Latest / Cultural Wars | America Out Loud News / How COP30 failed and why opponents must learn from it

Transcript

How COP30 failed and why opponents must learn from it · 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
  For those who believe that sound science and affordable energy should prevail over ideological crusades, COP 30's collapse is not a tragedy.
• 0:36
  It's a hard won victory.
• 0:38
  So concludes Craig Rucker, president of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, or CFAC.
• 0:44
  Last weekend, COP 30, the 30th annual conference of the parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, wrapped up finally in Boleim, Brazil.
• 0:53
  These things seem to go on forever.
• 0:55
  Trying to understand what actually came out of this massive event, a conference that brought in a staggering 56,000 people, is quite a challenge.
• 1:06
  So this week, Todd and I are will explain what really happened and whether the event can be considered a success or not.
• 1:12
  In other words, today's show is a brief COP 101 for lay people who want, yeah, who want to understand what's happening, but understandably find the whole UN process quite confusing.
• 1:25
  Okay, Tom.
• 1:26
  Um I'm gonna ask you this because you're so you're you're you're so good at it.
• 1:32
  Explain what is COP and then what is the UN FCC.
• 1:38
  What is it?
• 1:39
  And then do they treat developed and you know, developed nations and developing nations the same?
• 1:45
  Yeah.
• 1:45
  Well, we have to go back to the Earth Summit in 1992.
• 1:49
  This was where, in fact, they agreed to the treaty called the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
• 1:55
  And the first George Bush signed that treaty, as well as our prime minister, Prime Minister Mulrooney at the time.
• 2:01
  And so that's 1992.
• 2:03
  So the framework convention on climate change got started right around then.
• 2:08
  Um, but you know, they they didn't, you know, these people never meet just once and make an agreement.
• 2:14
  They then started to have these things called conference of the parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
• 2:21
  So starting a year or two later, they actually started with COP One.
• 2:25
  Okay, so they passed the UNFCCC, the framework convention, and then they started to have yearly meetings to see if indeed they were meeting their challenges, if they were actually achieving their targets.
• 2:37
  And the unfortunate thing is that they do not treat developing and developed countries the same.
• 2:43
  And in fact, Article 4 in the Framework Convention on Climate Change says very clearly that developing countries, not us, developing countries.
• 2:52
  Uh their first and overriding priority is not greenhouse gas emissions, it's poverty alleviation and development.
• 2:59
  Okay, so basically what they're saying is okay, you can keep burning coal, China, and they still call China a developing nation, if you can believe that.
• 3:07
  Back in 1992, maybe you could in 1992, maybe that made maybe that made sense, but China has still retained its developing nation status in the framework convention on climate change.
• 3:18
  So basically it says that you can burn as much coal as you want to pull your people out of poverty, and you don't have to worry about greenhouse gases.
• 3:27
  So it gives them an outclause.
• 3:29
  It doesn't give out us the outclause, that's for sure.
• 3:32
  So the framework convention is actually a very biased document.
• 3:35
  It's actually two documents, has different rules for us than it does for China and other developing nations.
• 3:42
  So, okay, that's really interesting, Tom.
• 3:45
  Why do they treat China still as a developing nation?
• 3:48
  Well, the theory is that we're responsible for most of the historic greenhouse gas emissions, and that's true.
• 3:55
  The we who's the we that is the West.
• 3:59
  That is the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, Europe, that's those countries that we've actually put out more greenhouse gases over a long period of time, you know, like a century, than the developing world.
• 4:11
  But the developing world is catching up very, very quickly.
• 4:14
  In fact, right now, on a yearly basis, they put out something like two-thirds of all the emissions, and China, of course, is the world leader with double the United States.
• 4:23
  So you have to ask yourself well, you know, the different targets are 2030 or 2020.
• 4:30
  Well, you know, by 2050, you're going to probably find, and I've seen some people have done the math that by 2050, when a lot of these targets come due, the historical accumulation of greenhouse gases will be the greatest from the developing world.
• 4:44
  Okay.
• 4:45
  So I always find it funny that, yeah, sure, right now we still hold the record for the most total number of greenhouse gases over time.
• 4:55
  But by the time these agreements come due, it's going to be the developing world that is the main contributor.
• 5:01
  And okay, and then what is um what is UNFCCC?
• 5:07
  Because I see that often as well.
• 5:08
  What is that?
• 5:10
  Okay, well, it's the framework convention on climate change.
• 5:13
  And the thing that we're talking about, though, is the IPCC.
• 5:17
  That's what we hear in the news all the time.
• 5:19
  Okay.
• 5:20
  We we hear constantly the UN's climate uh science body.
• 5:24
  And that's the IPCC, and what does that stand for?
• 5:27
  Oh, that stands for intergovernmental panel on climate change.
• 5:31
  Now, the interesting thing is that actually started before the framework convention on climate change.
• 5:36
  And at the very beginning, I believe it was 1988 that it started, but regardless, at the beginning, they looked at they looked at all the causes of climate change, which of course includes a lot of natural causes, like the sun and the ocean currents and clouds and things like that.
• 5:52
  However, paper, yeah, but but four years later, when the framework convention came along, they changed the responsibility of the IPCC, the science body, and you'll laptop, the IPCC then had the responsibility to support whatever decisions the framework convention on climate change decided.
• 6:13
  So if the framework convention, which is really a political document, decides that decides that we have a climate emergency, the IPCC has to back it up.
• 6:22
  They actually have to develop the science to provide the the cover, so to speak, for the framework convention.
• 6:29
  But you know, this is really backwards because normally you the science is the underlying document.
• 6:35
  It finds what it finds, and it might not find what's politically correct, or it might.
• 6:39
  But that would normally be your foundation.
• 6:42
  You say, okay, here's this is the foundation.
• 6:44
  It's the science that is driving the process.
• 6:48
  But this is not what's happening now.
• 6:50
  It's the politics that drive the process, and the science is expected to tune itself to actually match what the politicians want.
• 6:58
  So, you know, it's funny.
• 7:00
  They always say, Oh, you know, we have evidence-based decision making.
• 7:03
  But what this is is this is decision-based evidence making.
• 7:07
  Okay.
• 7:09
  So it's actually quite corrupt the whole process.
• 7:12
  Okay, so you just said, if I heard you correctly, that by 2050, there will actually be greater overall total emissions from fossil fuels from the developing nations, people like China and India, Africa.
• 7:26
  Let's use those three.
• 7:28
  Yeah.
• 7:28
  Is the IPCC or the UNCC, are they taking into account that the reason their emissions are growing is not only the use of coal, but that these countries are starting to get more middle class citizens.
• 7:44
  So they're going from extreme poverty.
• 7:47
  Now we're getting hundreds of millions, if not billions of people that are going to get into middle class.
• 7:53
  We mean they can uh have an apartment or a home.
• 7:56
  They'll have air conditioning and heat.
• 7:58
  They may own a car, they're going to start using plastics.
• 8:02
  They need uh fossil fuels because they're gonna live more in urban environments, they're gonna work jobs that still may be blue-collar jobs, but they're gonna live uh a higher lifestyle.
• 8:13
  Are they taking any of that into consideration?
• 8:16
  Meaning if the earth starts warming because we see greater emissions, that uh the factor is probably not quote-unquote climate change, it's because more people on the earth are now becoming more prosperous.
• 8:31
  Well, right, and everything you named is good.
• 8:34
  I mean, the fact is if we if people actually have uh more wealth, if they have more ability to live a life that we all want to live, they will care for the environment more.
• 8:44
  Okay, so I mean, all those things are good.
• 8:47
  Um I I can't remember your question exactly, but the the fact is they they they recognize that in pulling their people out of poverty, they will emit more and more emissions, and they accept that.
• 9:00
  And that's sensible, okay?
• 9:01
  That's really smart.
• 9:02
  And you know, it's interesting because the China representative at the COP 14 conference, or was it 14, um, which was a few years ago, oh, yeah, it was 2014.
• 9:12
  People started to say, well, look, China, you're not held to any emission reduction standards at all, and yet you're the world's leader.
• 9:19
  Will you negotiate the UNFCCC over again to recognize that you're actually a major emitter?
• 9:27
  And at that time, they were debating the terms for the Paris Agreement, and the Chinese um representative to the UN, he said, no, no, the purpose of the Paris Agreement is to enforce the framework convention on climate change, not to change it.
• 9:42
  So they know they have a sweetheart deal.
• 9:45
  They really do.
• 9:46
  They have a deal where they can put out as much greenhouse gases as they want, in many cases, creating the so called green energy that they then sell to us.
• 9:55
  So the the whole point is that China in particular has an absolute fantastic.
• 10:00
  Fantastic deal as long as this climate scare continues.
• 10:03
  So when I heard that in the conference in Brazil, China was taking a leadership role.
• 10:08
  I thought, yeah, of course, it's the farmer taking the cows to be slaughtered.
• 10:12
  I mean, the farmers taking the leadership role, because of course they recognize the whole thing is slewed in their advantage.
• 10:20
  Is the United Nations, who's ever putting this together?
• 10:24
  Are they accounting for that prosperity from the global south is what is actually going to be a large rise in emissions, which could lead to the earth warming up?
• 10:36
  Are they accounting for the fact that it's not quote unquote climate change, that it's actually possibly billions of people, frankly, leaving the dirt?
• 10:46
  Yeah.
• 10:47
  Becoming prosperous.
• 10:48
  Are they accounting for that at all?
• 10:49
  You know, in that sense, they're being they are being sensible.
• 10:52
  I mean, Article 4, Article 4 actually makes sense to say that your first and overriding priority is poverty alleviation and development.
• 11:00
  Yeah, of course, you know, you want to pull people out of poverty.
• 11:03
  So that's actually a very sensible thing to say.
• 11:07
  The only trouble is, of course, that it only applies to them.
• 11:10
  So even once they've pulled themselves out of poverty, they continue to get this benefit.
• 11:15
  They don't say, oh, when you achieve a certain threshold, then you will be accountable for your green, your greenhouse gas emissions.
• 11:22
  So the treaty is really just bring down the West, boost up the developing countries.
• 11:28
  I mean, that's what the tree that's what the treaty is all about.
• 11:31
  And you know, many people say that this is just a wealth transfer scheme, which it is because if you have very strict emission standards in the West, and you don't in China and India, then what are a lot of companies in the West going to do?
• 11:45
  They're gonna move to the developing countries.
• 11:47
  Because, yeah, because they can put out as much greenhouse gases as they want.
• 11:51
  Now, of course, this is a double-edged sword.
• 11:54
  I mean, the bottom line is that it doesn't matter, okay.
• 11:57
  The greenhouse gases doesn't matter.
• 11:59
  So I fully understand why China and the developing countries are very pleased with this agreement because they can continue to develop.
• 12:06
  But but the trouble is they will eventually, well, I mean, right now, China has already overtaken us on a yearly basis.
• 12:13
  And I I would have guessed that by 2030, they're going to be triple the United States with regards with regards to emissions.
• 12:21
  And yet they'll still have no limits.
• 12:23
  Now it's interesting.
• 12:24
  In the Paris Agreement, they do say that the limits start to apply for China in the year 2030, that at that year they have to cap their emissions.
• 12:33
  But that is actually not true because the Paris Agreement is based on the framework convention on climate change.
• 12:40
  Like that is the underlying foundation of all UN agreements, the framework convention on climate change.
• 12:46
  And that's where it says that the developing countries don't have to ever reduce their emissions.
• 12:52
  So they can pass all kinds of treaties, Paris Agreement, Kyoto Protocol, Cancun Agreement.
• 12:57
  It doesn't really matter because regardless, the underlying rules are in the framework convention.
• 13:03
  That's where people don't know much about this.
• 13:05
  And you know, it's interesting.
• 13:06
  It's interesting.
• 13:06
  I'm seeing various people now, you know, in the United States now saying to Trump, hey, you've got to get out of the framework convention, because that is the real problem.
• 13:16
  It's set the ground rules for everything else.
• 13:18
  And as long as we're still in the framework convention, then this rule applies that we have to reduce our emissions, but most of the world doesn't.
• 13:27
  So they pulled out of Paris, that's fine, but you gotta get out to get out of the framework convention.
• 13:32
  Yeah.
• 13:33
  I want to level set for our audience.
• 13:35
  Like let's give some context here, because sometimes people go, oh, you two are you're just guys on the right, you you know, you're you're the equivalent of MAGA in Canada, you're your two bumbling climate deniers.
• 13:48
  Okay, well, let's give some facts about China.
• 13:51
  So China is now building 227 gigawatts of coal fired capacity.
• 13:57
  That's what they're currently building.
• 13:58
  Yeah.
• 13:59
  When all of those coal plants are brought online, China's coal fired generation capacity, meaning this is how they're going to get their electricity or their energy will total about 1.4 terawatts, meaning China's coal fleet will be more than seven times larger than the U.S.
• 14:17
  coal fleet.
• 14:18
  Or think of it this way.
• 14:19
  If China has 1.4 terawatts of just coal, that's larger than the entire U.S.
• 14:25
  electric grid, which has 1.3 terawatts of generation capacity.
• 14:31
  Let's just put all that into context and also let people know when you're talking about developing, you're talking about getting where like Africa, we we you know I've talked about this, Tom.
• 14:43
  That you'll see the figures that approximately 600 million people in Africa do not have electricity.
• 14:49
  So what that means is they typically are getting their fuel or their energy from either burning human feces, cow dung, or in particular wood.
• 15:02
  Yeah, we know that if you burn all three, that's where you can kill people with respiratory illnesses because all three things get into your lungs.
• 15:11
  It's why most of the time now people don't burn uh wood in their homes anymore.
• 15:15
  Because it is it can be dangerous.
• 15:19
  Uh it's why when you burn wood, you do want to be outside, but typically in these developed nations, they're using it for heating or for cooking.
• 15:27
  And so then what they're doing is they're living in literally some type of covered arrangement is a tent, um, is it something that's yeah, typical to a tent?
• 15:37
  Is it corrugated steel or tin?
• 15:40
  They make a fire inside of this, you're breathing in you're breathing in very dangerous elements from wood at close quarters that can kill you or make you severely sick.
• 15:52
  And so I think people need to understand that when we're talking about this, you're talking about bringing people out of death into life, and the Chinese, you then have to look at them and go, okay, you have to shut down the equivalent of the entire US grid of coal to even begin to try to meet those emission standards.
• 16:12
  Yeah, well, actually, they can't they can they can meet them from a pollution point of view if they use the latest technology.
• 16:18
  But you know, like so many things in the UN climate debate, they've distorted the language and they treat carbon dioxide as if it's pollution.
• 16:25
  And in fact, they they call it carbon pollution.
• 16:28
  Well, carbon pollution would be soot and and things like that, which really are what you're talking about, you know, when they burn wood or dung or whatever inside their homes.
• 16:36
  And you'd laugh, Todd.
• 16:38
  What do you think it was that my daughter had to do when she went on the bold earth adventure to Peru to help the local health of the people?
• 16:46
  What do you think it was they did?
• 16:48
  What they built chimneys, okay.
• 16:51
  Of course, they built chimneys in the homes, and she stayed with a Peruvian family in the Andes Mountains, actually, in one of the valleys, and she helped them build a chimney, which I thought was wonderful, you know.
• 17:02
  So they they did more than just adventure, they actually did useful activities.
• 17:06
  Um, and so I mean, that's obviously something that you know we we should help them do.
• 17:11
  And if we want to help the developing world, yeah, help them build chimneys, help them do things to reduce real pollution, forget about greenhouse gas emissions.
• 17:20
  I mean, it's a pretty incredible.
• 17:21
  Canada, for example, signed on to a thought something we're gonna talk about later, which is trying to control the narrative.
• 17:27
  Um, you know, we're giving billions of dollars to developing nations for adaptation, but we're only helping them adapt to primarily one thing, and that is global warming, which is actually benefit beneficial, you know, it's ridiculous.
• 17:42
  So if we're gonna help them, let's help them on important things.
• 17:45
  Yeah, there are there are clean coal technologies where you can get rid of things like the sulfur oxide, you can get rid of um the nitrogen oxide, particulates, mercury.
• 17:57
  You can do things like integrated gasification combined cycle, you can do ultra-scale critical coal, flue gas desulfization, selective catalytic reduction, you can do electroestatic precipitators and backhouse filters.
• 18:12
  There are things that you can do to make coal cleaner.
• 18:16
  I think it's just interesting that none of these UN bodies are looking at China and saying, okay, you need to shut down all of your coal-fired power plants that again is literally the equivalent, if not more, than the entire uh United States electrical grid.
• 18:33
  There's a do you find Tom that's a double standard?
• 18:38
  Not just a double standard, but where do you think this disconnect originates?
• 18:42
  Like, is it a is it a hatred for the West?
• 18:45
  I mean, I would say, okay, is it a hatred for religion or the kind of this magna carter based on Judeo-Christian framework, morality, um, you know, Thomas Aquinas, folks like that.
• 19:00
  They kind of built this framework.
• 19:02
  Where do you think this disconnect originates or hatred, maybe?
• 19:07
  Well, I think it's jealousy to a large extent.
• 19:09
  I mean, the fact is the West has done very well.
• 19:12
  And we've done it largely with fossil fuels, okay?
• 19:15
  Fossil fuels have been a massive improvement of our lives.
• 19:18
  People have to realize that fossil fuels save the environment in many ways.
• 19:23
  You know, for example, they used to use whale oil, they kill whales to get the oil for lamps and things like that.
• 19:29
  They used to burn down or cut down most of Britain's forests to you know make the charcoal that they needed to to make steel, make steel and other things.
• 19:38
  And so, as fossil fuels came along, coal in the case of charcoal and uh oil, real oil, and in the case of whale oil, we were able to save the forest, save the whales, you know, and in fact, we're so much more efficient now in our farming, largely because of fossil fuels, that there's more forest in New England today than there was at the time of the
• 20:00
  Civil war in the United States because it's an amazing statistic because our farming is so much more efficient.
• 20:07
  So we don't need as much land to make a lot more food.
• 20:10
  But you know, going back to the origin of this, I think what's happened is that the United Nations has been hijacked by Marxists, okay?
• 20:18
  And people who are very much out for their own interests, not surprising.
• 20:23
  And they recognize in the developing world, if they can use the UN as an instrument to transfer wealth and essentially control of the world from the West to the East, then they're winning.
• 20:35
  And you know, that I think is one of the main goals of the United Nations, unstated, but still, nevertheless, very much there.
• 20:42
  It's in the treaties, like the framework convention, where they're trying to transfer wealth from the West to the East.
• 20:49
  And I think that is the main goal of the whole climate thing.
• 20:53
  It's it's uh also trying to control, um, you know, actually transfer control, make it so that China are the world's leading and dominant nation by creating treaties that massively benefit China and hurt us.
• 21:05
  So I think you know, the West has been really suckered into this.
• 21:08
  You know, we're always pretty altruistic.
• 21:10
  The United States, and this is a statistic I love to bring up with my friends who start to moan about the United States and they say, Oh, we don't like the U.S.
• 21:17
  I say, well, do you realize that the US has given more money in pure aid?
• 21:22
  And I'm not talking about financial investment where they get a return.
• 21:25
  I'm talking about things like where the US goes in and helps after a hurricane, for example, or a typhoon in the Philippines.
• 21:32
  But the U.S.
• 21:33
  has given more money in pure aid since World War II than all countries in history of the world combined.
• 21:41
  Okay.
• 21:42
  So people who list some people listening to this might not like the US, but they shouldn't not like them based on that, because they have been incredibly generous.
• 21:51
  You know, it's interesting.
• 21:53
  Empires and most powerful nations in the world generally become more benevolent as time goes by.
• 21:58
  I mean, the British Empire was a lot more benevolent than the Romans, okay.
• 22:03
  Sure.
• 22:03
  No question about that.
• 22:05
  And then the American dominance was has been an incredibly good thing for the world.
• 22:10
  A lot of people don't like me saying that, but it's true.
• 22:12
  The United States has been a huge benefit to the whole world.
• 22:16
  And now, of course, President Trump is saying, yeah, that's true, but at some point, we're just being suckers, you know, when we just ship our industries to other countries and we sign treaties that hurt us and help them.
• 22:28
  So I'm really pleased actually that Trump is now starting to pull back on a lot of the um you know, really damaging things that the previous administrations agreed to.
• 22:38
  I mean, make America great again.
• 22:40
  We better hope.
• 22:41
  You know, me in Canada, for example, and much of the Western world, we better hope that America becomes great again because if China takes over the leadership of the world, oh boy, with their organ harvesting, you know, we're in big trouble.
• 22:56
  I'm I'm curious, Tom, because this is a little off the beaten path, but I think it's something you brought up is important.
• 23:02
  Why do you think people have gotten this really horrible anti-Western sentiment?
• 23:06
  In particular, we see younger people, we see obviously the the new upcoming mayor, you know, radical Muslim guy, left wing, privileged, and just people vote for things, they're voting for things, they're believing things that he's not gonna be able to deliver on.
• 23:24
  I mean, the most of his things already, you're not gonna freeze rent, you're not gonna get free buses, you're not gonna get free child care, uh, you know, but people believe it.
• 23:34
  Yeah.
• 23:35
  To me, that mindset is what then goes into that what we're talking about with these environmental treaties that are just awful and against the West the West interest, but yet these people keep voting for it and they believe in it, and they it's almost like they're they're they're they're committing suicide in someone's.
• 23:54
  How do you think this is taking place?
• 23:56
  Like what's happening here?
• 23:58
  Well, I think part of it is a guilt complex.
• 24:00
  Somehow we are responsible for the ills of the world because we did well and made ourselves wealthy.
• 24:06
  But of course, as we said earlier, it's the exact opposite.
• 24:09
  If a country is just barely surviving, like Ethiopia or Somalia or whatever, they're not concerned about the environment, they're just trying to feed their people.
• 24:18
  You know, you look at a place like Somalia, where it's they don't even really have a proper central government, they have warlords, things like that.
• 24:25
  So, you know, the people have to lie cheat and steal just to survive.
• 24:28
  I mean, it's a pretty awful environment.
• 24:30
  And you know, they're concerned about the environment.
• 24:33
  Well, put it down Maslow's hierarchy of needs somewhere like around number 10 or something.
• 24:38
  And if you're not satisfying the top ones, you know, fresh water, peace, you know, food, you're you're simply not going to think about the environment.
• 24:45
  So, you know, this business that we somehow in the West are guilty of all the sins of the world because we're prosperous, it's the exact opposite, you know, and and this is what uh Alex Epstein says, and we'll have to have him on again.
• 24:58
  We had him on before you were with the show.
• 25:00
  He was great, actually.
• 25:02
  Oh, I would love to.
• 25:03
  I would love to have Alex on.
• 25:04
  Yeah, the moral case of fossil fuels.
• 25:07
  He basically says, look, fossil fuels give you the wealth that you need to address the environment.
• 25:14
  So if you want to address the environment, the moral cause is to have more and more fossil fuels.
• 25:19
  Now, of course, use proper pollution control.
• 25:22
  But the idea that you get rid of fossil fuels and you impoverish yourself, and that's going to somehow help the world.
• 25:28
  Like, what?
• 25:29
  If the United States is the biggest donor of pure aid, how does bankrupting the United States help the world?
• 25:36
  I mean, this is a totally ridiculous idea.
• 25:39
  I mean, in the short term, it will make developing countries richer, but in the longer term, the main helper of the world, which is the United States, will be broke, and they won't be helping anybody.
• 25:51
  So it's it's not just Marxist and you know, anti-Western, it's also wrong.
• 25:57
  It just simply is wrong.
• 25:58
  It doesn't even make any sense to destroy your main banker in the world.
• 26:02
  We we let's let's include Alex's book in the show notes.
• 26:06
  Um, I want to ask you this.
• 26:07
  Okay, there was something in this main agreement, supposedly called the global muchi hound.
• 26:15
  Yeah.
• 26:15
  Um, outcome documents, the main negotiating outcome, it's equivalent, I guess, to the cover decision of COP 30.
• 26:24
  What is it?
• 26:25
  What did it say?
• 26:27
  And is it is it something radical?
• 26:29
  Is it something sensible?
• 26:31
  Is it something in between?
• 26:33
  What talk to us about this?
• 26:36
  Well, it's kind of weak, actually.
• 26:38
  Um, the fact is they wanted to get some pretty strong and you know, enforcement and some strong statements, strong commitments.
• 26:45
  They didn't get it.
• 26:46
  I mean, the thing they wanted was to have a description, a roadmap, as they called it, of the phase out of fossil fuels.
• 26:53
  They wanted to get that in the agreement.
• 26:55
  But of course, countries like Saudi Arabia and you know, less a sensible countries basically said, no, we're not gonna give you a roadmap of phasing out our prosperity.
• 27:04
  That's ridiculous.
• 27:05
  And so it never got in there.
• 27:06
  In fact, it's interesting that in the, as we say, the the pronunciation is global mooch.
• 27:13
  It's apparently hound, okay.
• 27:15
  Yeah, yeah, it's apparently Portuguese.
• 27:17
  But anyway, um, there's not a single reference to eliminating fossil fuels.
• 27:21
  And the environmentalists are just ballistic, they're so upset about this.
• 27:25
  But I'm actually quite happy.
• 27:26
  And as I said at the beginning of the presentation or the beginning of our interview today, the failure of COP 30 is a great victory for our side.
• 27:34
  And in particular, not having, you know, China doesn't want to have a phase out of fossil fuels.
• 27:40
  My God, you know, they power most of their electricity with coal.
• 27:43
  And the other thing was that the 1.5 degree climate targets, it's not even in the what you call it, the global moochy hound.
• 27:52
  Uh it's not even in there.
• 27:54
  So the countries like China, like Russia, like um Saudi Arabia, they managed to take out of this the main things the environmentalists wanted.
• 28:04
  So the treaty is actually pretty, it's not a treaty, really, it's a it's a cover decision of COP 30.
• 28:10
  It's a pretty weak document.
• 28:12
  You know, one thing they could have had in here, which would have been good, is the roadmap for combating deforestation.
• 28:18
  Okay, so there was the potential to do some good.
• 28:21
  They didn't even get that.
• 28:23
  So it still talks about huge amounts of money, which is supposedly going to the developing countries, but doesn't tell who's paying it.
• 28:32
  These agreements are amazing.
• 28:33
  Well, we're gonna give 300 billion, but we don't tell you who's gonna we are, who's gonna give it, and is there any enforcement?
• 28:40
  So it's a pretty weak document overall.
• 28:42
  I feel like with our modern society right now, it's this gaslighting or this you know, I hope for the things unseen kind of mentality that I just don't live in that world.
• 28:54
  It's this Tom, we reached 300 billion or a trillion, and you go gazillion.
• 29:01
  Like at that point, just say a gazillion, say a quadrillion, say yeah, all the world's money should go towards blotting out the sun.
• 29:09
  It it's it's also I don't know, it feels so childish to me.
• 29:14
  It's a total, it's a total fantasy.
• 29:16
  It's like saying it's a fantasy, thank you.
• 29:19
  Yeah, yeah.
• 29:19
  We have to go for a break now, but after the break, let's talk about how much money was promised in comparison with how much is actually being delivered, because it's quite it's quite hilarious, actually.
• 29:31
  Okay, so this is Tom Harrison, my co-host Todd Royal.
• 29:34
  We'll be right back after the break to talk dollars.
• 29:37
  What has been promised and what is being given?
• 29:40
  Feeling run down, foggy or constantly drained.
• 29:43
  Your body might be lacking the support it needs at the cellular level.
• 29:47
  Recharge from the wellness company is a doctor formulated supplement designed to restore your energy, focus, and immune function.
• 29:54
  It features the first ever combination of methylene blue and urolithin A.
• 29:59
  Clinically
• 30:00
  Studied ingredients that support mitochondrial health, boost cellular repair, and enhance cognitive performance.
• 30:06
  With added NAD3, COQ10 and PQQ, recharge is the daily solution for deep lasting energy, not just a temporary boost.
• 30:17
  Visit TWC.
• 30:21
  And use code Outlout for 20% off your first order.
• 30:24
  Power up your body and mind with recharge.
• 30:27
  Struggling with your health, energy, and constantly feeling hungry, want to save money on the rising cost of groceries and dramatically improve your health.
• 30:35
  Go to Chemicalfree Body.com forward slash out loud today, get nature's super multivitamin, doctor formulated green 85 juice formula, empower your immune system, cut your grocery bill, and save 20% on your first order.
• 30:48
  You wouldn't go a day without brushing your teeth or washing your hands.
• 30:52
  What about washing your nose?
• 30:54
  I mean, your nose does filter the air you breathe, air loaded with bacteria, viruses, and irritants.
• 31:00
  Make nasal hygiene part of your routine with clear.
• 31:03
  No messy bottles to fill, no drowning sensation.
• 31:06
  Clear is a natural drug-free saline with the added benefit of xylitol, which blocks bacterial and viral adhesion.
• 31:13
  Available in stores and online at clear.com.
• 31:16
  That is XLEAR.com.
• 31:18
  Have you been looking for a healthy snack for on the go?
• 31:20
  But all the energy and protein bars are just too sweet and full of sugar preservatives and mystery ingredients.
• 31:25
  Well, not all energy bars are soft and sugary.
• 31:28
  Bear bars are a crunchy savory bar made from just six simple natural ingredients.
• 31:32
  They're plant-based, organic, packed with protein and nutrients, and are low-temp dried for a unique crunch.
• 31:38
  Most energy bars are based on chocolate or fruit and are held together with syrups and sweeteners.
• 31:42
  But bear bars are a delicious combination of veggies, nuts, and seeds.
• 31:45
  They're a perfect fast snack for hikes, workouts, and busy moms and dads.
• 31:49
  To learn more, just visit bearbar.com forward slash out loud and get the exclusive discount just for America Out Loud listeners.
• 31:57
  That's B E A R B A R dot com forward slash out loud.
• 32:03
  Well, did you see Google quietly updated its AI principles removing its pledge not to use AI for weapons or surveillance?
• 32:12
  A promise they agree to in 2018.
• 32:15
  Well, the American people have seen Google's track record.
• 32:18
  Prompt in the question is Google an untrustworthy player in the AI race.
• 32:28
  Now is our time, my fellow.
• 32:32
  America of Mao Dot News, Liberty and Justice for all.
• 32:40
  We are back.
• 32:40
  This is Todd Royal, Tom Harris.
• 32:43
  Okay, Tom, we were talking about the amount of money that's been promised and what's going to be actually delivered.
• 32:50
  I've got a great quote here, you know, we've gone over previously that I want to read for audience and have you respond.
• 32:57
  And also comes from Friends of the Earth.
• 32:59
  And I have some experience with friends of the Earth.
• 33:02
  So a woman said uh Susan or Suzanne Sherbarth of Friends of the Earth Germany says the end of COP30 in Bilem feels like a ship sailing into a storm and throwing away its compass.
• 33:18
  No mention of the long discussed roadmap for phasing out fossil fuels and no progress towards a fair fully finance phase out, a bitterly disappointing result.
• 33:31
  Um let me just say, as someone who's dealt with friends of the earth before, when you look at their reports, they do a lawyer's trick many times.
• 33:39
  Let's say they put out a 23-page report and have like over 200 plus footnotes or references.
• 33:46
  So they're trying to overwhelm you with paperwork to show them.
• 33:50
  And then typically when you go into their reports and begin to look at their sources, many times they'll be non-existent or have nothing to do with what they've actually just said.
• 33:59
  Um they have some very interesting, not all their reports, but they sometimes got some very interesting um use of sources, uh, quite honestly.
• 34:09
  So she says we're not going to finance this.
• 34:13
  So what is how much money was allocated at COP and uh what's allocated, who's gonna pay for this, and give us the the real truth and facts about this, Tom.
• 34:26
  Yeah, well, this lady, Suzanne Sherbach, she's quite right.
• 34:30
  You know, they're sailing into a storm.
• 34:31
  They think it's a storm, it's the supposed increase in extreme weather that isn't happening.
• 34:36
  But regardless, I suppose it is a storm in their eyes.
• 34:39
  And yeah, that's right.
• 34:40
  There's no roadmap, there's there's no compass telling them how they're gonna get out of it.
• 34:44
  Uh, so I understand.
• 34:45
  I mean, if if you you know, it's funny, Todd, how often if you believe there is a climate emergency, then a lot a lot of what these people say actually makes sense.
• 34:55
  If but if there's no climate emergency that way, Tom.
• 34:58
  Say that again.
• 34:59
  I think that's really that's real.
• 35:00
  I've never thought of it that way.
• 35:01
  Well, you know, Al Gore and Suzuki, for example, they'll say things like, you know, the the Paris Agreement is just a first step on a huge journey.
• 35:11
  We have to have like 50 Parises.
• 35:13
  Now, at first you think, no, that's crazy.
• 35:15
  But no, it isn't, it isn't crazy if you assume there's a real climate emergency.
• 35:20
  Because it's true, these agreements have virtually no effect or very little effect on the climate.
• 35:26
  If if you believed that we were causing climate change and it was an emergency.
• 35:30
  So I I you know, I kind of sympathize with these people.
• 35:33
  I have some friends who are climate activists, and they're not stupid people.
• 35:37
  Yeah, they're not stupid people, they have their hearts in the right place, they want to save the earth, like this moonshot.
• 35:42
  So they call it earth shot.
• 35:44
  Okay.
• 35:45
  And this is where Prince William was in Brazil to uh, you know, getting another step forward on the moonshot.
• 35:50
  They're saying that solving the climate crisis is like the moonshot.
• 35:53
  You know, we have to have that level of that level of intensity.
• 35:57
  And and you know, if you believe that there really was a climate emergency, it was an existential threat, then yeah, they would be right.
• 36:04
  We would need something of that magnitude.
• 36:06
  So, but the problem is everything is based on the idea that there is a climate emergency.
• 36:12
  And if you take that as a given, and many of these people like Prince William probably doesn't have much background in science, if they take that as a given, then a lot of what they're doing actually makes sense.
• 36:23
  Some of it doesn't make sense, like giving an out clause to the developing world, but a fair bit of what they're doing does make sense if there is a climate emergency.
• 36:31
  That's why, you know, when conservatives say, no, no, we're gonna argue about whether it's fair.
• 36:36
  Should China not go first if they're the leaders, you know, is it fair?
• 36:41
  Is it no?
• 36:41
  I say no.
• 36:42
  This reminds me of Sally Balunis, who was a Harvard astrophysicist.
• 36:46
  And she said, I'm I'm not even going to get into the debate about what's fair and what the best way to meet these emission targets is.
• 36:54
  I'm not even going to talk about that because you're arguing about angels on the head of a pin.
• 36:58
  The fact is, there's no angels on the head of a pin.
• 37:02
  There's no climate emergency.
• 37:03
  So the whole point of discussing this and arguing about what's fair and who should go first and all that.
• 37:09
  It's kind of pointless because there's no climate emergency, so there's no reason to do it at all.
• 37:15
  You know, so yeah, go ahead.
• 37:18
  No, I was just gonna ask you, because I think it's I love to I love to talk with you because you are uh a learned man who knows this backwards and forwards, and I've learned so much with you over the past year that we've been doing this together.
• 37:31
  I want to I want to bring this down like I I have a saying, Tom that says the macro reveals the micro.
• 37:37
  In this case, I'm gonna reverse and say the micro reveals the macro.
• 37:42
  Let's go to your friends, the micro.
• 37:44
  Yeah.
• 37:45
  I'm sure they're lovely people, you say their hearts in the right place.
• 37:49
  So no matter what you say to them, no matter what what you say to them, and just say, no, I may have a relative coming over for Thanksgiving, and he'll always ask me different issues on energy, and he always wants to argue with me, and I have to go, well, but these are the facts.
• 38:04
  Yeah.
• 38:05
  And and uh I I love my relative.
• 38:08
  He's a learned individual, but they just don't want to hear it.
• 38:12
  And I always go, okay, that's cognitive dissonance.
• 38:14
  But as far as your friends, and these are friends, and I'm sure they've said to you, I'll be your friends.
• 38:19
  My God, Tom, how can you not believe there's not a climate emergency?
• 38:23
  How did they get to this point?
• 38:25
  And why don't they listen to you?
• 38:27
  Well, I think to a large extent they buy into the Western guilt philosophy, that they feel that somehow our wealth is is something we should be ashamed about, and that we should be spreading it all over the world.
• 38:40
  So, you know, they have a vested interest when they investigate these things.
• 38:43
  They want there to be a climate emergency in this case because they want to share the wealth of the West all across the world.
• 38:52
  And many of these people are have no background in science.
• 38:55
  So they look on the science as being complicated, and they say, well, the politicians and the activists and the media are telling us that it's already settled, that greenhouse gases are driving us to a climate emergency.
• 39:05
  So the answer is easy, reduce greenhouse gases.
• 39:08
  So that's passed.
• 39:09
  And they don't look into the depth because they don't have the background to do that, and they're not really interested in that because they've accepted that as a core tenant of their whole philosophy.
• 39:19
  And they have a biased interest in accepting that because of course they want to see a transfer of wealth from the west to the east.
• 39:26
  And and so I think what what happens is they don't dig into that issue at all.
• 39:31
  I mean, even Ian Clark, who was who's a professor at Ottawa University, he's very much on our side.
• 39:36
  We've had him as a guest.
• 39:37
  Ian Clark had not investigated the depths of the climate scare.
• 39:42
  In fact, he hadn't looked at very seriously the causes of climate change.
• 39:46
  He always he always looked at the impacts.
• 39:48
  Okay, that was his special main specialty.
• 39:51
  And and so he actually taught students in the university that there was a climate emergency, and we had to do all these things.
• 39:58
  But then one day he turned around and
• 40:00
  Said to himself, well, you know, as an academic, I think I have to be, you know, looking into this more seriously before I tell the students this.
• 40:08
  Is there really a climate emergency?
• 40:10
  So he dug into it himself.
• 40:11
  He looked at the original papers, and he realized that the science was not there.
• 40:16
  It simply wasn't there.
• 40:18
  And there was very good science on the other side, like Jan Weiser, who looks at the impact of the sun on climate change, that indicated that we were a minor contributor to climate change.
• 40:28
  The nature massively overwhelms us.
• 40:31
  So now Ian Clark is actually on our scientific advisory board, and he totally agrees with us that there's no climate emergency.
• 40:37
  So even very smart people who could look at the science.
• 40:40
  My uncle was the uh chairman of civil engineering at McGill, and he thought there was a climate emergency until I got him to sort of dig into it a little bit.
• 40:49
  And then he started to say, ah, uh, this doesn't really add up.
• 40:53
  So I think what happens is you get people whose specialty is not causes of climate change, but impact of climate change, or their specialty is the economics or the politics or the policy or the energy.
• 41:04
  These are all things that are their specialty, not the causes.
• 41:08
  So even though all those things, the energy, the politics, and and all that is all based on the science.
• 41:14
  I mean, it's based on the idea that there is a climate emergency, they don't go back to first principles and say, but is there really a climate emergency?
• 41:22
  They're busy working on the second level items, yeah, you know, the energy.
• 41:27
  How do we reduce greenhouse gases?
• 41:28
  You know, what should we do to prepare for warming?
• 41:31
  They don't actually go back to the science because it's not their field.
• 41:34
  So you have this massive group of people, many of whom are very intelligent, but you know, have a bit of a soft spot for the Marxist ideals of sharing with the poor, which to you know, to a certain extent I do as well.
• 41:46
  But but regardless, I think what's the trouble here is that they're just accepting the politically correct point of view, and they're working on the next step.
• 41:55
  They don't actually go back and look at the underlying science.
• 41:59
  And you know, when you're to answer your question, when I talk to my friends, and one of them, you know, very left-wing, but he's a great guy, he's a good guitarist, and I play with him, and we actually have you know some nice interactions.
• 42:10
  But the thing is, he's not looking at the original science.
• 42:13
  And when I bring it up with them, I say, well, you realize that last year, 2024, there was not a single extreme weather record set on a statewide basis across the whole US, and that the records are based largely on, well, in the 1930s is when they set most of the records, and they still stand today.
• 42:31
  And he says, no, no, that can't be true.
• 42:34
  So I send him the database, and he says, Oh, so you see, I think that what happens is that these people are convincible, they're not stupid or evil, they just haven't dug into the basic underlying science or data themselves.
• 42:49
  They're assuming it's right because everybody says it, okay.
• 42:52
  Oh and so they they move from there.
• 42:56
  They don't take the step previous and say, okay, is there really a COVID emergency?
• 43:01
  Is there really a climate emergency?
• 43:03
  You know, they're not actually going back.
• 43:05
  You know, lots of people supported um masking and vaccines and all sorts of all sorts of things, and they became experts on that.
• 43:13
  But very few of them would actually take a step back and say, yeah, but is this really a pandemic?
• 43:19
  You know, like uh and that's where I think, you know, going back to first principles, you we really have to encourage people to do that.
• 43:26
  I mean, I used to think there was a climate emergency, and I would talk about you know how Earth could become like Venus if we weren't careful.
• 43:32
  And I was turned around by a local professor who doesn't want me to use his name because of course they get into a lot of trouble in their academic environment when um they're they're determined as the you know the source of Harris's skepticism.
• 43:46
  So I don't mention his name anymore, but the fact is he got me into his lab and he said, you know, you're right that Venus has these issues, but it's CO2 is only part of the equation, and what happened on Venus physically cannot happen on the earth.
• 44:03
  It cannot, it's impossible.
• 44:05
  It's not a matter of, oh, if you increase CO2 enough, you're gonna get a runaway green.
• 44:09
  No, it's not even possible physically.
• 44:11
  And the reason is because there's oceans on earth that absorb the CO2, and the bottom of the ocean is uh is affected by plate tectonics.
• 44:19
  So as the ocean bottom, as the you know, it takes in the CO2 and makes limestone and stuff when all those creatures decompose.
• 44:27
  The but the plate tectonics pull that down into the earth, into the mantle, and it's replenished with new surface of the ocean, which can then absorb more CO2.
• 44:38
  So this process prevents the CO2 in the atmosphere just from rising continuously.
• 44:44
  Uh, and Venus doesn't have oceans or plate tectonics, as far as we know.
• 44:48
  So this replenishment process, which acts as a sink, pulling in CO2 from the atmosphere all the time, keeps Earth's CO2 at a, as they call it, a trace gas.
• 44:59
  So he showed me, well, you know, what happened on Venus physically cannot happen on the earth.
• 45:05
  Here's why.
• 45:06
  And he told me.
• 45:07
  So I then happily, at least for me, it's good for my psyche.
• 45:12
  I actually was open-minded to it and thought, oh, uh, maybe this is all wrong.
• 45:18
  And it turns out it is, you know, and it's not because I'm a right winger or anything like that, because of course I'm left, right, center, it depends on the issue.
• 45:25
  But it just opened my eyes that something I that I had assumed and taken as a given, from which I then did my activism and my activities, that assumption was wrong.
• 45:37
  So I think what's happened, Todd, is that these people are good hearted, generally speaking, and some are not, some are not.
• 45:43
  Some want to bring down the West, you know, evil capitalists, et cetera.
• 45:47
  But I think I think most of them uh have a good heart, they just haven't taken the time to take a step back and question the politically correct point of view on the science.
• 45:57
  And you know, it's hard to do, okay?
• 45:59
  It's much easier to just go with the flow.
• 46:01
  When you start, yeah, when you start questioning underlying um themes in society, yeah, you you end up sometimes concluding that they're we're going the wrong way, and it's not comfortable.
• 46:13
  It's much easier to go to a party and say, oh, stop climate change, Trump, blah, blah, blah.
• 46:18
  Yeah.
• 46:18
  So that's what happens is they just haven't taken that step back and said, is this is this really true?
• 46:24
  Is this real true?
• 46:25
  I think I've always wondered too, and it's and I've really become educated this even before you and I began doing this together, was the past couple of years, and I as I had to delve into it deeper with my with my former position um in the nuclear power industry to really look at CO2 and to go, okay.
• 46:43
  Wait a minute, I breathe CO2 out.
• 46:45
  CO2 is used to we know the earth is greening, we have NASA satellites, but we uh, you know, it's always used the NASA satellites is always used in the argument, but uh Russia, China, and other people have satellites as well.
• 46:59
  Elon Musk, I mean all sorts of people have a satellite that I can take images of the earth.
• 47:04
  But what is always puzzled me, and I'm curious your thoughts, like you're let's say you're going back to your friends.
• 47:09
  How can you think a trace gas in the universe?
• 47:13
  I think there is not even 0.5% in the universe in or within our within the earth's climate, yeah, there is not even one percent of CO2.
• 47:26
  So how can less than one percent of something completely change the entire climate and temperatures of the Earth's atmosphere?
• 47:36
  It's like when I I went down that path too, and I went, that doesn't even make sense.
• 47:40
  And then If I were to ask them, hey, I'm just curious, how does that work?
• 47:46
  And it just didn't seem to even have common sense or doesn't seem to go with math, doesn't seem to go with any kind of liquid experiment that I would do.
• 47:57
  I mean, I get it, people say, well, gas is different, liquid.
• 47:59
  Sure, but something that's not even one percent.
• 48:03
  Yeah, that's yeah, and but they would everything.
• 48:06
  Yeah, but you see, a lot of people would hate your guts for even asking that question.
• 48:11
  I mean, you know, because what it does is it questions almost a religious belief that CO2 is driving us to a climate emergency.
• 48:19
  And and I think that, you know, I've gone to Greenpeace and other debates, and I've said to them, look, if you folks really care about the environment, the last thing you should do is bring in wind and solar power.
• 48:30
  But you know, they've become wind and solar power affectionados.
• 48:34
  I mean, they they are just dedicated to this cause.
• 48:37
  They're gonna bring out wind and solar and they're gonna solve the climate crisis.
• 48:40
  I mean, and and I look around, I say, well, do these people not know the very first thing about the topic?
• 48:47
  And and the answer is yes, they've jumped to step number five and say, given that wind and solar power are great to stop climate change, given that there is a climate emergency, what should we do?
• 48:57
  So they look at step number five, and that's where they start, you know.
• 49:01
  Um, and and if you bring up the points that you're bringing up, they're so simple, they're so obvious to someone who really has critical thinking that this destroys their argument.
• 49:10
  They look on you as the enemy.
• 49:12
  I mean, they really do.
• 49:13
  And and I had people at meetings shaking their fist at me saying, Go home, you know, get the hell out of here, because you're questioning the fundamentals of their religion, which is is sadly what this has become.
• 49:25
  Well, and it's you know, I mean, we've we've spoken, I mean, I'm a religious man, and as I've said, I believe in Jesus Christ, God, the Holy Trinity, et cetera.
• 49:34
  You know, the inerrancy of the Bible, all of it.
• 49:37
  The dangerous part of any human being, I'd always say is your ideology.
• 49:40
  Yeah.
• 49:41
  You know, what is your core beliefs?
• 49:44
  What's fascinating about these folks, and I shared with you previously and tell our audience, I'd lived in Los Angeles for 26 years.
• 49:52
  So that's one of the most frankly, it's turning kind of you know, socialists, Marxists, hardcore left-wing democratic.
• 50:00
  Democratic Party, environmental environmentalism.
• 50:02
  And I had some of the most lovely people you would ever meet that would have belief systems that would just be yeah, the same thing.
• 50:10
  And I remember I would kind of get in debates with folks, and then I stopped doing it because I said, I'm ruining the friendship.
• 50:16
  Yeah, for sure.
• 50:17
  Do I want to be right or do I want to be happy?
• 50:19
  That old adage it goes good with marriage and it goes good with friendships.
• 50:23
  Yeah.
• 50:24
  And once all these friends knew I went to graduate school and got a master's of public policy, they they stopped debating me.
• 50:31
  You know, they stopped kind of needling me.
• 50:33
  They thought, oh, Todd was smart.
• 50:35
  And I was like, no, Todd's just tired right now and has read a lot of books.
• 50:39
  I it is a thing, and as much as I advocate religious beliefs and what it can do for society, that ideology, that religion, and you become this this religion of Nazism, religion of uh fundamentalism, religion of environmentalism, it seems that this environmentalism or this worship of Mother Earth, this idea, uh, you know, tear down dams so the the river can go back to the way it was, and etc.
• 51:11
  All these these notions, the sun and the wind.
• 51:15
  Tom, it just seems like it's it's such a radical ideology that overtakes people that they can't even see straight.
• 51:23
  They can't they can't listen to Tom Harris and his decades of experience and his understanding to even hear, because I have an ideology that you're gonna tear down my entire belief system.
• 51:36
  Yeah, yeah.
• 51:37
  I think that when you have that ideology and it's so you know, it's so impregnated into your very being.
• 51:44
  Okay, if you if people bring up if people bring up things that show that maybe that ideology doesn't make sense, you're very threatening to them, you know.
• 51:52
  So they so the main thing they want to do is shut you up.
• 51:55
  And and of course, that's what we saw in the cop conference.
• 51:57
  So the first for the very first time, this is a very long topic, so we won't won't really be able to finish it this week.
• 52:03
  But but for the first time, they decided that they had to censor us, they had to stop us from being heard, people who disagree with the foundation of the climate scare.
• 52:13
  And they brought in this declaration, you know.
• 52:15
  I'll just look up the title of it because I think it it's like really really important.
• 52:19
  It's called the Declaration on Inf Information Integrity.
• 52:24
  Okay.
• 52:24
  And and the bottom line is I asked Copilot, can you write me 500 words on its weaknesses?
• 52:29
  And there, and you know, even Copilot, which is very much in favor of all the UN stuff.
• 52:34
  This is the AI AI from Microsoft.
• 52:36
  It really said that the risk here is that by trying to regulate the message, it's not the people speaking truth to power, it's power speaking truth to the people.
• 52:47
  Okay, that the power is deciding what is true in science, which of course is a bit of an oxymoron, but regardless, yeah, the people are being told by the authority what is true in science.
• 53:00
  And if you disagree, they'll gonna they're gonna censor you out.
• 53:04
  So, you know, I think that this is the kind of reaction you typically get from people who are completely dogmatic about a point of view, is that when you bring up things that basically show that maybe their point of view doesn't make sense in some ways, they treat you as the enemy, they want you to shut shut up, shut up, shut up.
• 53:23
  It there isn't this kind of openness to decide or to to welcome alternative points of view, because yeah, maybe it'll change their their their dogma.
• 53:31
  No, their dogma is fixed.
• 53:32
  And it's just like Zig Ziggler.
• 53:34
  You remember the motivational speaker?
• 53:35
  Yeah, yeah, yeah.
• 53:37
  I love Zig, he was wonderful.
• 53:38
  In fact, I met him here in Ottawa.
• 53:40
  He gave a presentation in Ottawa, and I talked to him after the after the presentation, he's an amazing character.
• 53:46
  He said he got to the age of 60, I guess it was, and he was sick and tired of being sick and tired.
• 53:51
  And so he became like an exercise uh guru and became a very, very, very healthy man.
• 53:57
  And even though he was about 80 when I saw him speak, he had dynamic, he was all over the stage.
• 54:02
  He was really exciting.
• 54:03
  But he said, you know, the real problem in the world isn't that people don't know things or that they are ignorant of reality.
• 54:10
  He said that yeah, that's a problem.
• 54:12
  But he said the real problem is that they're fixed, they won't even consider alternative points of view.
• 54:18
  And his saying that I thought was so appropriate was that he said, Well, you know, most people's minds are like concrete, all mixed up and permanently set.
• 54:28
  And so that's so so that's the trouble.
• 54:30
  You go into a green peace meeting or even a city council meeting, and these people have accepted as dogma something that cannot be questioned, from which they then make policies and agreements and and pump in this case, uh one point, let's see, get the number here.
• 54:47
  I think it's 1.3 trillion, they're talking about.
• 54:49
  Yeah, it's 1.3 trillion they want to be spent on this climate initiative.
• 54:54
  So they'll talk to you about, oh, is that enough?
• 54:56
  You know, they'll talk to you about who should who should get it, who should pay for it.
• 55:00
  They'll talk about all those details, but whether it's even needed in the first place.
• 55:05
  No, no, no.
• 55:05
  That's that that's past.
• 55:07
  That's dogma, that's already established.
• 55:09
  We're not gonna talk about it.
• 55:10
  So not surprisingly, now the UN is trying to shut us all up because we're questioning the foundation.
• 55:16
  Listen, I would love to know.
• 55:18
  Okay, if you if you got all the money you needed, tell me exactly how you're going to meet that 1.5 Celsius threshold, and tell me even how you came up with that 1.5.
• 55:32
  Tell me how you came up with it, because we we know again, I've said this a million times, and here's a million one.
• 55:39
  Whether you believe in evolution or you believe in creation.
• 55:42
  So that that you know, whether you're an atheist or you know, a hardcore Christian.
• 55:47
  We know it's been hotter, we know it's been colder, and we know there's been more particulate matter in the air all before fossil fuels ever arrived.
• 55:56
  We we we know this.
• 55:58
  So I'm always curious, Tom, to go, okay, guys, here's 10 quadrillion dollars.
• 56:05
  Yeah, show me show me the budget and show me how that's gonna keep keep the temperature at 1.5 degrees Celsius based on every single solitary factor.
• 56:15
  Yeah, well, the trouble is you're asking foundational questions, you know, you're asking is it indirectly, and we have to end the show, unfortunately, but you're asking questions and that they don't want to touch because they're taking as a given that if they reduce CO2 enough, it's gonna affect climate.
• 56:33
  And and so now they're just arguing about who's gonna pay for it.
• 56:36
  So, you know, Todd, uh, we've got to continue this in another episode.
• 56:39
  We have to.
• 56:40
  I'd love to continue this because it's a really complicated topic, and it's also but it's super important.
• 56:44
  Um, you know, when they talk about 1.3 trillion, what are they really trying to accomplish?
• 56:49
  You know, like that.
• 56:50
  Why don't we leave that question up in the air because unfortunately we're out of time.
• 56:55
  So tune in in a future week, and we'll get into this in more depth.
• 57:00
  Yeah, so this is Tom Harrison, my co-host Todd Royal.
• 57:03
  We're signing out from the other side of the story.