Latest / UK Column Radio / Discussing ‘Climate, The Movie’ with Tom Nelson

Transcript

Discussing ‘Climate, The Movie’ with Tom Nelson · UK Column Radio

0:18
Hello, a Welcome to the UK column Today. I'm joined by Tom Nelson,
0:22
who is or has been the producer of Climate the movie, and Tom,
0:27
welcome to the program. You're a podcaster and of course normally doing the
0:32
interviewing, so I'm just gonna say, excuse me if the questions aren't quite
0:38
what you're used to, but anyway, welcome to the program. Tell us
0:42
a little bit about yourself first of all, and if I was to say,
0:45
Ivory build woodpecker, maybe that might be a place to start. Yeah,
0:49
thanks for having me on. Yeah. I was just kind of a
0:52
normal person, not involved in any scientific debate as of two thousand and five.
0:56
But then this I Rebuild Woodpecker thing happened where there was a peer review
1:00
was seventeen authors saying that Cornell had rediscovered this extinct woodpecker. So I dug
1:06
into it, and right away I found out that that was a total crock,
1:08
that they didn't actually rediscover it, but it got enormous amounts of publicity,
1:12
and on my blog I started tearing apart the data that supported it,
1:18
and a lot of other people joined into and we kind of ripped that one
1:21
apart. But within about a year After that, some guy wrote to me
1:25
and said, you know, this whole climate debate is very similar to the
1:27
Ivory Build debate that if you dig into it for yourself, you'll find out
1:30
that the evidence does not support what they're saying. So that kind of kicked
1:34
off my whole interest in this. And since about two thousand and six,
1:38
I've been reading up on the climate debate and participating in it for hours most
1:42
days, I ever since then. Yes, and so you've set up you've
1:46
got a substock, and you've set up a YouTube channel, and you've been
1:49
interviewing people for quite a long time on that. I mean, you've got
1:52
lots of interviews on there, including of course the interview with David Segel.
1:56
And we spoke to David Segel a couple of weeks ago ourselves, and he's
2:00
in fact running a climate science course for some of our members at the moment.
2:04
So that and you're still on YouTube somehow. Yeah, I'm still on
2:08
YouTube. They haven't taken anything down. It took one thing down because Steve
2:14
molloy said the wrong thing about the twenty twenty election, but then they put
2:17
it back up because they changed their rules. But I'm kind of impressed that.
2:22
I think the Google doesn't want people to watch climate realist videos, but
2:25
at least they're not taking them down, so that's good. Yes. So
2:29
anyway, more recently then, you've got involved in the production of this documentary,
2:34
Climate the Movie, and it is a fantastic piece of work. I
2:38
have to say, so well done on that. But how did that come
2:40
about and how did you There are a couple of people on that. I
2:45
was a little bit surprised we're prepared to engage on this topic. We'll maybe
2:50
come on to why I was surprised about that little later, but nonetheless,
2:53
how did that come about it? And how long did it take? Yeah?
2:55
I started doing the podcast in July of twenty two, and one of
3:00
my first guests was Martin Durkin. I was a huge fan of him because
3:04
I loved his Great Global Warming Swindle documentary he did back in two thousand and
3:07
seven. I think that held up really well. So on my podcast in
3:10
October of twenty two, Martin Durkin said, you know, I'd really like
3:14
to remake The Great Global Warming Swindle, knowing what I know now, and
3:16
that sort of kicked things off. I started working with him and in a
3:21
few months he actually started making the movie, and it took about one full
3:24
year for the movie to come out. But I give him all the credit
3:27
in the world because he decided who to interview, and he wrote the script,
3:31
he did the narration, and he's just the right person to make this
3:36
movie at the right time. I'm really happy with how it turned out.
3:38
And so that's available for anybody to watch in various places including YouTube. And
3:44
so how did you fund that? We just had private funding and it didn't
3:47
really cost very much because there's a lot of volunteers and working on it.
3:52
We had to pay some costs to send a team to Kenya to do some
3:55
filming over there, but overall, it really didn't cost that much. Martin
4:00
re used a lot of old footage from like the Romans raising their chariots,
4:03
and all sorts of old dinosaur footage and stuff. I think you did a
4:06
really good job of keeping it interesting. Yes, no, looking out the
4:11
back window behind me here you can see how warm it is in Plymouth at
4:14
the moment, So clearly we're not experiencing much in the way of global warming
4:16
at this point in time. But you know, the film goes through many
4:24
of the all of the areas that are really of importance. CO two and
4:29
its influence on temperature, the political aspects, the energy aspects, and so
4:33
on. It's all packaged up in one place, and which I think is
4:40
fantastic effort. Now the question is what kind of response have you had then
4:44
to that so far, not just from people that are would be normally expected
4:49
to be supportive of the message. Yeah, we're really happy, very happy
4:55
with how the whole rollout has gone. We're getting millions of views and all
4:59
sorts of people have downloaded full copies of the movie and clips from the movie,
5:02
and then they've re uploaded those to their YouTube channels and to rumble into
5:08
x and kind of all over the place. So there are clips and full
5:11
copies of the movie everywhere already, and more and more of that is happening.
5:15
One other thing on the side is that they Clint Tell people over in
5:18
the Netherlands have done a great job of doing translations or making subtitles for the
5:23
movie. They just hit the twenty language mark already and they've been putting up
5:27
all these different subtitles on their YouTube channel and they have ten more languages in
5:32
the hopper that they're working on and Indonesian languages and Asian and it's really getting
5:38
a great world wide to roll out. So I could not be more happy
5:41
with how it has gone. People like you say, on our side think
5:45
it's a great reference as to what arguments you can use against alarmists. And
5:49
then there have been a few small attempts to debunk it, but not very
5:53
many from the other side. And if you go to my sub stack you
5:56
can see that there's been attempt at debunkings, and then people on our side
6:00
have debunked those debunkings, and so it's a really healthy thing. I think
6:03
that people are just arguing in detail out about each piece of this evidence.
6:09
I think that's what we need to do. If we just believe the experts
6:12
and say, okay, there must be a climate crisis because the experts say
6:15
there is, that's not the way to go. And if you look into
6:17
it for yourself, you find it right away that anything alarming they're telling you
6:20
is a lie. There's nothing at all alarming happening in the weather or climate
6:25
that wasn't also happening a thousand years ago, well precisely. So it's going
6:30
to be interesting to see how this how this goes, because as you've said,
6:34
or as you've alluded to, there is a whole army of debunkers out
6:39
there that are that are basically have set up YouTube channels and entire careers based
6:43
on debunking what they see as being conspiracy theory or anything really which is kind
6:48
of narrative. And so far you haven't seen too much response from this group
6:55
yet, and they'll just be interested to see how that develops. Yeah,
6:58
it's interesting. We expected to see some attempt at debunkings from like the New
7:02
York Times or Washington Posts or the mainstream media, and they've been just strangely
7:06
silent on this whole thing. I'm surprised so far, and maybe something's coming
7:11
or maybe it's not, but we're getting more debunkings attempted debunkings from people you
7:15
maybe you've never heard of before. But a lot of the pushback is that,
7:18
oh, the people in the movie are too old, or they're we
7:24
don't like the color of their skin or something. It's just totally trivial stuff
7:28
that makes no sense. They're not really engaging at all with the meat of
7:31
the arguments because they really can't. You really can't if you look at the
7:35
data, you can't argue that hurricanes are worse than they used to be,
7:38
or fires are or any of that stuff. Tony Heller does a really good
7:42
job of pointing out in the data everywhere, if you go down any rabbit
7:46
hole you want, you cannot find that the weather is getting worse or the
7:48
climate is getting worse, because it just isn't. There's this whole deal where
7:54
like maybe in the US we're supposed to think that heat waves are getting worse,
7:58
but if you look even here in minute so to where I'm from,
8:01
the temperature hit one hundred degrees fahrenheit thirty eight times in the thirties and the
8:07
forties, and then since nineteen eighty eight it's done it maybe ten times to
8:09
total. So the whole idea that things the Earth is getting way hotter and
8:13
the temperatures are way more unbearable now it just is not supported by the data,
8:18
right, And this is part of the problem of perhaps this is part
8:20
of the reason that it's so easy for governments and angos and scientists that are
8:26
involved in this industry to persuade people that there is actually an issue. Is
8:31
because of course we're talking about climate here, and so we're talking about hundreds,
8:37
thousands, tens of thousands, millions of years we need to be looking
8:41
at, whereas most people are only looking in terms of their own lifetimes,
8:45
and they won't remember what happened in the nineteen thirties. There aren't very many
8:48
people left on the planet to remember what happened in the nineteen thirties. And
8:52
so since most people are born post war and have gone through this cold period
9:01
in the nineteen seventies in particular, then it's props easy to sell the narrative
9:05
that world is warming up. Yeah, that that's a great point. I'm
9:07
old enough to remember the nineteen seventies myself, and it really was cold in
9:11
the nineteen seventies. And my dad's old enough still to remember the dust Bowl
9:16
here in the US in the thirties. He was a little kid when that
9:18
happened, and he, yeah, he said it was really hot and it
9:22
was very dusty, even in Minnesota. But yeah, this whole perspective of
9:24
if it's warmer since nineteen seventy five, then we have to panic. That's
9:28
just not how it works. People on my podcast, I've had over two
9:33
hundred people on my podcast and they're constantly giving a perspective of long cycles,
9:37
and climate is so complicated that there's all sorts of different cycles. There's like
9:41
Decato cycles and century long ones and much longer cycles, and it's very complicated
9:48
to try to figure out what's going to happen next. But just that's the
9:50
way it's been. Even since humans have been on Earth, We've seen a
9:54
lot of really warm times and a lot of cold times, and the warm
9:56
times have always been better for life on Earth. Times have been known as
10:01
optimums for a reason because it's a lot better or humans and other life when
10:05
it's Warmerdiza, I mean, what's your thoughts on what's coming over the next
10:09
few decades? Are we looking at things? I mean, some people are
10:11
saying that we're looking at things actually cooling done even further in the next few
10:16
decades. Do you have any sort of insight into what you think is likely
10:22
to come next. I think that's a great question, and I've interviewed all
10:26
these experts, I've listened to what they've said, and my conclusion is that
10:28
Earth's climate is so complicated that nobody understands it well enough to predict what's going
10:33
to happen next. So it could get warmer, it could get colder.
10:35
But I do think if you live long enough, any people who are listening
10:39
that live until twenty one hundred, it's extremely likely that at some point you're
10:43
going to see cooling and warming. And that's just the way it's always gone
10:46
in human history. The whole idea that it's going to just keep warming monotonically
10:50
from here at twenty one hundred, I would bet huge money that that doesn't
10:52
happen. It's just colder, warmer, colder. It just keeps happening and
10:58
unpredictable when it's going to happen. Yes. So the next thing I'd like
11:03
to sort of touch on with you is the censorship side of things, and
11:07
see get some thoughts on you about this, because I'm not just talking about
11:11
the censorship of the likes of your work on social media platforms and the Internet
11:16
and so on, but actually the silencing of academics because one of the things
11:20
that was clear over the COVID period and so on was that the doctors that
11:26
were coming out and talking against the government's COVID narrative, we're finding themselves being
11:31
deplatformed, yes, but also removed from post or being attacked by the medical
11:39
or academic establishment in some way. The same kind of thing happens with climate
11:45
scientists. They're silenced by their institutions, or they lose their jobs, or
11:48
they certainly lose their research funding. I'd like to get some thoughts from you
11:54
on that and what we might do about that. Yeah. I mean,
11:56
that is a great point that you made there, and that is that's woken
12:01
so many people up. That they went through COVID maybe four or five years
12:03
ago. They tended to believe what the mainstream media said, and if the
12:09
doctors didn't conform with the mainstream, they must be wrong, and maybe we
12:11
should silence them. But I think the elites went for the great reset here
12:16
and what they got was a great awakening. I'm talking to all sorts of
12:20
people now who have figured out that they lied to us over and over with
12:24
COVID, and they're saying, what else are they lying to us about?
12:26
And now they're looking at climate. I talk to a lot of people who
12:30
went through that very thing. They're looking at climate now they're finding out that,
12:33
of course they're just lying to us every day over and over on climate.
12:37
So I think the whole COVID thing. It was just horrible, but
12:41
it did some good in the long run, and that people are asking the
12:43
right questions. And I'm watching this whole climate crisis narrative crumble right around us
12:50
as we speak. It's definitely going down and it makes me very happy to
12:54
see that the lies are not standing up now like they were five years ago.
12:58
Okay, so you are actually quite thimistic about that, which is very
13:01
encouraging. And do you see that as being something which is limited to particular
13:07
generation or is it right across the age ridge. I think it is across
13:11
the age range. Yeah, I do think it is. It is much
13:15
harder to fool older people with this whole climate crisis thing because they've lived long
13:18
enough to see so many other narratives be proven wrong. So I think if
13:22
you're twenty years old and you've never seen bad weather in your neighborhood, it
13:26
is easier for you to believe this stuff. But I think even the young
13:28
people are realizing that there were so many lives told to us during COVID et
13:33
cetera. And I should go back and mention that in the movie, Ross
13:35
mcittrick does a good job of talking about how you kind of you get canceled
13:41
in the academic world. In the scientific world, if your views didn't match
13:45
up with a narrative that you could lose your job, your papers wouldn't get
13:48
published, and they would kind of throw you off to the side. And
13:52
then they would say, hey, we've got a consensus because we throw out
13:54
everybody who didn't agree, and so that the people who are left agree and
13:58
we must be right because look, we have a concent So I think Ross
14:01
Mcritric laid that up very well. But I think that whole thing is starting
14:03
to crumble, and it has to. Science is self correcting, and there
14:07
is no science at all that supports the whole idea that CO two is the
14:11
climate control. Now the weather's getting worse, there's a climate crisis. There's
14:13
no science at all that supports that. So the whole thing has to crumble,
14:18
and it is crumbling right now. Well, the science is self correcting,
14:22
but of course, if we look historically, science often hasn't self corrected
14:26
until after the scientists are dead, in which case it becomes a kind of
14:31
a travesty or a tragedy for them as individuals. But also because we're looking
14:35
at political policy driving this agenda, and there is a danger that if it
14:43
takes thirty forty fifty years for the science to right itself, actually a lot
14:48
of damage is going to be done in the meantime. One hundred percent agree
14:52
with that, and I do agree that the movie that we put out here,
14:56
we're not trying to convince Michael Mann and Catherine Hayho and politicians who have
15:01
gone all in on it. I think they're going to cling to this thing
15:03
forever because it's way too painful to admit that they were wrong. And I
15:05
think a lot of these scientists, because of group think, they're pushing this
15:09
crisis narrative. They actually believe it. They actually haven't whatever, they haven't
15:13
checked into it for themselves, and they're delusional enough to believe it, and
15:18
I think they're going to continue to believe it. But I think the general
15:20
public, who they're not haven't gone all in on it. They're willing to
15:24
listen. And I would like to say even in the past, I believed
15:26
in the narrative. I like, twenty years ago, I believed in this
15:30
narrative. I didn't ever climate March, but I thought that CO two was
15:33
causing the climate to get too warm. I hate to admit that actually,
15:37
but a lot of people are like me Anthony Watt, Tony Heller, who
15:41
are strongly on the correct side now they did believe in the past. That
15:46
makes me think that people are persuadable, and if people just think for themselves
15:50
and look at do any sanity checking at all, they're going to join us
15:54
on the correct side and get on the right side of the science. Right.
15:58
So the reason I asked about the age issue of whether this is something
16:02
that goes right across the age ridge, of course, is that younger generations
16:07
have been subject to propagandization within schools, and it's a really sad situation that
16:14
schools are propagandizing children in that way, but they have been subject to that.
16:18
So I was just interested in what your feedback is on the long term
16:22
effect of that. Yeah. By the way, I do think that parents,
16:26
when they find out that this is being pushed on their innocent kids at
16:30
school, I think you should take time out of your day and fight back
16:33
hard, and that I actually did that in my case. A few years
16:34
ago in our local high school, I found out that there was a warmist
16:38
that was going to come in and talk about all this be as about climate.
16:42
So I actually asked for equal time, and I pushed that. I
16:48
thought they can hear one side and they can hear my side, and the
16:49
eventual result of the whole thing is that they didn't hear from either side,
16:53
which I thought was fine. But I don't think we should just sit back
16:56
and let people push this crazy prop AGAINDA on kids. I think it's straight
17:02
up evil that they push this on kids, and kids can't sleep at night
17:04
because they think that whatever, they're not going to have a future. They're
17:07
not going to study because CO two is going to do something bad to their
17:11
future. That's straight up evil and we have to take time and push back
17:15
hard against it. But I do think that this just can't last much longer.
17:21
Like you say, there's a lot of horrible stuff can happen in the
17:23
meantime. But I do think politicians in general are just going to stop talking
17:27
about it. I don't think they're going to come out and say, hey,
17:30
we were wrong. Sorry. I think we're just going to suddenly notice,
17:33
hey, they're not talking about it anymore. I think that's how this
17:36
is going to play out. Mostly. Okay, that's that's an interesting take.
17:40
I hope that's correct. And of course the reason I'm sort of asking
17:44
these questions is because one of the points that's made very clearly in the film
17:48
is just, you know, just gives an impression of the scale of the
17:52
industry. You know, we've got academics, we good scientists, we've got
17:57
all the corporations that are not producing product in form of wind farms and punnels
18:06
and so on, the whole host of the whole industry based on this SNY.
18:11
And of course at Coup twenty eight we had the whole g fund's financial
18:15
side of it starting to creep in as well. We've had the statements from
18:18
the likes of Mark Karney about everybody being bankrupted if they don't get on board
18:25
with this agenda. That seems like a very big juggernaut heading towards everybody.
18:32
It might be hard to get that stopped or at least diverted. Yeah,
18:36
I think it's true. I mean I often say on Twitter that this is
18:38
the most massive scientific fraud in human history, and people are correcting me and
18:42
saying, maybe it's the most massive overall fraud in human history. So the
18:47
scale here is absolutely it's trillions of dollars. It's not even billions, it's
18:51
trillions of dollars. So yeah, the whole idea that this is going to
18:53
get stopped does sound like a big deal, but the whole thing is so
18:57
stupid with no scientific backing at all, and then it's so destructive to ordinary
19:03
people like the farmers in the Netherlands. They're not just going to sit there
19:07
and let people shut them down because their their cows fart too much or whatever.
19:11
So I think there's going to just be enormous amounts of pushback amongst the
19:15
real people, because this whole thing is an attack on real people with real
19:18
jobs. Actually the elites are attacking. They want our money and they want
19:22
our power, and people are not going to just sit and take it,
19:26
which makes me happy. The whole the protests against the alleged elites are making
19:30
me very happy. I think we're going to see way more of that as
19:33
they try to shove this down our throats. Yes, and another part of
19:37
it. In the film, they're absolutely making the point that we are effectively
19:45
in an iceage depending on your definition, course, but the definition they're suggesting
19:48
is that you know, an ice age is any time where you could have
19:55
ice at the polls, it could be ice anywhere on the planet. I
19:57
suppose maybe that's summarized that very well. But of course the Arctic is increasingly
20:04
becoming a key area geopolitically, and it's amazing to me how the climate change
20:11
agenda is being wrapped into this geopolitical aspect as well. So, for example,
20:17
the British Government's just published a press release a few minutes ago, which
20:21
I'm going to talk about on our news program tomorrow, talking about the Arctic
20:26
warming four times faster than the rest of the planet and a number of wildfires
20:30
in the region has more than triple since twenty eighteen. This is their words.
20:33
I'm not standing by these in any way. These changes are felt most
20:37
deeply by people in the region, but they also affect the UK's weather,
20:41
natural environment and resilience. But they say melting sea ice will also make it
20:44
possible for a wider range of actors to access the region, which has the
20:48
potential to increase tensions. And of course this leads in very nicely as far
20:53
as they're concerned, into the whole Russia China narrative, And so suddenly the
20:59
Arctic comes a key area for geopolitically, it's amazing how they try to weave
21:04
these policy areas together. Yeah, so they try on all these fronts to
21:10
try to fool us, but it's so easy to debunk this stuff, like
21:14
the whole idea that maybe there was a surgeon fire since twenty eighteen, but
21:18
the whole idea that trace CO two caused a tripling of fires over six years
21:22
or something that just is so stupid. It's amazing that people believe in that.
21:26
And of course they tried to sell this whole idea that CO two is
21:30
bad for polar bears, but we can point out that, for sure,
21:33
we don't know how many polar bears are out there, but for sure there's
21:36
way more of them now than there was during the nineteen seventies global cooling scare.
21:41
The whole idea that CO two is the polar bear control knob is completely
21:44
crazy. I enjoy the Arctic Sea ice thing because they desperately try to just
21:48
cherry pick the correct start date, and if you pick the other dates,
21:52
it doesn't support what they're saying. And I love the fact that they are
21:56
trying to tell us that Alaska is the fastest warming place on Earth, and
22:00
there's this Nanana Sea ice thing, I'm sorry, the Nanana River ice contest
22:04
that's been going on for over one hundred years. I don't know, if
22:07
you're familiar with it, you can bet on exactly when the ice goes out
22:11
on that river. And just this year the ice is just comically thick right
22:15
now as we speak. Most recently it was over four feet thick, way
22:18
thicker now than it was back when they started showing us the data in nineteen
22:22
nineteen eighties. So whatever reason the ice up there is not conforming to the
22:26
narrative, and they can try to spin things anyway they want, but if
22:32
you look at the actual data, it is not it's not doing what it's
22:34
supposed to be doing. So that's part of the reason why I enjoy doing
22:37
this every day, is that it's so easy to tear this stuff apart if
22:41
you look at the real data. Yeah. Well, let's just talk about
22:44
wildfires for a second. Going back many many years, I mentioned this book
22:48
several times, so our audience is fare with it. But Michael Crichton wrote
22:52
the book State of Fear, and of course fictional book included a whole lot
22:56
of data that was available at that time. In the book, the point
23:00
is he was his story was based on a narrative where many of these events
23:06
were being created intentionally through deliberate action by activists and so on to the light
23:14
fires or create floods or whatever it happened to be in order to generate the
23:18
news headlines that created the narrative. Do you think that kind of thing is
23:22
actually going on? I do. Yeah, that's a great book. That
23:26
guy was super smart and we miss him. But yeah, I think people
23:30
have been caught lighting fires. I think people who have been activists have been
23:34
caught trying to help out the narrative by lighting fires as the thing that actually
23:38
happened. But in the case of the weather data or the fire data in
23:42
the US, it's so fun to take a look at that because even high
23:47
level of people, supposedly people that were going to trust on the other side,
23:51
they say, look, oh, no, the fire since maybe nineteen
23:53
eighty two or nineteen eighty three are up. That must mean that CO two
23:57
is causing wildfires. But that is the worst cherry pick I've ever seen,
24:03
really, because they picked the single year out of all of the twentieth century
24:07
as their starting point. They picked the lowest year. And if you go
24:10
back before nineteen eighty two, you look at the first half of the twentieth
24:12
century in the US, the fires consistently, we're just comically large compared to
24:17
whatever has happened since then. So if you look at the whole data that
24:21
we have, there's no way you'd think that CO two is the wildfire control
24:23
knob. The only way you can believe them is if you just forget everything
24:27
that happened before nineteen eighty two. But that's the case with kind of all
24:30
of this stuff. You can pick any rabbit hole again, you can go
24:33
down that and you can find examples like this just everywhere. They're totally assuming
24:38
that you're stupid and that you won't look at the data for yourself, and
24:44
less and less people are just accepting this stuff at face value. So the
24:47
whole thing is very fun for me, just the whole debunking, I really
24:51
enjoy it. I enjoyed because it's so easy. You mentioned the seventies cooling
24:56
scare, and of course the most possibly the most famous person that was behind
25:03
that, Leonard Nimoy, who did his explanation that we were heading into an
25:10
ice age. What how did we get from that to the global warming narrative,
25:15
because that seemed to turn on the dime. It did turn on a
25:18
dime. And another famous guy, the late Stephen Schneider, he was saying
25:22
that during the nineteen seventies that, oh no, the Earth is cooling and
25:27
the cause is burning fossil fuels, and just on a dime, after it
25:32
started warming, he turned and said, hey, oh no, the Earth
25:34
is warming. The cause is burning fossil fuels. And in both cases the
25:40
cooling was supposed to cause more drought and flood and fires, everything that was
25:44
bad. And then on a dime they said, okay, the warming is
25:47
going to cause droughts and fires. It's just amazing how they just flipped as
25:51
soon as the temperature flipped. And I think again, people who are listening
25:55
now may see this again. I'm not sure. Timball, the late great
25:59
Timball, said he lived through four different kind of scares of cooling warming,
26:03
cooling warming, And I don't know if they'll try it again and hope we'll
26:07
forget. If it starts cooling again, they may say, oh no,
26:11
a global cooling is the thing we need to worry about, and a solution
26:14
is to stop burning hydrocarbon fuels. I don't know if they were really going
26:18
to try you that, but it would not surprise me if they try that
26:19
again. Yeah, And of course our standard of living. I was spigging
26:25
to Steve Gorum some time ago and we were discussing this in a bit more
26:29
detail. But our standard of living is based on the availability of inexpensive energy.
26:33
And one of the things that I thought was great in the film was
26:40
the trip to Africa, where of course they were making the point that Africa
26:42
is not being allowed to develop, They're not being given access to inexpensive energy.
26:48
They're being basically being told that, you know, because the Western world,
26:52
or the first world has has sort of created this massive problem through its
26:57
use of hydrocarbons. Really Africa is going to have to skip the hydrocarbon step
27:03
and go straight to something else. But in the meantime, we're happy to
27:07
pull out continue pulling out their natural resources in terms of cobalt and lethium and
27:11
all the other stuff that we need in order to pursue these dumb power generation
27:17
technologies that we're trying to plant all over the place. And so, you
27:22
know, it's totally unfair on the people in that part of the world who
27:26
are coming later into this game. But in the meantime, you know,
27:33
we are ourselves experiencing the removal of inexpensive energy, and naturally we're going to
27:40
see a falling in our standards of living. Yeah, that's a great point.
27:45
And even when Martin Durkin went over there to Africa in two thousand and
27:48
seven, I think he made a great point about he visited an African clinic
27:52
back then that they were trying to run this clinic using only solar panels.
27:56
But the deal was is that that clinic could either run their fridge or they
28:00
could run their lights, but they couldn't run both because the solar panels couldn't
28:04
handle both. And I think that just so it was a stark example of
28:08
just how crazy it is to force that kind of thing on Africans when there's
28:12
no way that anybody, these do gooders in the West, they wouldn't go
28:17
to a clinic, their own clinic that's powered in such a dumb way.
28:21
Everybody needs reliable power. And this whole idea that we're doing the Africans a
28:26
favor by blocking their use of hydrocarbons, because they're going to thank us when
28:30
the weather doesn't get worse. Of course, that's completely crazy. And I
28:33
know I've never met Jasper Machogu from the movie in person, but I've talked
28:37
to him a lot on the phone, et cetera. And he says,
28:41
people in his village they don't care about climate change. They care about having
28:45
a clean water, and they care about cooking their food without getting their house
28:48
all smoky, and they understand the real world. And I think Western do
28:55
gooders they don't know what's going on. And the whole road to hell is
28:59
paved with good intent. It's just being laid out perfectly here that a lot
29:03
of these do gooders think that they are doing the Africans a favor, but
29:06
they're doing a terrible thing for them. He also says that the Chinese are
29:10
doing more to help Africans than maybe some other Western countries because they're actually helping
29:14
them build roads and airports, and they're not pushing the climate scam on them.
29:18
So I'm not at all pro China in general, but at least they're
29:22
not pushing this ridiculous climate scam on them, So that's one plus. That's
29:26
absolutely right. And China, of course not. You know, China tends
29:30
to use a lot of the language. Look, if you read what they
29:33
publish and so on, they talk about sustainability and so on, but they
29:37
seem to only talk about it. They don't do it, and they are
29:41
quite happy to I mean, they're quite happy to sell the west wind turbines
29:47
and all this kind of stuff. But in the meantime they're building cold far
29:49
Pa stations. Yeah. Yeah, there's so much money to be made in
29:53
this whole grift, So a lot of people, I don't know how much.
29:57
Even Elon Musk anymore, he believes in it because he's making so much
30:00
money off the ev grift. So a lot of people don't want to speak
30:06
out against it while they're making the money. And I think that Chinese don't
30:08
want to come out and say this thing as a scam because they are cashing
30:11
in on it big time too. So I people talk about nuclear power.
30:17
Actually I wanted to bring that up, but nobody advocates for that, and
30:22
I think maybe part of the reason they don't is because it works, and
30:25
there's so there's not a lot of opportunities for grift and nuclear power, and
30:30
if you try to get people to buy these crazy solutions, you can make
30:34
a lot of money, but if you try to get them to buy a
30:37
real solution like nuclear power, there's just less money to be made. So
30:41
that kind of makes me sad because I think in a real, sane world,
30:45
when we're choosing reliable power based on a cost benefit, we would go
30:49
that way. But instead we're doing making all these stupid choices based on grift
30:55
not reality in date, and you know, it always seem to be more
31:00
able to have fewer par stations with higher higher energy density and them instead of
31:04
spread. I mean, it's nuts about in the UK because a significant proportion
31:11
of our wind turbine generation is off sure, but in California some parts of
31:17
the United States, I don't understand how from an environmental point of view,
31:22
the environmentalists haven't been up in arms over what they're doing to the landscape.
31:27
Yeah, it was interesting that even a Greta was protesting against wind farms not
31:33
that long ago. That was interesting to see. I think she was protesting
31:36
even against the mining for evs. As of recently, she's come out against
31:41
almost every form of energy really. But I wanted to mention here in Minnesota,
31:45
there's a big push that we should try to run our economy on wind
31:48
turbines and solar panels, that their solar facilities are heavily subsidized. Here it's
31:55
so crazy because we're above the forty fifth parallel and the sun angle is low,
32:00
and there are solar farms here already that are just covered with snow.
32:02
They get covered with the foot of snow, and it makes no sense.
32:07
Nobody's clearing them off because nobody actually cares if they create energy or not.
32:10
It's all about the subsidies. They're farming subsidies and not energy. So the
32:15
idea of covering irtle farmland here in Minnesota with those solar panels, it makes
32:22
no sense. And as you may have seen, there's a huge environmental problem
32:25
if those solar panels get hit by hale. I think there was a big
32:30
case of a solar facility that got just devastated by hale. So now there's
32:34
all these bits of solar panels laying everywhere. It's an environmental disaster. So
32:40
that in general makes no sense. And I do think people are figuring out
32:44
and they're fighting back against a lot of those a lot of those crazy facilities.
32:47
There's a guy named John Drose on my podcast, who actually specializes in
32:51
fighting back against that. So if people are worried about that in their local
32:54
area, they can either contact me or John Drose and he can help you
32:58
fight back against this crazy stuff in your neighborhood. So in Europe here in
33:04
particularly in continental Europe, and slowly but surely in the UK as well,
33:07
we're starting to see farmers push back heavily against the net zero agenda, and
33:13
because they're seeing their livelihoods being replaced by you know, countryside management schemes and
33:22
part generation solar panels and so on, and they don't see a future and
33:27
not for the farm as it were. It is that kind of agenda being
33:34
pushed on farmers in the United States as well. That's a good question.
33:37
I mean, just my dad in his farm country. The agenda is being
33:42
pushed, as I mentioned, because they are actually trying to force this big
33:45
solar facility to cover a fertile farmland right there. So that is part of
33:50
the whole net zero agenda. And I'm hearing stories of farmers being offered huge
33:54
amounts of money, maybe ten times the price they would expect to rent their
33:59
land in order to put up either wind turbines or a solar facility. So
34:02
there's huge incentives right now for this to happen. But even then, the
34:07
farmers are pushing back because they know it doesn't make sense, and because they're
34:12
wondering if maybe they sign a twenty year contract with one of these shifty companies
34:16
and their farmland gets covered with some crazy with cement and metal or whatever,
34:23
and then the company goes out of business, who's going to clean it up.
34:25
I think there's going to be a lot of people asking that question,
34:29
and they're too smart to just to sign on the dotted line because none,
34:32
I guess, none of this stuff makes sense in reality. And I think
34:37
farmers in general might have a better sense of real life than people who live
34:40
in cities. They're out there in the weather all the time. They see
34:45
what they do has to actually work in real life. And I think Martin
34:49
Dirkin talks about this new class of people that are bureaucrats that just live in
34:52
an academic world. They don't actually know how things work in real life.
34:57
I think it's way easier to fool them with a computer mod well, rather
35:00
than a farmer who's actually out in the weather every day. People who are
35:04
grounded in reality are way harder to fool. Coming back onto the sort of
35:09
the promotion of this policy in the media and censorship and so on. In
35:15
the UK, the BBC got a special mention on your in Your Film and
35:22
in the UK, the BBC, when it's training journalists actually doesn't just teach
35:30
journalism, it teaches climate as well, right, and that's and that's the
35:34
only policy area outside of journalism that teach. It obviously teaches things like when
35:38
teaching journalists, that teaches things like, you know, media law and stuff
35:43
like this, but the only sort of political policy area that they teach is
35:49
climate because they they absolutely want to make sure that everybody that's working for them
35:52
is only pushing that particular point of view. Do you see that kind of
35:58
thing in media and the United States or are they prepared to contemplate speaking to
36:02
somebody who's skeptical, Let's say, I think it is probably almost as bad
36:07
or close to it in the US. I think there was just something that
36:12
came out about National Public Radio here in the US where something like they looked
36:16
at the political leanings or the registration politically of eighty seven people in NPR it
36:23
was eighty seven left wingers zero right wingers. So I think there is an
36:28
enormous push in the media to go all left wing. I think the BBC
36:32
has a misinformation person called Marianna Springs. I think, yeah, yep,
36:37
so you can just about invert everything that she says, that everything that she
36:42
says is misinformation is actually information and vice versa. It's pretty amazing how she
36:46
can get everything wrong. And I think BBC may have had some policy where
36:51
they wouldn't even talk official policy, where they wouldn't talk to a climate skeptic
36:55
for stories I forget completely crazy. Yes, yeah, yeah, so I
37:00
think the La Times here in the US had a policy where they I don't
37:05
know if they wouldn't accept any sort of pushback against the narrative. But I
37:09
am seeing little cracks in the armor. I need to write up another blog
37:13
post about this. Just in the last maybe a last month or so,
37:16
there's more and more cracks in the armor. There was this Daily Cause over
37:21
here KOs They had a climate denier roundup. They did two two hundred articles,
37:27
all pushing back against people like me. Suddenly they just went dark.
37:30
Their last thing was at the end of twenty three they said they were going
37:32
to come back, but they never did. There's also a Climate Nexus newsletter
37:36
type of thing. Just today they said, okay, sorry, it was
37:39
fun while it lasted, but we're going out of business or whatever. There's
37:43
more and more stuff like that. There's this Sabina Hasenfeldter who's a YouTuber,
37:46
a big YouTuber on the other side, and right after our movie came out,
37:51
within the next week she said, you know, she came out with
37:53
us YouTube video saying let's not get too alarmist about this. It was kind
37:59
of crazy because she's been totally alarmisted and all of a sudden she did this
38:01
thing saying let's not let's not go too far with this. So I think
38:07
there is going to be some people who are going to produce content like this
38:10
so that they can point at it later and say, you know, I
38:13
never really did buy into this thing. Look at this content I did in
38:15
twenty twenty four. So I think there will be a little bit of that.
38:19
Like I said earlier, I think most people will just forget. They'll
38:22
just stop talking about it, and we'll go, hey, I haven't heard
38:25
much about climate anymore. I think they're going to move on to something else.
38:29
That's what happened actually with the Ivory built woodpecker. That enormous amounts of
38:32
people who went all in on that just stopped talking about it. They they
38:37
didn't say I was wrong or anything, they just they haven't mentioned it for
38:39
fifteen years now. I'm not certain people will get away with thought in this
38:44
case. So look, you know, if we think over the last lot
38:50
of years, since say twenty sixteen or so, we have seen in the
38:54
UK at least a real major splits in society. So the split in twenty
39:00
sixteen to twenty kind of time was around Brexit, and then we had very
39:06
much similar dividing line over lockdown policy and vaccination and this kind of stuff over
39:13
the COVID period. And we're starting to see perhaps the same types of divides
39:19
with respect to that zero policy and ultralow mission zones in towns and cities and
39:25
restrictions on travel and so on. And in the film they talk about you
39:30
talk about the dividing line being between conservatives and liberals, and I'd just like
39:37
to be interested to get some thoughts on you about how much, if any
39:40
overlap there is there or whether it is a hard division and actually be interested
39:47
in your thoughts on whether the fact that Donald Trump has been vocal in this
39:53
area has hurt skeptic side. Yeah, that is a great question. I
40:00
do think that more and more. Maybe it was red versus blue, Democrat
40:04
versus Republican over here, but I do think there's been a shift where it's
40:07
more sanity versus insanity. I'm seeing a lot of that. One example is
40:12
Joe Rogan with his huge, huge audience. He has been quite a left
40:15
winger. I think he was a supporter of Bernie Sanders, and there was
40:19
a time when Candice Owens was on his podcast and she said she didn't believe
40:22
in the climate scam, and he could not believe it. He was a
40:25
dumbfounded that nobody that this guest did not believe it. But he has definitely
40:30
shifted a little bit at a time. So now when climate change comes up
40:34
on his podcast, it does every once in a while, he scoffs at
40:37
it. He's not all in on it at all like he just was recently.
40:43
Let's see. Yeah, I'm seeing this from a lot of other podcasters
40:45
that are coming at it from a COVID point of view. They're talking all
40:50
about the lockdowns for a mistake and all this other stuff, and they are
40:53
starting more and more to mention climate and starting to scoff at it. I'm
40:58
hearing so much of that coming from people who do come from a left wing
41:00
background. So, as I said elsewhere, there's a lot of well known
41:07
left wingers who I thought I would disagree with them on everything as of five
41:10
years ago, and now I'm kind of nodding my head and I'm starting to
41:14
like it. There's Brett Weinstein, and there's the Rusty Rockets I forget what
41:17
his real name is, Russell Brand, and there's RFK Junior, who was
41:22
talking about how maybe skeptic should be jailed or something. He's come around.
41:27
He's definitely not all in on our side, but he is softening his rhetoric
41:30
quite a bit. And it's encouraging in general that I think this great awakening
41:37
is happening on all sides of the aisle. I do think that people want
41:42
to just brand you as a crazy trumper if you didn't believe in the in
41:45
the climate scam, that was definitely a thing. But I think that is
41:49
way less of a thing now than it was five years ago. That makes
41:52
me happy. To well, oh look, it must be warming up in
41:54
Plymouth. We can see the lighthouse again. So there we go. Well,
41:59
well look I'm going to say, I'm going to say thank you very
42:01
much for speaking to me today, Tom, fascinating discussion. I'd like to
42:07
talk to you again. But in the meantime we need to promote the film.
42:09
So how do people get to see the film? Yeah, you can
42:14
just go to Climate themovie dot net and you can see it there. And
42:17
but you can google for Climate the Movie and it actually has been coming up
42:21
lately, so you can look on your favorite search engine. You can also
42:24
google for Tom Nelson substack and get a lot more information about the movie.
42:29
You can find out how to download a copy if you want to and upload
42:31
it elsewhere. And you can also search for Tom Nelson Podcast if you want
42:36
to hear a lot more from people in the movie. A lot of people
42:38
in the movie. I've interviewed them at great length on my podcast, so
42:43
you can get way more, way more audio there if you want to.
42:45
Yeah, I'm going to say, it's your channel. Is fantastic. I
42:49
really enjoy it. And you know, a wide gamut of commentators or not,
42:57
it is. It is a great resource. So I'm going to say
43:00
thank you very much for joining us today. Tom all the best with the
43:02
film. We will do our best to get it spread as widely as possible
43:07
in this country. And thank you for joining me today. All right,
43:10
thanks a lot for having me on. I hope to talk to you again
43:13
if you have time again some other time. Thank you, absolutely, thank you.