain because they are ruining the world for people, they are ruining Europe, they're ruining Canada, they're ruining the United States.
• 19:15
  When meanwhile, the global south could give two dams about any of this crap.
• 19:21
  Yeah, I know.
• 19:21
  And it's funny because even when these people, Curtin and Burgess, and I have the paper in front of me here, the empirically inscrutable climate economy relationship.
• 19:31
  That's amazing.
• 19:33
  You know, at the end of the abstract, they have to cover their you know what.
• 19:36
  So they say, importantly, however, our analysis does not dismiss the existence of a negative carbon externality, nor economically beneficial effects to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
• 19:48
  So they actually show that a lot of it is bogus, and then they say, oh, yeah, but you know, they have to sort of try and back up themselves so they don't get in trouble.
• 19:58
  And that's what you know, like when you think about what's going on in Iran.
• 20:03
  I in some ways will quote unquote blame it on the climate change, these climate change movement people because they will fight everything, a pipeline or like this thing.
• 20:16
  To say that 25% of the world's oil and natural gas should be coming through a 21 nautical mile um opening with a bunch of radical Nazi fascists in Iran that are control of it when there's so many natural resources in Europe, Canada, Australia, and America, you could do away with all of the Middle East.
• 20:40
  If if I got rid of all the climate change, environmentalists, net zero that are in places like Toronto, Sydney, Australia, Los Angeles, and Brussels.
• 20:52
  I'm I'm not in Iran.
• 20:54
  I'm not in the Middle East.
• 20:55
  I have no reason to be there except these fools that stop all of the drilling, all the exploration, all of the production, all the use of fossil fuels, and what, but yet they'll allow wind turbines to be in scenic ocean waterways, they'll allow solar panels to dot landscapes and think nothing of it while killing farmland.
• 21:00
  Stop all of the drilling, all the exploration, all of the production, all the use of fossil fuels, and what, but yet they'll allow wind turbines to be in scenic ocean waterways, they'll allow solar panels to dot landscapes and think nothing of it while killing farmland.
• 21:18
  It's these people are an absolute cancer and virus on the world right now.
• 21:18
  It's these people are an absolute cancer and virus on the world right now, I swear.
• 21:25
  I swear.
• 21:26
  Yeah, I think that's a good point.
• 21:26
  Yeah, I think that's a good point.
• 21:27
  And especially since you know, if they believe what they
• 21:27
  And especially since, you know, if they believed what they really say, if they really believed it, they they would of course go after the biggest emitter, which is China.
• 21:35
  And they don't they don't do that.
• 21:37
  They just let China get a free a free pass.
• 21:40
  You know, and and so the economics relating to how much climate change is going to change, you know, our standard of living, it's uh it's clearly wrong, and we don't actually really have any idea at all.
• 21:53
  And and you know, it's interesting, Todd, because the science, and you sent me another uh article here from Zero Hedge, which talks about how the science, you know, it's like you got the second order effect, the economic impact is all wrong, if the science were right, but the science is all wrong too, isn't it?
• 22:11
  Well, I mean, it it's so I'm a big follower, and people can oh, it's a right-wing conspiracy libertarian website.
• 22:18
  I will tell you you can find some of the best news that you cannot find a lot of places.
• 22:24
  Um there was they an article that was called uh it was from Thursday, March 26th, and it was called net zero activist, stumped by shock new evidence showing no link between CO2 and temperature over the last three million years.
• 22:41
  And it was authored by a gentleman named Chris Morrison via the daily skeptic.org, which a gentleman named uh T.
• 22:48
  Lak Dashi does some of the best writing around right now on energy and foreign policy and talking about Europe and climate change.
• 22:57
  So Daily Skeptic does incredible work.
• 23:00
  But would you tell everyone though, Tom, before I kind of get into this?
• 23:04
  Tell people what it means when there's no link between CO2 and temperature.
• 23:09
  Like explain to all of us what do they mean?
• 23:12
  I I exhale CO2.
• 23:14
  Is that what they're talking about?
• 23:15
  Oh, yeah, yeah.
• 23:16
  Any CO2.
• 23:17
  You know, the theory is that because of changes in CO2, we see changes in temperature.
• 23:22
  And this is, of course, you know, what actually got me to turn around from being a climate alarmist to a climate realist.
• 23:29
  I was invited into a geologist's lab, you know, back around 1999, who was telling me, look, you know, there's no correlation between CO2 and Earth's temperature.
• 23:39
  And he showed me the geologic record, you know, and if you look at it, it's interesting, Todd.
• 23:44
  They can go back as far as about 600 million years.
• 23:48
  It's a long time ago.
• 23:49
  And the reason they can go back that far is because they use fossilized seashells and they analyze their oxygen isotopes and they can determine what the approximate temperature was.
• 23:59
  And you can see CO2 and temperature over that time frame, which and before that there were no hard-shelled sea creatures, so we couldn't go further back.
• 24:08
  But over that time period, there's no correlation between temperature and CO2.
• 24:12
  And the and the thing that really blew me away was that at 440 million years ago, it was arguably the most cold period in the last half billion years.
• 24:23
  And CO2 was more than 10 times higher than today.
• 24:26
  In other words, like a thousand percent of today.
• 24:29
  And that's what this article is, and I'll include the article in the links under the podcast, by the way.
• 24:34
  So if people just skip down on this page, you'll be able to read the article yourself.
• 24:38
  And what they found was that as the world plunged into an ice age around 2.7 million years ago, looking at the ice core, there was almost no change in carbon dioxide.
• 24:48
  In fact, both carbon dioxide and methane have stayed relatively constant for the last three million years.
• 24:54
  And yet, if you look at the temperature variations, there's been massive temperature changes off and on, off and on, off and on, many glacial and interglacials, where you know, temperatures were varying by something like 10 degrees.
• 25:08
  And so, you know, it's interesting because they they keep trying to cover their, you know what, as I said earlier, and they're clinging desperately to the idea that CO2 is the dominant driver.
• 25:19
  But what this is showing is that no, it's not because nature makes these changes even over the relatively short three million year period.
• 25:26
  I mean, I was talking about 600, but 300 three million years is what this paper is focused on.
• 25:32
  And as you said, the title of the paper gives it away broadly stable atmospheric CO2 and methane levels over the last three million years.
• 25:41
  And you have to say to yourself, well, did temperature not change at all?
• 25:44
  Well, no, it was all over the map.
• 25:46
  And yet, that's of course, so it kind of throws that that particular idea that CO2 is the major driver, because it's not.
• 25:55
  I mean, clearly isn't.
• 25:56
  And that's in a relatively short period.
• 25:59
  I've always wondered, and actually, I've never thought about this before until now, until you brought this up.
• 26:06
  So when environmentalists and and folks that are all concerned about CO2, they're generally talking about CO2 that comes from fossil fuels.
• 26:17
  Right.
• 26:17
  Um where was the CO2 coming from from before?
• 26:22
  Well, mainly from volcanoes.
• 26:24
  Okay.
• 26:24
  There was a yeah.
• 26:25
  In fact, in fact, you know, when they try to justify why CO2 and temperature were not correlated hundreds of millions of years in the past, the excuse they use is that, oh, well, the CO2 then was coming mainly from volcanoes.
• 26:38
  We had a very different system, etc.
• 26:41
  But but in fact, you know, it doesn't really matter where it's from, it's supposed to be the driver.
• 26:46
  The driver, yeah, of modern day climate.
• 26:49
  The CO2 is the primary driver.
• 26:51
  That's what they say.
• 26:52
  Is C is it and I'm asking you, you know, put on your science hat for me.
• 26:57
  Is the CO2 from fossil fuels, the burning of oil, natural gas, and coal.
• 27:06
  Is it the same type of CO2 that's coming out of a volcano?
• 27:11
  No, actually, it's okay.
• 27:13
  It is CO2, but you can look at the isotopes and actually determine how much of it is coming from fossil fuels versus nature.
• 27:21
  But their theory is that it doesn't matter which one it's coming from.
• 27:25
  CO2 was supposed to be the dominant driver.
• 27:28
  And it's interesting because in Environment and Climate Change Canada's statements, you know, up here in Canada, they say point blank that most of the warming of the past century, and we can get into that because it's it's very tiny.
• 27:41
  Most of that warming is being caused by CO2, you know.
• 27:45
  And so, Todd, in the second half of the show, I want to look at that a little bit more because you know, they're saying this is really unusual, a 1.1 degree rise in a hundred years recently is is unusual.
• 27:57
  So people stay tuned because in the second half, we're gonna ask that question is the rise that we've seen in the last century, is it unusual when seen over the last say 200 centuries?
• 28:00
  In the second half, we're going to ask that question is the rise that we've seen in the last century is it unusual when seen over the last say 200 centuries.
• 28:10
  So stay tuned.
• 28:10
  So stay tuned, we'll be right back after the break.
• 28:11
  We'll be right back after the break.
• 28:12
  This is really cool, really interesting.
• 28:12
  This is really cool, really interesting.
• 28:14
  I'm Dr.
• 28:14
  I'm Dr.
• 28:14
  Kelly Victory with the wellness company, and I know this personally.
• 28:14
  Kelly Victory with the wellness company, and I know this personally.
• 28:17
  I exercised, ate a healthy diet, and had no symptoms when a routine mammogram resulted in a cancer diagnosis.
• 28:17
  I exercised ate a healthy diet and had no symptoms when a routine mammogram resulted in a cancer diagnosis.
• 28:24
  It revealed a hard truth.
• 28:24
  It revealed a hard truth.
• 28:26
  Even healthy people can get cancer, and much of modern medicine.
• 28:26
  Even healthy people can get cancer, and much of modern medicine is reactive, not preventative.
• 28:32
  So I began asking a different question.
• 28:34
  What can we do daily to support the body before something goes wrong?
• 28:38
  That question led me to formulate SHIELD.
• 28:41
  SHIELD is a two-part nutraceutical system designed to support immune balance, antioxidant defense, and cellular health, a chemical-free cocoa mix and soft gels containing medicinal mushrooms, turmeric, green tea extract, olive leaf, berberine, and black seed oil.
• 28:58
  Prevention is power.
• 28:59
  Visit TWC.health slash outloud and use code out loud for an exclusive discount.
• 29:05
  I'm Doug Evans, author of the Sprout Book.
• 29:08
  I want to share something that's powerful.
• 29:10
  You can grow your own food right on your kitchen countertop.
• 29:14
  Sprouting is an ancient method that turns ordinary seeds into living vegetables in just three to five days.
• 29:21
  No soil, no sunshine, no fertilizer.
• 29:24
  Just seeds, water, for under a dollar a serving, you can grow nutrient dense packed greens anywhere.
• 29:31
  City apartments, dorm rooms, off-the-grid cabins.
• 29:35
  In a time when food prices are rising, sprouting gives you control, abundance, and peace of mind.
• 29:41
  Join the self-reliance revolution.
• 29:43
  Go to the sprouting company.com slash out loud and use the code out loud for an exclusive offer.
• 29:51
  Are you looking for a healthy snacks?
• 29:54
  But you've had enough of all the sweet sugary energy bars.
• 29:59
  Good news, there's new bars to try.
• 30:02
  That's savory, crunchy, and packed with goodness.
• 30:06
  Bear bars are based just on six simple natural ingredients, a certified organic veggie, nut and seed bar.
• 30:15
  That's low temp dried, never baked or fried.
• 30:19
  Bear bars are plant-based, gluten-free, and loaded with nutrients and protein.
• 30:25
  Head over to barebar.com slash out loud and get the exclusive discount just for America Out Loud listeners.
• 30:35
  That's B E A R B A Rout Loud.
• 30:43
  Oral hygiene hasn't changed in 50 years.
• 30:46
  Brush, floss, repeat.
• 30:48
  We're told to use fluoride, which doesn't really address the acid creating bacteria.
• 30:54
  That is where the dentist recommended spray dental defense system shines.
• 30:59
  Sprite products contain xylitol, a natural sugar, which helps get rid of those nasty, smelly acid creating bacteria in our mouth.
• 31:08
  The best way to care for your teeth and gums is by using spray.
• 31:12
  The spray dental defense system has a wide variety of products toothpaste, mouthwash, mints, and chewing gums that are designed to work together to keep your teeth clean and mouth healthy and smelling sweet all day long.
• 31:25
  To get your oral care back on track in an easy, effective, and very tasty way.
• 31:31
  Switch to spray today.
• 31:33
  Ask your dentist about xylitol and the spray products.
• 31:37
  Sprite can be found online and at all fine natural product retailers.
• 31:41
  During COVID, we got educated on the power of natural virus protection and immune boosting using vitamins A, C, D, zinc, and Quircetin.
• 31:50
  The problem?
• 31:51
  Getting them at the right dosage from truly natural sources that doesn't cost an arm and a leg.
• 31:57
  Enter the Daily V Stack.
• 31:58
  Using breakthrough cellular absorption technology, we put those vitamins together and supercharge them with a complete multi-mineral complex.
• 32:07
  The Daily V Stack is basically an oral IV of six products all in one at an affordable price.
• 32:13
  Go to ChemicalFreeBody.com forward slash out loud today.
• 32:18
  Get the Daily V Stack, protect yourself, boost your immune system, and save 20% on your first order.
• 32:25
  Your heart is the most crucial muscle in your body.
• 32:27
  Are you doing enough to keep it strong?
• 32:29
  Introducing the wellness company's Breakthrough Healthy Heart formula.
• 32:32
  Designed by Dr.
• 32:33
  Peter McCullough, now upgraded with taurine.
• 32:36
  This daily supplement supports cardiovascular health and works to protect cells against oxidative stress.
• 32:42
  Packed with Dribose to boost heart function, taurine to help maintain heart and muscular health, coenzyme Q10, and selenium citrate to help reduce risk of cardiac disease and a vitamin B complex with L-carnitine for energy and muscle support.
• 32:56
  Endorsed by the wellness company's chief medical board, this formula is your ally for heart health.
• 33:02
  Reclaim your health now at TWC.health forward slash outloud and use code outloud for 20% off your first order plus free shipping.
• 33:16
  The American experiment was a stroke of genius in a world of oppressors.
• 33:21
  July 4th, 2026 marks 250 years since the sign-in of the Declaration of Independence.
• 33:32
  America Outloud Dot News is that place to awaken your heart, soul, and mind to the outlook.
• 33:43
  We are back.
• 33:44
  Oh, okay, Tom.
• 33:46
  Let me go to this the piece we talked about.
• 33:49
  This one by Chris Morrison via the Daily Skeptic, and it was found in Zero Hedge.
• 33:55
  So he gets into this thing, you know, where he talks about you know CO2, and it it basically says these activists are stumped by new evidence showing there's no link between CO2 and temperature over the last three million years.
• 34:08
  But there was something else in here I wanted you to talk about says towards the end of the piece, he goes, in fact, the evidence is so slim that Les Haddon, emeritus professor in computer science at Kingston University was recently able to determine from Ice Core Records that 100-year rises of 1.1 Celsius or C in the current interglacial, which started 20,000 years ago, have occurred in one in six centuries.
• 34:36
  Going back 150 years, the frequency going back 150,000 years.
• 34:43
  Pardon me, 150,000 years.
• 34:46
  The frequency was around one in six to one in 20 centuries.
• 34:52
  None of these findings suggest that current warming is either unusual or primarily caused by human activity.
• 34:59
  Needless to say, none of these findings trouble the headline writers and narrative addicted mainstream media.
• 35:00
  To say none of these findings trouble the headline writers and narrative addicted mainstream media.
• 35:05
  So explain to us what he actually means here.
• 35:05
  So explain to us what he actually means here.
• 35:09
  Yeah, this Les Hatton, actually at Kingston University in the UK.
• 35:09
  Yeah, this Les Hatton, actually at Kingston University in the UK, he's an emeritus professor of commuter science computer science.
• 35:13
  He's an emeritus professor of computer science.
• 35:16
  And it's interesting how it's usually emeritus professors, people who don't have to worry about being fired, who will actually point these things out.
• 35:16
  And it's interesting how it's usually emeritus professors, people who don't have to worry about being fired, who will actually point these things out.
• 35:24
  But what he did is he did an analysis which is very simple and should have been done a long time ago.
• 35:24
  But what he did is he did an analysis which is very simple and should have been done a long time.
• 35:30
  I'm sure it was done in back rooms, but they just didn't want to publicize the results.
• 35:34
  And he's he asked the simple question is a 1.1 degree C temperature rise in a century unusual.
• 35:41
  Because of course, you know, a lot of Environment Canada and the EPA, all sorts of groups around the world, Greenpeace, they're all saying, oh my God, look at this rise in temperature in in 140 years, 146 years since 1880, it's been 1.2 degrees, so 1.1 in a century.
• 35:58
  They're saying, oh my God, it's so unusual, and it's caused by greenhouse gas emissions.
• 36:03
  Well, he went back through the last 200 centuries, okay, 20,000 years.
• 36:08
  And he looked at the actual ice core data out of uh Vostok, which I believe is the um it's called Epica Vostok ice core data set.
• 36:17
  Okay.
• 36:18
  And that temperature data goes back 800,000 years.
• 36:21
  And so he divided it into two parts.
• 36:23
  He first of all looked at the first 200,000 years, and he found that the rise in that long time frame was a bit unusual.
• 36:31
  But around 20,000 years ago, things changed, okay.
• 36:35
  There was a significant change in the length of the cycle between glacials and interglacials.
• 36:40
  But another thing happened as well.
• 36:43
  We found that one century in what was it, six or eight?
• 36:47
  I can't remember.
• 36:47
  Sixteen percent.
• 36:49
  One in six, yeah.
• 36:50
  16% of all centuries since the last ice age exhibited temperature rises of at least 1.1 degrees.
• 36:57
  Now I'm reading from his abstract here, and you can tell he's an emeritus professor, because he didn't try to cover his, you know what, by saying, Oh, he he didn't try to say, oh, well, you know, but it is really a serious problem, the way the others are all saying at the end.
• 37:11
  And after their paper shows it's not a serious problem, then they have to say that at the end.
• 37:15
  But he didn't do that.
• 37:17
  He was much braver.
• 37:18
  He said, Um, okay, um, starting at this 16% of all centuries since the last ice age exhibiting a temperature rise of at least 1.1 degrees.
• 37:28
  None of these, I'm quoting from Lee Hatton, none of these could have anthropogenic or human-cause components as they predate the industrial uh era.
• 37:38
  Now, here's the kicker.
• 37:40
  This results suggest that attempts to partition the current rise into anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic components are questionable given that it's not even unusual, because you find that 16% of all the you know rises in the last 200 centuries, uh actually was faster than the current.
• 38:03
  So he goes through the whole analysis here.
• 38:05
  He draws a histogram, which actually, and I'll put this actually in the in the show description in the show description, because it's really interesting.
• 38:11
  Figure three, he says the ice core data for the last 20,000 years partitioned into a density histogram of temperature changes in each of 200 centuries.
• 38:22
  And if you were to believe Greenpeace, you would expect that the current rise would be way outside the histogram.
• 38:28
  Well, no, it's actually, you know, you can see that it's right in not in the middle, but it's it's it's actually right in there.
• 38:34
  So a lot of centuries warmed faster than our current century in the last 200 centuries, long before we had any anthropogenic, you know, impact at all.
• 38:46
  So you know, I I just want to read his conclusion because I love it when they're actually candid, you know.
• 38:52
  Yeah, yeah.
• 38:53
  He he says a rise of 1.1 degrees C in a century would have been uncu unusual any any time more than 200,000 years ago.
• 39:03
  I said, for some unknown reason, nothing to do with us, the temperature has become more volatile in a century on century changes in the last 200,000 years.
• 39:12
  He says the current interglacial is nothing special.
• 39:15
  It's still currently three degrees colder than the peak of the last one 130,000 years ago.
• 39:21
  Now, what people have to realize is that we go through these cycles where you have 90,000 years of very cold weather, okay?
• 39:28
  That's the glacial period, where in the case of Canada and the northern US, we had like literally over a mile of ice over our head, and then you have these short, happy periods.
• 39:38
  We happen to live in one of those, thank goodness, and that's when civilization has flourished.
• 39:43
  But he says that in the previous interglacial, it was warmer than today, and he's saying it's still three degrees cooler than the peak of the last interglacial, because we're in an interglacial about 130,000 years ago.
• 39:58
  And then he says, given then the a rise of 1.1 degrees C is quite commonplace in this current interglacial, this warm period we in, we're in, and that none of the earlier occurrence could have been affected by anthropogenic activity.
• 40:13
  There's this raises the question.
• 40:15
  Why are we trying to attribute the current rise to anthropogenic effects as if it's unusual?
• 40:21
  So that's how he that's how he ends his paper.
• 40:24
  Yeah, he ends his paper and he says funding.
• 40:26
  This study received no funding.
• 40:29
  So he's not funded by big oil.
• 40:31
  And he's saying that this rise in temperature that we're attributing to us, actually it rose faster a whole lot of times in the past, you know.
• 40:40
  So it's it's crazy.
• 40:41
  It's so it really comes back to the original thing I was saying that the climate scare is falling apart completely.
• 40:48
  The economics is falling apart, the science is falling apart, the whole thing is falling apart.
• 40:54
  And in some cases, in very, very obvious and simple ways.
• 40:58
  I mean, this analysis, 16% of all centuries in the last 200 centuries warmed faster than today.
• 41:05
  Uh-huh.
• 41:05
  Anybody anybody could have figured that out.
• 41:08
  And I'm sure they must have known this, but they just don't tell you.
• 41:11
  It's the same thing as you were saying at the beginning with the Potsdam study.
• 41:14
  They discovered problems with the paper, and what did it take?
• 41:17
  Something like over a year before they announced they were 1880.
• 41:21
  Yeah.
• 41:22
  So they let us go ahead and make all kinds of decisions and policies and funding, you know, uh interest rates, et cetera, for oil and gas companies based on what they knew was flawed, and they didn't tell us.
• 41:33
  I mean, this sounds almost like the COVID issue, you know, where people recognize there's a problem, but they just don't tell you because they let the policy machine just rumble forward as if it were true.
• 41:46
  I think we'll discover one day that this has been one of the biggest lies in con jobs in history.
• 41:55
  Oh, yeah.
• 41:56
  I think we'll look at the evil of this, the way we've and this is a big statement, but I think we'll look at the evil of this the way we looked at we look at Nazis, the German regime.
• 42:00
  Statement.
• 42:00
  But I think we'll look at the evil of this the way we looked at we look at Nazis, the German regime.
• 42:06
  Um the damage this is done, the people it's killed, the lives it's shattered.
• 42:06
  Um the damage this has done, the people it's killed, the lives it's shattered.
• 42:12
  Because at the end of the day, Tom, uh which is I've I voice this for two.
• 42:12
  Because at the end of the day, Tom, uh which is I've I've always said this before too.
• 42:17
  You've heard me say this.
• 42:17
  You've heard me say this you can be a creationist or an evolutionist or somewhere in the middle, you can think the earth is six billion years old.
• 42:18
  You can be a creationist or an evolutionist or somewhere in the middle, you can think the earth is six billion years old.
• 42:25
  Like you and I are talking about an older Earth.
• 42:25
  Like you and I are talking about an older earth.
• 42:27
  So let's just frame the conversation.
• 42:27
  So let's just frame the conversation.
• 42:30
  You can be an absolute biblical creationist and think, oh, the earth's about 10,000 years old, or you can be somewhere in between.
• 42:40
  And even at the 10,000 years, you can find where the earth has been warmer, colder, more parts per million in the air that had nothing to do with fossil fuels or the amount of human beings.
• 42:50
  Yeah, exactly.
• 42:51
  If you go later, I think what this really shows a real darkness with these people who believe this, a real darkness of the the U.S.
• 43:01
  Democratic Party, Greens of Europe, Canada, Australia, you know, Prime Minister of Australia, Prime Minister of Britain, uh, the leaders of Brussels of EU, Kearney, you know, Canada, Joe Biden.
• 43:16
  These are when you believe this, when you are believing a lie, I equate it to your sending people to their death.
• 43:26
  You're you're not letting people fulfill their destiny.
• 43:30
  You're not letting Canada use all the natural resources that it could use that maybe the United States wouldn't be in Iran right now.
• 43:38
  It it's so evil to me when U.S.
• 43:42
  billionaires fund all this stuff and the foundations that are behind it, and the Mark Carnies of the world that believe in it and promote it.
• 43:50
  Yeah.
• 43:50
  And you know, it's interesting.
• 43:52
  There was an article just published in the Toronto Sun, which looked at how much money has it cost the average Canadian because of Trudeau's climate policy.
• 44:01
  You know, the liberals came in in 2015, and it turns out that the average Canadian, every single Canadian, has paid roughly 12,000 to actually, you know, because of the climate scare.
• 44:14
  So my family, you know, we've got four of us, almost $50,000 of our money has gone into the climate scare.
• 44:21
  And you know, globally, I'll give you a number that'll blow you away.
• 44:24
  The climate policy initiative, and they are you know, believers in the climate scare.
• 44:28
  They very much say that this number I'm about to give you, they say, is not enough.
• 44:33
  They they estimate that five billion US dollars is being spent every day on the climate scare, you know.
• 44:40
  And I'm sure they're not able to track everything.
• 44:43
  So, you know, I I actually have to really promote the Heartland Institute's climate conference because they've gone through all this.
• 44:51
  They look at the economics, they look at the science, they look at the policy, they'll look at everything.
• 44:56
  And I'll include a link to it under the podcast, but you just go to Heartland.org.
• 45:00
  That's their homepage.
• 45:01
  They got a big, you know, indicator of their last climate conference, which was on April 8th and 9th of this year in Washington, DC.
• 45:09
  I was there actually.
• 45:10
  And one presentation that really kind of blew me away was one by a physicist by the name of Jonathan Kohler.
• 45:16
  Okay.
• 45:17
  What he showed is okay, we already know that there's no such thing as a global temperature, but he showed that all of the metrics they use to talk about climate alarm, you know, whether it's sea level or you know, all the different things they say.
• 45:30
  Look at this, look at that.
• 45:31
  None of those are real parameters.
• 45:34
  He actually you know, presents to us the fact that the emperor has no clothes.
• 45:38
  You know, they're they're actually looking at these different parameters as if they're real and they're not.
• 45:44
  There's no such thing as a global temperature.
• 45:46
  And who cares what global sea level would do?
• 45:48
  I mean, that is a silliest statistic.
• 45:51
  If you're living in an area and the sea level's rising because perhaps the ocean is sinking, or because it's a combination between that and ocean rising, then that's important to you.
• 46:01
  But some sort of fictitious general average global sea level, I mean, who cares?
• 46:07
  So I really encourage people to go to heartland.org, click on any of these things, you know.
• 46:12
  One of them here by Steve Molloy, Mark Morano, Douglas Pollock from South America, is called wrong again, failed climate predictions.
• 46:19
  They go through them, you know.
• 46:20
  So I mean Tim Ball, like you said, Tim Ball's, he called this the greatest deception in history.
• 46:27
  And that's a better way to put it.
• 46:29
  That's a better word.
• 46:29
  Deception is a great word.
• 46:31
  Yeah, it really is, because you know, the whole idea that a 1.2 degree rise since 1880, I mean, that small temperature change, Richard Lindsen from MIT, he says you wouldn't notice it in your entire lifetime.
• 46:44
  And yet that's considered an existential threat, the greatest threat to humanity, to which we're spending over five billion US dollars a day.
• 46:53
  I mean, it is it's totally insane.
• 46:55
  And so the question then I would like to end off with discussing with you, is what's going on here?
• 47:01
  Like, why are the experts not speaking out when they see mistakes in the economics, they see mistakes in the science, they see massive exaggerations in the press.
• 47:11
  Like, what's going on here?
• 47:12
  Are are they trying to totally wreck our society?
• 47:16
  I I believe they are.
• 47:17
  And you know, you can go, oh, is it the Saul Lalinsky playbook that Hillary Clinton is, you know, an earner ilk had been into for decades.
• 47:26
  What I I read it best, and I think it was Victor Davis Hanson, Dr.
• 47:30
  Victor Davis Hansen who said it.
• 47:32
  And if I misquoted Dr.
• 47:34
  Hansen, I apologize, but when you think about these people, Mark Carney, billionaires who are into all this nonsense, uh, the people that have been brainwashed.
• 47:47
  What it is is the people in control of this, they want to collapse the side.
• 47:52
  They want to first they want to create chaos, affordability, not being able to build, not being able to afford a home, not being able to get married, have children.
• 48:01
  That that's chaotic for society.
• 48:04
  Then they want to collapse society because then they are in control.
• 48:08
  And I really believe this, that people like Tom Steyr, Michael Bloomberg, George Soros, some Swiss billionaires who do this stuff.
• 48:18
  And sure, there's like the Russians and the Chinese who feed into the anti-fracking movement, now the anti-data center movement and climate change movements, because they're trying to sow uh geopolitical chaos.
• 48:30
  But people like Michael Bloomberg, he he likes to think of himself like a god, Tom.
• 48:35
  He he wants to be worshipped.
• 48:38
  So whether you're an atheist agnostic or you're religious, he wants to be worshipped, he wants to be admired, he wants to be like the middle ages, you know.
• 48:48
  I'm living on your land, Tom, and I call you my lord.
• 48:51
  You know, Downton Abbey, the television show, uh, showed that expertly.
• 48:55
  You know, oh, it's you're you're fawning over these people, you're worshiping them, you're calling them Lord.
• 49:00
  Them, you're calling them Lord.
• 49:01
  I really believe these people, whether it's people like the Ford Foundation, Tides Foundation, uh, the Walton children of Sam, you know, Sam Walton of Walmart or the Rockefeller children, they they all like to think or the they all like to think of themselves as gods.
• 49:01
  I really believe these people, whether it's people like the Ford Foundation, Tides Foundation, uh, the Walton children of Sam, you know, Sam Walton of Walmart or the Rockefeller children, they they all like to think or the they all like to think of themselves as gods.
• 49:18
  That they're gonna save, they're gonna save the earth.
• 49:19
  And they're gonna save, they're gonna save the earth, they're gonna save the earth, and you know what?
• 49:21
  They're gonna save the earth, and you know what?
• 49:24
  I have to um I have to worship them and and so think the way.
• 49:24
  I have to um I have to worship them and and so think the widow of Steve Jobs for paying for the No Kings protest and environmental reports or the now deceased Ted Turner who gave hundreds of millions of dollars to the you know environmental organizations that sow this chaos.
• 49:45
  I think that's what the real reason is, Tom.
• 49:48
  I think that when you drill down into it, they want chaos, it leads to collapse, and then they are in control, and then you get rid of podcasts like this.
• 49:58
  I get rid of the Tom Harrises, I get rid of America Out Loud, I get rid of the Heartland Institute, I get rid of the Steve Malloys, all of y'all.
• 50:08
  Yeah, and they're in control.
• 50:10
  That's a good point.
• 50:11
  And I think another factor, of course, is the money.
• 50:14
  And I wanted to read one couple of sentences here from that zero hedge article.
• 50:19
  Study lead author, and remember, these are the people who found that CO2 changes and methane changes were negligible during a three million year period while temperatures varied all over the place.
• 50:30
  Here's how they just it's funny because they they still take the information and they don't come to the obvious conclusion, namely that CO2 is not driving temperature.
• 50:39
  They come to a little different conclusion, which will still support the narrative.
• 50:43
  And here's what they said in the article.
• 50:44
  Study lead author Julia Marks Peterson noted, quote, we definitely were a bit surprised.
• 50:50
  If correct, the findings may suggest that even small changes in greenhouse gases could trigger major shifts in the climate, unquote.
• 50:58
  That's a bit of a scary thought, she added, possibly with an eye on future grant funding, may suggest is doing a lot of work here, and it may also suggest that there's other more plausible conclusions that in fact maybe so, Todd, they're seeing tiny changes in CO2 and big changes in temperature, which the obvious conclusion would be well, then I guess CO2 doesn't affect temperature much.
• 51:21
  But she's saying, oh my God, that tiny change, which is really within the error bar, actually caused all that temperature change.
• 51:29
  So sensitivity must be much higher than we thought previously.
• 51:33
  So, oh my God, it's a greater threat.
• 51:35
  So they take what should be reassuring, namely showing the CO2 doesn't drive temperature, and they're saying that tiny amount drove all that temperature.
• 51:46
  It's ridiculous.
• 51:48
  It's also so ridiculous because again, I I equate these people with Nazis, where this mindset, they they can't see anything.
• 51:57
  They refuse, you know, our problems are Jewish people.
• 52:00
  So if we eradicate Jewish people, we will bring about the master race.
• 52:05
  We will bring about the thousand year right.
• 52:07
  If we can get rid of CO2 and get rid of people on the earth and and stop climate change, then everything will be utopia.
• 52:16
  Everything will be nirvana.
• 52:18
  It's the same mindset.
• 52:21
  It's yeah, yeah, exactly.
• 52:22
  Very scary with these people.
• 52:24
  And other people commenting on the paper said a similar thing.
• 52:27
  Carrie Lear, professor of past climates and earth system changes at Cardiff University.
• 52:32
  He claimed that the papers don't rewrite the role of CO2, they underline how sensitive the climate scare is or the climate system is.
• 52:41
  That's why today's rapid CO2 rise is so alarming.
• 52:44
  So, you know, it doesn't even matter what the results are.
• 52:47
  It always proves what they take to be the given and the given is that CO2 is this dangerous threat.
• 52:53
  So even when the data shows that it isn't, they still twist it in some way to show that it is.
• 52:59
  I mean, it but like everything fits to their narrative, no matter what you find.
• 53:04
  And that's whether it's working, whether it's warming or cooling or not changing, it all fits with the narrative.
• 53:10
  It's so silly.
• 53:11
  It's always the narrative, it's always and and they can't see strength.
• 53:15
  It it's it's infected the Democratic Party.
• 53:18
  I I would argue right now, the number one issue of the U.S.
• 53:22
  Democratic Party is climate orthodoxy.
• 53:24
  If you do not believe, they believe you will be ousted, and they and they will come after you.
• 53:31
  And so for sure.
• 53:32
  No matter, you know, what is it like with data centers?
• 53:35
  Why is there such a blowback about data centers now?
• 53:38
  Because it goes, it goes against climate or orthodoxy.
• 53:41
  Oh my gosh.
• 53:42
  It it's the look at it.
• 53:44
  It's the same arguments that was used against fracking.
• 53:47
  It's always it's it's always the same thing, the same arguments, the same we can't do this, the same you're gonna kill Mother Earth, Gaia, whatever nonsense these people want to say.
• 53:58
  It's always the same thing.
• 54:01
  And and so what you know, the conclusion I come out of the information that you sent to me and that you read to the audience early in the show, is that we just simply don't have the tools to estimate what economic impact climate change will have in the future.
• 54:15
  And I would add to that, we don't have the tools to even know what the climate change is going to be in the future.
• 54:21
  So you have a double, you have two layers of uncertainty here.
• 54:26
  So the whole idea that we know what's gonna happen in the year 2100, I mean, give me a break.
• 54:31
  It's ridiculous.
• 54:33
  So, yeah, to say that you know these things, I you're going to forecast what the weather's gonna be in 2100.
• 54:40
  Right.
• 54:41
  And the one thing you do know is if you take those uncertain forecasts and you actually use it to drive your economy, you're gonna wreck your economy.
• 54:50
  And one thing you do know is it will hurt the poor more than anybody.
• 54:54
  And this is this is where I find the environmentalists are are really hypocritical because they say they're climate justice warriors, they're social justice warriors.
• 55:03
  Yeah, but the people, the people who are hurt the most in Ontario here, our cost of electricity doubled or tripled.
• 55:10
  It depends on the time frame you're looking at, because of the climate scare.
• 55:14
  We wanted to get we got rid of coal as a general baseline energy source because of climate change and our electricity prices didn't go up by 30 or 40 percent, which you you see people worrying about in the U.S., it went up by 200%.
• 55:29
  I mean, it's ridiculous.
• 55:31
  And that was largely because of the climate scare.
• 55:33
  So I mean, this is dragging our society into the muck.
• 55:37
  I mean, it really is ruining what we built over the centuries.
• 55:41
  Yeah.
• 55:41
  I I just I look at the whole thing, they remind me of Nazis.
• 55:46
  I see these billionaires and their foundations and the sickening actions of people like the Rockefellers, Tom Steyr, Michael Bloomberg, people who've made their money off fossil fuels, and I find them to be such ungrateful prigs.
• 56:00
  And I find them to be such ungrateful prigs.
• 56:04
  Huh?
• 56:04
  Yeah.
• 56:04
  Yeah.
• 56:05
  Yeah.
• 56:05
  Yeah.
• 56:06
  So I hope we've given people a bit of ammunition.
• 56:06
  So I hope we've given people a bit of ammunition.
• 56:09
  Next time you hear about the economic impact of climate change, the right response is to simply laugh because it is just so silly.
• 56:09
  Next time you hear about the economic impact of climate change, the right response is to simply laugh, because it is just so silly.
• 56:17
  In fact, in that paper you were citing, they were saying, no, we just simply don't have the tools.
• 56:17
  In fact, in that paper you were citing, they were saying, no, we just simply don't have the tools.
• 56:22
  And and that would assume we knew what climate was gonna do in the year 2100.
• 56:22
  And and that would assume we knew what climate was going to do in the year 2100.
• 56:27
  We don't even know that.
• 56:27
  We don't even know that.
• 56:28
  So this has been really kind of a
• 56:28
  So this has been really kind of an interesting show, Todd.
• 56:31
  And I really appreciate you sending me those articles because it it really gave a proper view of what's going on.
• 56:37
  It's a hoax.
• 56:38
  I mean, it totally is a hoax.
• 56:40
  And let's the heck let's get the heck off of it before it ruins our society even more.
• 56:45
  I know.
• 56:45
  Amen.
• 56:46
  Yeah.
• 56:47
  Well, this is Tom Harrison, Todd Royal signing out from the other side of the story.