Lynne Balzer, has been researching climate change for a decade with the Faraday Science Institute, an organization also developing solutions for recycling plastics and converting plastics into fuel. She shares research into the origins of the climate change movement, their motivations, who benefits, and why you are being fed a lie.
In this episode:
- Failure of "scientists" to use scientific method and changing historical climate data.
- Who started the Climate change lie and why.
- Motivations for starting the lie in the 1980s: depopulation, greed (cap and trade), destroying capitalism.
- Censorship of skeptics
This episode helps you think clearly in a noisy world, cut through misinformation, and find the solutions as applied to the environment, energy, and the future.
Show Notes
Books by Lynne Balzer:
Exposing the Great Climate Change Lie
https://www.amazon.com/Exposing-Great-Climate-Change-Lie/dp/1733460322
The Green New Deal and Climate Change: What You Need to Know
https://www.amazon.com/Green-New-Deal-Climate-Change/dp/1733460306
Related Articles:
Geoengineering and Chemtrails: What’s Real, What's Not, What to Be Concerned About
3 Observations That Made Me Re-think Global Warming
Transcript
My guest today is Lynne Balzer. Lynne has been researching climate change for 13 years working with the Faraday Science Institute.
She's written two books, Exposing the Great Climate Change Lie and The Green New Deal in Climate Change What You Need to Know. She told me the subject is huge and complicated, and therefore for this episode, it'd be best to focus on one aspect.
She gave me a few options to choose from, which included discussing the actual temperature data and how mainstream media and the news basically censor any scientist who they considered to be quote climate change deniers.
Whether you believe man is responsible for climate change or not, today we're going to talk about what I find most interesting. Who is responsible? Who in the 1980s started the climate change drama?
And what is the real intention? Lynne's going to present on who started it and why. Spoiler alert, it has nothing to do with CO2 and global climate change.
Welcome to my show, Lynne.
Thank you. It's nice. It's really good to be here.
Thank you for inviting me.
So I'll let you take it from here. And I will just ask questions if I need to, but I'm fascinated by, I believed in climate change for a while.
I stopped believing after as a science, as an engineer, I ran a Python script and looked at the temperature myself in the local weather station, the actual temperature.
And then someone put the birdie on my ear that it's clouds, water vapor that's more a factor. And I know, okay, so maybe that's not all true. But why is it always in the news then and so popular?
And I mean, how did it become to be such a critical issue whether it's true or false? And that's what you're going to tell us. I want you to go ahead and get started.
Okay.
Well, you probably know about the climate clock. Can you see that picture there, the climate clock?
Yes.
I see that on my slides. Okay. This is in Union Square of New York City, and they say we only have like six years left.
And if we don't have the temperature down to just 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial time.
This is like the New Year's Eve countdown in Times Square, except it's got seven years and 102, seven years and 102 days left for us to live.
Yes. That's right. So that's really amazing.
This is true too.
We're not making this up. Okay.
They're saying that we've had an increase of 1.54 degrees since 1850, between 1850 and 2024, which they say is the hottest year in the last 125,000 years of geologic history, if you can believe that.
What year was this summer? Yeah, this year.
Yes. They said at the end of 2024, they said 2024 was the hottest year ever in the last 125,000 years of geologic history.
I can tell you, speaking for myself, I lived in Phoenix, Arizona, for college, and it was pushing, I think, 123 in the 80s. And I don't think they've met that record yet. And if they do, they're barely meeting it.
And that was 30 years ago plus.
And 1988 was a pretty hot year. I don't know if that's when you were there.
Yeah, that was a that was a hot one in Phoenix.
And not only was it hot, but there was a drought that summer too.
We're talking globally, not just in Arizona.
Just in the United States. I don't know about globally, but there was a drought in the United States.
Okay.
One of the problems with climate too, is when you think about climate, you're talking about a specific area, not the entire globe.
And somehow they were able to make people think that that the whole earth has a certain climate, whereas all different parts of the earth have different climates. So, the whole thing is...
Yeah, that's the thing about when I went and got temperature data myself, because in the news, it always says Arizona is getting hotter. I'm like, are you mixing Flagstaff with Phoenix? What data?
Where? What weather station?
Right. And they're always short on the data.
Well, if you don't have data with Antarctica mixed with data in the Sahara Desert, how's that going to work?
Yes. So anyway, the question is, how were they able in 1850, how are they able to get a global average or mean temperature for the whole globe so that they could tell us that the temperature rose 1.54 degrees Celsius since then?
And that's even to the hundreds of a degree, just think 1.54. How would they be able to get such an exact figure, right? I always wondered about that.
So, anyway, I found this map of the world, and this shows where daily temperature records were being taken back in the late 1800s. And as you can see, most of them are in the United States.
And then there were some over in Australia, and there were a few over in Europe, right? But the whole world is just not represented.
Also, the engineer in me knows for a fact, we were not all using the same calibrated instruments.
That's right. And temperatures probably weren't, I mean, thermometers probably were not that accurate back then, I would guess.
We're speaking of tenths of a degree. The equipment itself is not probably within, in the 1800s, good for one degree accuracy.
That's right. And also, 70% of the globe, as we know, is water, and they really weren't able to measure the temperature of the ocean very well until 2004. They started something called the Argo measuring system for the oceans back then.
But how could we know?
Lynne, real quick, this is all interesting. You told me we should focus on, it's such a big topic. I could talk to you all day about this and go through your whole slide presentation.
Yeah.
Do you recall we were going to focus on?
On how it all got started.
Yes, absolutely.
Thank you.
So anyway, one of the problems too with not following scientific method is that, as you know, there's something called the Urban Heat Island Effect, and 3 percent of the land area of the Earth is towns and cities, and they're a little bit warmer than
Phoenix, Arizona, yeah?
Yeah, that's right.
But now, of course, we have satellites taking temperature measurements and they're a little bit more accurate.
In some of these, I'm just going to skip over pretty fast, but one thing I could show you too, and that is that when they didn't have thermometers, like before the 1800s, they couldn't use thermometers to measure temperature.
So they had to go back and take proxy data. They used ice cores and tree rings and things like that, right? And then this gives a history, an ice core sample that was taken in Lake Bostock in Antarctica.
So this is where we are right here. But you can see-
I never understood the ice core. How do you extrapolate temperature from taking an ice core?
Well, there were different isotopes of oxygen. There's oxygen-14 and oxygen-12. Oxygen-12 is the main one.
I'm sorry that I'm not doing that right. I think I'm talking about carbon. Okay.
Oxygen has different isotopes.
And they were able to somehow come up with the idea that there would be more of a certain isotope of oxygen when it was warmer, and less when it was like in a period of glaciation or something, you know, when it was really cold.
There were already two or three degrees of freedom away from common sense. Because two or three things have to be factual for your conclusion to be accurate.
Yes, that's right. So anyway, this is interesting. This goes back 425,000 years.
It's like they're trying to find a way to prove their data that they make up.
So I'll skip over that, but I just wanted you to see that.
And then this graph here shows how they play with graphs to show how, you know, to get false information. So this particular graph here starts in the 1960s, but why did they use that period of time, you know, to start this graph?
Well, the reason is because back in the 1930s, it was even warmer than it was in the 1960s. So if you superimpose that graph on the real record here, which goes back to 1900, you can see that it was much, much higher during the 1930s.
It makes the 60s look like a cooling trend.
Exactly. So around 1960, that's when it was the coolest, because the temperature was actually going down during this period of history. And at the same time, though, the carbon dioxide level was going up.
And yet they're all the same.
From the late 1930s to 1960, it was getting colder.
That's right.
From the 1960s to today, it started to get warmer. My senator, when I wrote him, I used to believe in global warming. So I wrote my senator, Kyle, an Arizona letter.
And this was in the 80s. And he replied back, we were in a cooling, not a warming. I didn't believe him, by the way, then.
That's true.
And also, if you look at this graph again, too, you can see that if we're right here, and then you can see how long these, what they call interglacial periods when it was warmer, you can see there's a precipitous drop.
Pretty good pattern there, up and down, up and down, up and down, every what? 10,000 years, it looks like.
Well, probably about every 100,000.
Okay.
Let's see, this was 50,000 years ago here, and this was about 20,000 years ago. That was when the glaciers were covering.
And this is based on their ice core proxy data.
Yes. That's right. But they also have other kinds of proxy data besides the ice cores.
They actually have several different kinds. So I don't know if they can find them.
Where did you get, how were you able to get this data that shows the bigger picture when the news, they're using the same ice core proxy data and only showing us the data for the recent 20, 30 years when it's getting hotter, the whole big picture.
How do you even get this real data?
You know, I really don't remember where this came from, to be really honest with you. Okay, so anyway, I'm going to skip over this here. Okay, and also, it was very warm in the early 1900s, too.
This is another way that they lied, okay?
Titanic hits an iceberg in 1912.
And that iceberg, that was at 42 degrees north latitude. That's where that ship hit the iceberg, and that's about the same latitude as Detroit. And so, you know, normally...
What come to mind as we hit an iceberg, it must be really cold, but in fact, it was a warm winter in the Arctic that caused this iceberg, because the small piece of ice that's floating, it chunked off.
Right, exactly.
It's melting. So those icebergs...
Anyway, the New York Times said on May 5th, and of course, this April 14th is when the Titanic sank, but on May 5th, the New York Times said, An unprecedentedly warm winter in the entire Arctic is believed to be the cause of the vast number of
icebergs adrift in the North Atlantic Ocean during the present season, and for the low latitudes which many of them have reached. So that just shows what warm it was.
I would presuppose we've had this global warming thing going on since before 1912.
Mm-hmm, that's right.
If it's true. Like if you believe in global warming, then it's been happening for since 1912.
Yes, and even before that.
And we're still here.
Yes, that's right. And there wasn't that much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere back then.
And anyway, so the reason that I wanted to show you that is because to show you how they have manipulated the figures, they've changed the figures because if you go back to 1912, which we were just looking at there, you can see how that they said
that was a very cold year. So they changed all these figures.
What we're looking at for people listening, but not watching on YouTube, but listening on Spotify or Apple, it's a picture of the temperature data.
And it basically shows everything's cold up into 1930, and then all of a sudden starts to get warmer, right?
That's right. So I'm just showing that you don't...
What was your point about this?
Well, they said that it was a very cold year, but we know just from newspaper articles and historical records that it was actually a very hot year. As a matter of fact, in 1912...
Oh, okay. Sorry to interrupt, but I'm getting it now. You're saying that the temperature data is faked.
Yes, it is.
They've actually gone back and changed it.
Because I'm looking at this temperature data thinking it's real data. The data is showing that it's colder in 1912.
And the newspaper articles say the opposite, saying Titanic sank because an iceberg, it's a warm winter and there's little icebergs floating around.
Yes, you know how they cav off the glaciers? And they do that every year.
How do you... It just seems inconceivable to me. If you had the newspaper from 1912, you could see what the actual temperature was.
And then you go online and you're saying it's literally been faked. The skeptic in me has a hard time really truly believe in somebody would fake the national weather database.
Yes. And unfortunately, most people just don't go to the trouble to check those things out. You know who Tony Heller is?
Did you ever hear of Tony Heller? Well, he has a really good website called Real Climate Science, and he's done a lot of this research with the old newspapers. Oh, fascinating.
That's what I would love to see.
In the back when I believed in global warming and I was trying to prove it, I bought data. You had to buy data. It wasn't available at the news.
I mean, 20, 30 years of data, you had to buy it. And I kept that because it actually shows, if anything, you can't tell is it going up or down or even down, down slightly, not up. So I have that.
I can go back now and see that they change it. The newspapers, that would be really cool to do. See?
It sure would be.
You know what?
They'll make an excuse like, oh, well, the newspaper, back then the newspaper thermometers weren't as accurate as today. So we adjusted it to make it what it really would have been if they had better thermometers.
Still tricky with that kind of mind game.
Yeah, that's for sure. Also, here are two Time magazine covers. And they were actually predicting an ice age back in the 1970s.
My senator, Kyle, he told me it's getting cold.
They were coming to an ice age. I remember living in Cleveland. I grew up in Cleveland, Ohio in the 70s.
Huge snowstorm. That's why we moved to Arizona. My dad had it with the snow.
It was like ridiculous amounts of record snow. He had, he was done with it.
Yeah. That's right. And then of course, by 2006, of course, they're talking about global warming.
So they changed their tune, right?
Oh, even better. They changed it from global warming to climate change. Because if it was warming a hundred years ago, remember we said the Titanic and whatnot, we should be dead by now.
Well, we're not. So the warming wasn't big enough. We'll switch the term from global warming, now it's climate change.
Right.
So after the year 2000, the temperature kind of leveled out. And so the people that were in the inner club, I guess you'd say of scientists, they decided they would change that to climate change.
That's why they did it, because it stopped warming after the year.
Because people would quit believing it. If you kept telling them it's warming, look at this year, the hottest trend record. So if next year is not even hotter, how are you going to convince people of it's still warming?
They'll think we're saved. They can't have that. We can't have, oh, we're saved.
So we got to have it now, climate change. And people will believe anything in the word climate change.
So anyway, back in the time, in the days when they thought we were going to have an ice age, this is Stephen Schneider. He was one of the main scientists involved in all this.
And he wrote a book called The Genesis Strategy, which was all about how global cooling was going to interfere with humanity. That was going to be the apocalyptic thing coming.
But then he changed his tune as soon as the 1980s rolled around, and it started to warm up.
Oh, so I have another quick question. Because I've been there. I've been in the cool.
I was a teenager when we were going to die from the new ice age coming. Prepare for the ice age. What comes to mind is, did they believe the sun was burning out?
Like, why did they think it was getting, what was their excuse for getting colder and a new ice age coming?
Well, believe it or not, they blamed carbon dioxide for that, too.
Anna, of course. They will, right?
So anyway, Stephen Schneider said to do that, to do, in other words, to convince people, he said, we need to get some broad-based support to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage.
So we had to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.
You're reading a quote from Stephen Schneider.
Stephen Schneider.
In the eighties, nineties, what time period is this? The eighties, probably.
That's right. I think that's probably when he did that.
He looks like a nice, smart guy, but he's just got his belief, or I don't know why people do what they do. They believe in it, I guess.
Yeah. And anyway, one reason why I know that climate science isn't real science because science measures and makes observations and measure.
So as I was about to say, okay, Stephen's a nice guy. You either present the facts or you don't. You just change them because of what you believe.
That's not the right thing to do, as well as unscientific.
That's right. So anyway, this is what came up with them.
They decided that they would make these big computer models where they would be all the information about the weather and the climate into these models, and then they would make projections with those.
Well, they actually had like a hundred different computer models. And when you average them all together, you get this red line here. And that's supposedly showing all the warming, right?
Well, this actually goes back to 1980. And by 2020, they said it would be this hot.
Basically, they said we would be dead by now. And this was created in the 70s, and we're not.
That's right.
So then what happened?
Well, anyway, this is showing what actually happened. And then this was the surface. The green circles are balloons, okay?
They send weather balloons up with thermometers. That's one way they can tell. And then the squares are just the satellite data set.
And then the diamonds are the average.
So all of this is slightly showing a slight warming trend. It's an order of magnitude less than their computer predicted in the 70s, but it is slightly going up.
That's right.
Except they change the temperature data too. So that's why it's going up.
So anyway, you know, they started the IPCC. That stands for Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. That was in the United Nations.
And their first report that they came up with in, I think it was in 1990. This was the graph that they were using to go back a thousand years to show how the climate had changed in the last thousand years.
And this was made by Climate Research Unit in England. And Hubert Lamb had founded that. He was a climatologist, right?
Anyway, this was the graph that he came up with. So, he said that a thousand years ago, it was warmer than it is now. Well, that goes against their statement that 2024 was the hottest year in the last 25,000 years.
So, they hadn't changed that graph. They couldn't tolerate that, right? And also, it got colder than about 1400, and the temperature started to go down.
And this is a period too, a very low solar activity. There were hardly any sunspots on the sun during this period of time here. So, it's very lost.
That's my biggest explanation for why it gets colder at night, because the sun goes down.
That's why you put a blanket on when we go to bed at night.
That's right.
How 2000 years ago do they know there was less sunspot activity than today?
Well, I don't think they knew that from 2000 years, but around 1500, they started realizing that sunspots were correlated with changes in temperature.
Maybe the tree growth.
I think it was Galileo that first discovered sunspots. In fact, he went blind from looking at the sun.
Oh, you know what comes to mind, Lynne?
Maybe the scientists who are stuck on the belief that the tree ring data that shows it's getting warmer, the reason trees grew more isn't because it was warmer, it was there was more sunspot activity, which is why it was warmer.
But they're not making the connection. They're making the connection and blame it on CO2, instead of there was more sunlight.
That's true. And also, if it was a wet year, then they would have a bigger tree ring also. So it isn't just the temperature that determines that, but also-
Yeah, that's a confounding factor which throws the whole thing out the window.
Like how are you going to pull that apart? It's not really a valid way to figure out the temperature maybe or too many variables.
Yeah, they have to be really careful with those. Well, this is the graph that they came up with in 1998. And this was in the 2000 IPCC reports.
And they call this the hockey stick graph because to some people, this is like a hockey stick. I guess people in Canada-
I heard that word after I tried to figure out what was telling the truth. For people who can't see the graph, they're listening.
The hockey puck means the temperature is kind of going down slightly because the earth is actually cooling, and then it makes a dog leg, like a sharp, like a rocket shooting in the sky at a slight angle.
A hockey stick, because it's going at a sharp, at all of a sudden a steep angle, like a rocket taking off.
So this goes back about a thousand years also, just like that other graph, goes back a thousand years. So, they replaced this graph with the hockey stick graph. And this became the icon of the global warming movement, I guess you'd say, right?
Well, I remember, I was there 20 years ago.
We're going to die because the computer predicts we're all going to be dead from overheating in 20 years. We don't change things.
And then they used bristle cone pine trees for the tree rings. And so all of this is from tree rings. And then the problem was that when they got to the 1900s, the temperature started to fall off.
It started to decline. And of course, they couldn't have that. So what they did was they cut off this part here, and then they started using temperature data.
Oh, real temperature data.
You can't combine, right?
Real temperature data from thermometers. I should have said thermometer data. I'm sorry.
Anyway, they use thermometer data on here, but that's like adding apples and oranges. And that's something you never do in science.
The scientific thing to do, you know, I had a lot of people, I had high school chemistry on the left side of the graph where it says temperature anomaly.
You would actually put more specifically temperature anomaly based on tree ring data, and then cut the graph and say actual temperature. Science is when you actually say what you're doing, where you explain your data.
Right. So that's really not set up very well at all. All that graph.
On purpose to prove a point.
Yeah.
So two researchers in Canada, they wanted to see the data behind this graph. And so they wrote to Michael Mann, he was from Penn State University, and they asked him for his data, and he refused to share that with them.
That has happened to me for the last 20 years, even when I worked with Los Alamos National Laboratories on another project. They'll go, oh yeah, we have that data, ask so and so forth, and they'd give me 10 years or five years in Spottie.
I'm like, that's not what I meant. Nobody could give it, nobody could even find it. Legitimately, few people even have it because they don't even ask for it.
So anyway, Michael Mann was very upset about that.
He didn't want to share his data, and so they had to use legal action to get that from him. So they finally did get the data, and these two men were statisticians.
They really understood a lot about statistics, and they discovered that they had an algorithm, that Michael Mann had an algorithm that he used for, and it didn't matter what numbers you put into that algorithm, you would always get this blade.
And the test of that was that they actually put random numbers into this algorithm, and one of these eight here that they have, you can see they all go up on the side, right?
One of those is the actual data from Michael Mann, that made this graph, and the other seven are just random numbers. You can't really see any difference.
I can't. I was about to say, even though I'm looking at it for listeners, I can't see a difference between the...
Oh, so what you're saying is you could put random numbers in this temperature data Excel sheet, and no matter what numbers you put in, it would still plot things like a hockey stick.
That's right. And then they also discovered that there are all kinds of gaps in their calculations.
The gap is another big thing. So when I actually wanted to plot the data for myself in Phoenix, turns out Sky Harbor is a good location. It's an airport.
Been there a long time. If it hadn't been for that, any other weather station in Arizona, like you said, Lynne, there could be months or days of data missing.
And if it's missing in the wintertime, and you use that as your 50-year plot, you're not accounting for a lot of cold period.
And it is really hard to find where every single day of the year at the same weather station at the same town in America, it was dated for even 20 years, a little over 50 or 100.
That's amazing.
So I get this now. He probably did that so whoever takes his place after he leaves, will get the same result. He doesn't have to be the one plotting the data.
They have come up with new graphs now.
They're very similar to this, but they all have this algorithm behind it. I sure do.
Now, you know the way to explain that, Lynne. I'm going to be the double skeptic. Well, of course, we have an algorithm.
Based on statistics, it's proper thing to do. We, it's a better plot of the data. They'll explain it that way.
And some people will believe it.
That's right.
Just plot the temperature. How hard can that be? You don't need to do any statistics, right?
I just wanted you to plot the temperature. That's all I'm asking. Most people believe that's all they're seeing when they get the news story on the news.
They don't get that it's not the actual temperature. It's based on the algorithm.
And they don't bother to check the facts. They just accept it.
Nobody, nobody, Lynne, will even take my Python script and download it for their town where they live and plot the data themselves. They think it's a waste of time.
Yeah. And you know how they're always saying that the Arctic is warming so much?
Penguins are dying. Polar bears are dying. I even feel bad for them.
Coca-Cola commercial with the polar bear. Yeah.
That's crazy. And then they'll tell you that so many thousands of square miles or cubic feet of ice have melted. You know, that always happens.
The coastal is going to flood, and then I go to the beach in California.
I'm like, the beach is still there.
Yeah.
In fact, based on the tide today, the beach is farther out by a hundred yards than it was yesterday.
Yes, because of the tides, and they probably don't even understand what tides are, right? I don't think they do.
Well, the point is that people still buy beach and oceanfront property.
Yes. Did you hear about how Barack Obama bought two beachfront properties?
He bought one up and after he lowered the price because he scared people into thinking that it was going to get flooded. That's when he bought.
Yeah, that's what he did. So anyway, if you look at the actual data of the Arctic, you can see how the amount of ice goes way up and way down, you know, from summer to winter. This would be summer and this would be winter.
But then if you average it out and you get a trend line going across there, this goes from 2008 to 2024. You can see that there's hardly been any difference at all.
It's pretty flat.
But yet the World Economic Forum, they just came up with that. They said the Greenland, the Greenland Glacier was collapsing. Okay.
It not only looks flat, it almost looks perfect.
The amount of ice that grows and melts every single year, it looks very cyclically almost perfect.
It is, really. And what's really interesting is a team of scientists from Thailand just discovered that Greenland is actually cooling. It has been cooling for the last 20 years.
That's one of the very latest studies that was done on Greenland. So Greenland is not getting warmer. And that one glacier is growing also up there.
There's one called Jacob Shaven or something, and that glacier is actually growing in size. So anyway, here's another interesting picture. This shows how some of the ice has melted and some of the ice is new ice.
We're looking at the Arctic Circle.
If we're looking downward on a map of the Arctic Circle from space, we can see Alaska and Russia and Canada and Greenland. And then the red is how much ice has melted.
That's right, and then the green, that's all new ice that's grown.
So it's like the more north you grow, more ice is growing and then a little bit smelting on the south. It's true a little bit smelting on the south, but it looks like there's three or four times as much that grew on the north end.
Right. Well, this is the North Pole right here. And of course, this would be the area that's near Russia and Alaska and everything.
And then over here, this would be closer to Europe.
So you just pick where on the Antarctica you want to measure ice. If you want it to melt, you measure it at Greenland where it will be melting. And we don't want to know about the ice that's forming.
So we'll just stay away from Russia. We don't want to go near Russia. That's why we didn't do it up there.
Yeah.
So they don't want to tell you about the new ice that formed, but they'll tell you all about this, right?
Right.
And then, of course, they talk about greenhouse gasses all the time. Well, in a greenhouse, the reason it gets warm inside is because when the sunlight comes in there, you know, it gets trapped.
Because what will happen is that the radiation, the light actually turns into heat. And that's what they call it.
It's like in a car when you roll the windows up and sit in your car.
Exactly. That's right. But the earth is not really a greenhouse.
This is a closed, what you would call a closed system. But the earth is not really a true green house at all. Because when the energy comes into the earth and then bounces back off again, it just goes out in space.
There's nothing there to hold.
It's like I get in my car, but there's no hood. It's a permanent convertible.
Exactly. That's a good comparison.
Yeah.
And then here's a really good example of the propaganda that they use. There's something really wrong with this graph, this pie graph.
So the graph says global greenhouse gas emissions by gas. What does this mean? Yes.
Global greenhouse gas emissions.
So what they're really saying here, I guess, is that they forgot about water vapor. Okay. Water vapor is the main greenhouse gas.
It's not on the slide.
It's not on there at all.
They just forgot about it.
Which is actually a false statement, then.
Yeah.
I'm just being here. I'm being open. I'm being neutral.
Back to high school physics, chemistry, if you put on your graph global greenhouse gases, you got to list them all, right?
Yes.
And then I list this. This is only, these are only, if they just label that global greenhouse gasses associated with human climate change, that might be legitimate. But they don't.
Anyway, I finally found a proper pod graph.
And this is what it really should look like. Because 94% of all the greenhouse gases are water vapor. But of course, you know, they can't blame people for producing water vapor, right?
So that's why we're always hearing about carbon dioxide, methane, and so on. Because we're responsible for some of the carbon dioxide, not all of it.
So I only recently discovered what you're talking about. And what came to mind is an analogy. And I'm in the desert, it's hot right now.
If I go for a hike early in the morning and there's a water bottle in my car, it's cool. But if I leave that water bottle in the car when I go for my hike, and I come back in the afternoon, that water bottle is very hot.
And that water, I can't drink. The water has absorbed the heat, but the water also cools down at night and it stays cold at night.
Yeah.
And they're not basically the climate change scientists, they're just saying that's not a factor. Clouds and water vapor are not a factor. Only your carbon dioxide, the air, the CO2.
Well, that's what they want people to think anyway.
I mean, I'm sure the scientists are very much aware of that, but they don't want the general public to know.
That is our point today, yes. They know, but they don't want. Well, it's not their fault.
They're being told what to do. They won't have a job if they said what they.
That's true. Because if there's not a problem, then they don't need to do research.
Although there are scientists who really, really, really believe in the lie they're saying. And that's why they get a job and keep a job, because they believe it so much, they're easy to hire.
That's true. Did you ever hear that? I forget who this quote comes from, but somebody said you can't convince a man...
I'm trying to think what they said. You can't convince a man of something different than what he believes, if his salary depends on him believing that.
It's called cognitive dissonance.
Yeah, that's right. That's what it is.
It would shatter your world, so you just cannot subconsciously take it in. You can't.
So I'm sure that they do on some level, you know, believe what they're saying.
Yeah, absolutely. I do. I agree.
And here's another really good graph too.
I'm sorry about your people that can't see the graph. But anyway, they could look this up probably online. As a matter of fact, they can look these pie graphs up too.
You know, and I had a horrible time finding this one.
Your books will be in the show notes.
Okay.
I think we're doing okay. People can watch the YouTube and as you say, find the links in the show notes.
So if anyway, if they look up, if they put in radiation transmitted by the atmosphere, they might get this graph. What's really cool, this is showing all how much effect the water vapor has.
Okay.
So what this graph is for listeners, it's a percentage of what clouds, water vapor, carbon dioxide, CO2, oxygen, and how much of that at any given time, how much the relative percent, what's the biggest contributor to the radiation, the solar
And all the fussing that they're doing about methane all the time, about the cows are farting, and so we have to get rid of the cows.
I can't keep up with this stuff.
Because who would know they're trying to make us go vegetarian and stop eating meat in the name of global warming by putting a tax on methane because cows and people and pets a lot of things emit methane. What? Yeah.
And also of all the carbon dioxide that's increasing in the atmosphere.
I'm sorry, I shouldn't have changed that. Anyway, of all the carbon dioxide that's being emitted, most of it comes from natural sources like volcanoes and bacteria.
The volcano is a thing that totally blows it in the water. We've had a couple of them in the last 10 years, big ones. And the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes is staggering.
We're still alive. If we can survive a volcano on earth, we can survive automobiles emitting CO2 if you believe that CO2 is a factor.
That's right. And they'll admit that if you confront them with it, but they'll say, well, that still upsets the balance, you know, natural carbon.
I'm just going to make this up right now, Lynne. Here's how creative they can get. Like, well, see, a volcano is different.
It's a different isotope. It's a different, and it's higher in the atmosphere, and it's a different blah, blah, blah. They'll give you an excuse and you will believe it.
Even if you don't believe it, it's hard to disprove Santa Claus or the Easter bunny.
Yeah, that's right.
That doesn't exist. How do you prove something doesn't exist? And besides, nobody will go through the trouble.
So many people believe this, to start with, it's easy to just keep throwing stuff at them, and they believe what you tell them.
That's right. That's what they'll do. So anyway, back in 1957, Dr.
Roger Revelle wrote a paper about carbon dioxide causing global warming.
He was a very respected scientist, and this was under his guarding, his directorship, I guess you'd say, that they started to measure the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
They had what they called the International Geophysical Year or something like that. That's when they started to do that.
Do you think, Dr. Roger, can imagine he was a good scientist to begin with, or maybe he wasn't?
He was. I think he was a good scientist.
Is it possible he got approached and was like, we need somebody like you and authority. If you don't do it, somebody else will.
And if you don't, we will make sure we discredit you and you lose your job and you lose your status and your family loses their house, and so forth, disparage you.
I'm not really sure if they did that, but I guess that's possible.
It's just possible. I'm trying to think of an explanation for why if he was a good scientist, he would start this kind of a lie.
Well, he was very sincere, I think, you know, and, and, you know, he brought up a couple of valid points about that.
So he was concerned about it, but he didn't think it was an urgent matter or that we were going to have an apocalypse or anything like that.
Oh, maybe he was like me. I believed it to begin with, because someone told me.
Okay. Yeah. So Al Gore, you know, who was a senator back in the 1980s, but then he became vice president under Clinton.
Anyway, he took a class that was being taught by Roger Revelle. He was Roger Revelle's student, and he wasn't a very good science student at all, but he was very impressed by what Roger Revelle was saying about climate change.
And so what he did was he ended up writing a book called Earth and the Balance, and in which he exaggerated a lot of the things that Roger Revelle had said. So he published that in 1992 when he was running for vice president.
And so Al Gore basically at this point really believes the lie. The doctor, you think, authentically believed he hadn't had the time to really digest and think about it and maybe come to an alternative conclusion maybe yet.
That's right. So anyway, he said that Roger Revelle was his mentor and his inspiration. And Roger, he said in only eight years of work that Roger Revelle did, that that proved that we were really heading for a crisis.
And this is a national best seller Al Gore's book in 1992, Earth and Balance.
Yeah, that's right.
Are you going to get to it?
So should we keep going or can I ask you? I'm curious to know still if the doctor, who put the birdie in the doctor's ear, this thing to start with?
Yes. Well, this is what really got it all started. As a matter of fact, we're going to go back to 1988 now.
In 1988, when Gore was senator, and he was hyping up this thing about climate change. So anyway, he and another senator named Tim Worth, they got together and they said, well, let's have a hearing on this.
And then James Hansen, from who was working for NASA. And this is a picture of James Hansen here. And he was a climate activist.
He actually participated in demonstrations and everything.
So anyway, it came out later that Tim Worth, who was another senator who got this whole thing set up, he said, he actually said on the TV, I think it was Nightline or Frontline or something, one of those programs, he said, we called the Weather
Bureau and found out what was historically the hottest day of the summer. So we scheduled the hearing that day. And Bingo was the hottest day on record in Washington. That was June 23rd, 1988.
He said, we went in the night before, and we opened all the windows so that the air conditioner wasn't working inside the room. And so when they had the hearing, everybody was sweating, it was really, really hot.
Isn't that tedious that they would do something like that?
It is, but I'm still in the mindset at this point, I'm on their side because I believe, I'm still believing they believed it, honestly. So I'm still wondering, how were they lied, who lied to them?
Well I think Al Gore might have convinced them too, you know, with some of the things that he was saying.
Al Gore is like me, I used to really believe it and I was passionate about it because I read it in the newspaper. Yeah. You're going to get to though, why they were lied to, who lied to them.
Right.
Okay. Well, I'm not really sure if we could ever find that out.
Oh, I thought that was the Club of Rome.
Well, yeah, the Club of Rome, definitely part of that. Anyway, Tim Wirth said, we've got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing.
So they wanted to destroy capitalism basically. And I think that this all comes down to.
So this is a quote from Senator Tim Wirth.
That's right.
What state is Senator Wirth, was Senator Wirth in?
Believe it or not, I think he was from Utah.
And maybe.
I think he was.
Okay. So now, now I'm trying to figure out if Al Gore and the doctor, the science guy, the real science guy, believed in global warming.
The Senator knows it's a scam, or he's saying basically even if we're wrong, we're going to do other things with it now. Where does the Senator, who is he being influenced with by? We'll do other things with it.
Well, a lot of things, probably. A lot of people are capitalizing on this whole thing.
Yeah.
I guess.
So anyway, Dr. Revelle was really upset about that hearing, because he didn't think it was really that much of a problem. And so he wrote a letter to Tim Worth back in 1988.
He wrote a...
He was basically saying that while the scientist, the doctor did think CO2 could be affecting the climate, he didn't think we were going to die from it when he told Al Gore about it.
Al Gore took it out of context, and Senator Worth and others are now...
Yeah, that's what happened. So anyway, this is one paragraph of this letter that he wrote to Senator Worth, which was ignored, okay? He said, we should be careful not to arouse too much alarm until the rate and amount of warming becomes clearer.
It is not yet obvious that this summer's hot weather and drought are the result of a global climatic change or simply an example of the uncertainties of climate variability.
My own feeling is that we had better wait another 10 years before making confident predictions. So that's what he said to Tim Worth. And then he also wrote a letter to another senator too, at the same time.
So he was trying to get the message to them.
The senator was?
To a congressman. I forget his name, but anyway, he wrote a letter to a congressman at the same time. So anyway, Roger Revelle, who's pictured in the middle here, and Dr.
Fred…
The guy who started the idea.
Yes, that's right. And Dr. Fred Singer and another scientist named Chauncey Starr.
Okay, they, together, they wrote an article. It was a nine-page article. It was called What to Do About Greenhouse Warming?
Look Before You Leap. And this was written in 1991. And in that article, they expressed doubts about the human-caused global warming hypothesis.
They warned that more research should be done before taking the kind of drastic action that Gore and others were calling for.
And if you go back and read that article, Look Before You Leap, which is still on line, believe it or not, you can find that article and...
In defense of the people who believe in global warming, comes to mind as cell phones. We need to do more studies. We can't say they're harmful.
They might be harmful. We're just dragging things out. This slide could be viewed as from either direction.
Maybe they're trying to say it's not true, or maybe it is true, and they're just wanting to slow things down. It could be interpreted either way.
And Roger Revelle did think that that was a problem, but he didn't think it was a serious problem, and he thought that it needed a lot more study.
So anyway, this is just a little bit of this article that they wrote here, which is, like I said, I think everybody should read this. It's nine pages long, but it really gives a lot of the same information that we know today.
I'll tell you a little more about that later. But anyway, this was their conclusion.
They said, the scientific base for greenhouse warming includes some facts, lots of uncertainty, and just plain lack of knowledge, requiring more observations, better theories, and more extensive calculations.
Specifically, there are reliable measurements of the increase in so-called greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere, presumably as a result of human activities. Now, you can see that they're saying that this was just presumably in all this.
In other words, they're using words like that.
So, Lynne, again, in defense of the people who believe in climate change is real, I was one of them. If I read something like this, it doesn't matter to me. I still believe in climate change.
In fact, it justifies why it's so urgent. We can't wait until it is certain. We have to act now.
That's what they're always telling us.
That's a good example. Whenever you hear propaganda, that's what they always say in propaganda. They say you have to do this right away.
This is so it's a straight quote from the scientists themselves who are saying, we literally don't know.
The other party grabbed onto it and used it to their advantage to drive their own agenda. And they don't really care if it's true or not.
That's what they did. And they said there's uncertainty about the strength of sources and sinks for these gases. The source would be where the gas is coming from, like from a volcano.
And the sink would be what it's going into.
The beautiful thing about this, if you're on the side that wants people to believe in climate change is, you're gold. You can't disprove. It doesn't matter.
People read this and they still believe climate change and they still believe it's urgent. Now it doesn't matter what the real scientists say.
Yeah, that's right. And, you know, if Al Gore really thought that Roger Revelle was his mentor and his inspiration and everything, he should have stayed in touch with him and found out what he was really saying all those years.
Well, Al Gore made too much money and too much power being the vice president to go that route. He did the right thing for himself, not the right thing for humanity.
That's right. And also, after he lost his bid for the presidency in the year 2000, he started his own company called Generation Management. And his net wealth went from $1.7 million to over $300 million.
He's made a killing off this little global warming thing, a serious conflict of interest.
It sure was.
Not to mention he's got a heated swimming pool and a jet, which are making a lot of CO2.
And a gazillion-bedroom house that's burning a lot of CO2 and air conditioning and heating. He's not living in a green building in a hut someplace trying to save energy.
In this article, too, they cited Nobel laureate economist William Nordhaus, who conducted a cost-benefit analysis of the measures that were being pushed, like solar panels and wind turbines, of the global warming crowd.
So in 1990, this is what William Nordhaus did. He said, those who argue for strong measures, the slow greenhouse warming, have reached their conclusion without any discernible analysis of the cost and benefits.
In other words, all of these policy makers that are passing all these laws saying we need to have, go to net zero, and we need to spend all this, you know, billions and billions of dollars on the Green New Deal and all that, right, to build all these
wind turbines and solar panels. They never did a cost-benefit analysis on that.
You know, what they should have done is they should have just done a very, very, maybe put up a couple of wind turbines and maybe a couple of solar panels and watch those.
Oh, sure, but we can't because the world's going to die. We're going to die if we don't do it fast enough. That's the logic there.
Yeah, that's right.
So anyway, it was really interesting that in 1994, when Gore was president, I don't know if you remember.
He looks familiar. This guy is he was Doyle.
Looks like Doyle, Ted Koppel. Okay, that was Ted Koppel. He had a show called Nightline.
Anyway, he indicated on that show one time, Nightline, that Gore had called him and asked him to investigate these people that he was calling anti-environmentalists such as Fred Singer.
Fred Singer was one of the three scientists that wrote that paper, right? And then he said that they were being paid by the coal industry. Oh dear, and that they should be investigated for that.
So anyway, Gore, it revealed that, I'm sorry, Ted Koppel revealed that Gore had done that. And anyway, I forgot to tell you something too. It's really important.
I'm going to go back here again. Okay. So Fred Singer and Roger Revelle and Chauncey Starr, they wrote this paper.
And then Roger Revelle died in 1991. And so in 1992, of course, that book came out, you know, called Earth in the Balance. Well, anyway, there was a writer, I think his name was Greg Easterbrook.
And Greg Easterbrook noted that the things that Roger Revelle had said in that article that he wrote in 1991 were different from what they were saying in Earth in the Balance. Now, he said, well, how could that be?
You know, why was it that this article here about look before you leap, you know, that said that there were some problems, you know, with that whole hypothesis, right?
So anyway, after Roger Revelle died back in 1991, there was a guy by the name of Justin Lancaster. And Justin Lancaster called Fred Singer and said, you're going to have to take Roger Revelle's name off that paper.
Because we don't believe that he really participated in writing that article. And so they tried to force him to do that. And he said, well, I can't take his name off because he's dead.
And, you know, he would have to give me his permission. But he can't do that because he's dead. So he wouldn't take his name off that.
So Justin Lancaster and another guy who was a member of Gore's staff at the time, of course, Gore was vice president at that time, they went around spreading a story about how Fred Singer had forced Roger Revelle to have his name put on that paper.
And they said he didn't write that paper. That was all done by Fred Singer. So they tried to accuse Fred Singer of doing that.
Well, Fred Singer told them to cease and desist. Don't try to damage my reputation like that. I think basically it was because Gore's reputation was actually being damaged because of the fact that he didn't really represent what Dr.
Revelle was saying at all. And so finally, Fred Singer had to sue this guy for defamation.
For mention of how Al Gore claimed he invented the Internet too.
Yes, that's right. He did say that.
He's good one for not thinking before he leaps in terms of what he says.
Yeah, that's right. So anyway, that went on, then, you know, and finally in that law, and this was thanks to Ted Koppel, because Ted Koppel kind of revealed what was going on there.
And so they, and in this lawsuit, they said that, first of all, I'm trying to think, I can't think of his name now, Justin Lancaster. He said that Revelle was an invalid and that he was cognitively impaired, okay?
That's what they were saying about Roger Revelle.
But it turned out that he wasn't at all, because when they had the discovery process for that lawsuit, they found out that he had a very full schedule of speeches and various meetings he went to, Roger Revelle.
So basically, they tried to vilify Fred Singer, who was a skeptic, you know, a climate skeptic. And I don't think the Chauncey star was really, he didn't really come out against global warming or anything. He was actually a nuclear engineer.
He was involved with the Manhattan Project. But when they had that lawsuit, you know, it came out that, you know, he said, Oh yes, Dr. Revelle had a lot to do with the writing of that article.
And they actually were able to produce some of Dr. Revelle's handwritten notes that he had written in the margins of when, you know, these three men were writing this article together like that.
So there was really no doubt that Roger Revelle had helped that article, even though Justin Lancaster and this other guy who was a member of course staff.
I'm trying to summarize in my head the significance of this. So Dr. Rogers, the guy who came up with the idea, why are they trying to discredit him now when he's actually the one that came up with it?
Because he's saying, yeah, I came up with it, but I don't think it's, I'm not sure it's that bad.
Exactly, right. Because he was a real scientist and he didn't like his facts, things that were really uncertainties, that needed a lot more evidence and a lot more proof.
Guy who had the initial idea, like anything scientific, I have an idea. When he had enough time to think about it, he's like, well, you know, I'm not so sure. I didn't say that for a fact.
It was just an idea. And they don't want, they don't want any more thinking behind it. They just want to go with the idea.
Yeah, that's basically what happened.
So in the end of that lawsuit, Justin Lancaster had to apologize for what he had said about Dr. Singer. And he said that he would never, he had promised that he would never ever go around saying that again about Dr.
Singer, that he had forced Dr. Revelle, you know, into putting his name on that article. And so shortly afterwards, you can guess what happened.
Justin Lancaster...
This is 91. This is like early 90s.
This was actually in 94, because you know those lawsuits take a lot of time. Sometimes they take years, right? And so basically, I think it was 1994 that he made that promise, that he wouldn't go around saying that anymore, that Dr.
Singer had forced Dr. Revelle into, you know, putting his name on that article, right? And so basically, after that was all over with, a few years went by, he went around and started saying that same thing again.
And if you look this up on Google, if you Google in the three names, right? Dr. Singer, Dr.
Revelle, and Dr. Star, or look before you leap, something like that, right?
And what will happen is, you know, Google will cut out all the truth, and they'll put the story that they want, you know, those are going to be like the first three or four articles that you find. And so...
Yeah, although I will point out, it's not so much Google is trying to... Or an alternative explanation is, AI and Google are based on the statistically popular answers, common sources.
By default, if you're one who's the minority, your viewpoint's not going to come up in the Google search as much.
Yeah, that's right. So, that's basically what happened. And you can go back and look and see other things that Roger Revelle said.
Like, Roger Revelle gave a speech in 1980, and I listened to that. That's also online. You can listen to that.
It's on YouTube. And he said in that 1980 speech, which was like 11 years before this article that they wrote, and he said all these things. He said, well, first of all, if there's more carbon dioxide in the air, the plants are going to grow better.
And he actually said that in that speech.
We certainly can't take it all out. A no-brainer, like people, have you thought about, if we quit making all CO2 and sequester it all, the plants will die.
That's right. If it gets down to 180, 150 parts per million, everything will die on Earth.
Talk about messing with taking a risk with the planet. Have you considered, it's not, I think people think by default, let's just make less CO2. How can we go wrong?
We can only do good. I wonder if they even realize that you make too less, you could destroy the Earth.
Yes, absolutely. In fact, I get really nervous when I hear about these geoengineering projects that they want to do, where they want to shoot aerosols up into the atmosphere to blot out the sunlight. Well, they know what's going to happen.
A lot of money is to be made with research and start-ups.
If you can, if you use keywords, capture or eliminate CO2.
That's right. Yes, that's what they want to do. And that's very expensive, sequestering carbon dioxide like that.
It's expensive.
And what if it's like a nuclear weapon? You didn't know what it would do until you blew one up. And you do this with your device to capture the CO2, and it kills us all, kills the plants, and no plants we can't really eat, so.
Yeah, that's for sure.
So anyway, then back in 2005, of course, we had Hurricane Katrina, which they blamed on climate change. And they tried to...
Even right at this moment, I look at the Hurricane Katrina, it's a picture with Al Gore, he's going to capitalize on climate change, not global warming.
In my mind, I have a gap where I'm trying to still connect hurricane, climate change, what does it have to do with temperature? I mean, at a common sense level, it's not common sense.
Well, you know, there's actually fewer hurricanes now than there were back in the 1940s. In the 1940s, I think there were several that devastated Florida during that decade of the 40s.
And then in the 1950s, there were several that hit the east coast of the United States. But now, in this hurricane season, and they were predicting that this would be one of the worst hurricane seasons ever.
I think there's been like one hurricane so far this year. Of course, it's not over yet, but.
So how did these guys explain it? They can't say it's global warming. How do they make CO2 due to climate change?
When the original scientist, it was about heating.
Well, I think the reason that they wanted to do that is that every time there's any kind of an unusual weather event, they can blame that on climate change. So it doesn't matter if we're having a lot of snowstorms.
We'll say, well, that's because of climate change. They've actually been quoted as saying that if there's more snowstorms, that's a really good sign of climate change. And then they talk.
Yeah, are they using it both ways, hot and cold, because climate change, like I used the analogy of the water bottle.
The water bottle we leave in your car gets hot or cold. They're saying the same thing about CO2 can get hot or cold. The thing is, they're making CO2 the bigger factor than clouds and water vapor.
That's how they're getting away with this.
Right. I think that the reason that they're using all these weather events is because that way they can write a thousand articles every time there's a big flood or a drought or anything like that. It all gets blamed on climate change.
Well, there was a famous scientist, his name was Karl Popper, I think. I think that was his name anyway. He said that, and if you cannot disprove a hypothesis, it's not science at all.
You can't disprove it.
It is climate change. There's a hurricane. There is climate change.
There's a flood. That's climate. It's not like we're living in, you know, it's not like it's have like everything's perfect all the time.
Yes.
So no matter what happens, they're going to blame it on climate change.
Well, they're going to blame it on CO2, right?
Yes, because that's what we're producing, right?
Because the word CO2, climate change, those words and CO2 go together. And really, that's what they're doing. Inconveniently or conveniently, when they say climate, they're meaning CO2.
So anyway, as you know, Al Gore made this documentary in 2006.
He took advantage of the fact that we had just been hit by Katrina.
I believed him at the time. I was a big supporter. I voted for him.
Anyway, he said he got two Oscars for that documentary, even though it was full of mistakes.
And then flew his jet airplane to the show.
And then he also got a Nobel Peace Prize.
Of course.
If you can believe that.
So that was very, very popular. And there was a book that went along with that documentary, and that was a best-selling book too.
The Inconvenient Truth.
Unfortunately, yeah. So that's basically what happened. But I think that this whole episode, you know, that happened with the...
Where is, are we going to get to the Club of Rome?
Are we going to get to who's behind it?
Well, the Club of Rome was started in 1968. And they said, I should really have that, the quote from what they said. But anyway, they basically said that, that mankind is responsible, and we have to do something about, about that.
So we can use the threat of global warming. That's what they said. We can use the threat of global warming.
You know, to get people on to this.
Do you have any slides on that?
Yeah, I do have some, but unfortunately, they're not part of this. I could send them to you later. I should have included.
Hoping you would speak more about that, though, because I myself had already personally discovered, you know, the whole, well, it's just not true part.
I was hoping you would tell us more about the origins of the people behind, you know, in the Club of Rome and how they might.
Well, the interesting thing about that, there was a man who wrote a book called The Population Explosion. He wrote about the Population Explosion and the short.
In your book, The Exposing the Great Law on Climate Change, and he talks about what we're speaking about on, you know, there's no truth, goes into the politics, and it says in 1968, Strong, who is this guy, Maurice Strong?
Maurice Strong, he was an oil man, believe it or not, from Canada. And I don't know what put him up to all this, but he was one of the people that were trying to get this whole thing started. And he started the...
It says in your book, he's a friend of the oil magnate David Rockefeller.
That's right, he was.
So anyway, he set up the IPCC, you know, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. He set that up in the United Nations. He also set up the World Meteorological Organization, to try to give this some scientific credibility, right?
And so anyway, then they had, I think it was in 1991 or 1992, they had a conference down in Rio, the region area where they put all this together, basically. And let's see, he set all these organizations up in 1988. You can believe that.
And also, you've probably heard of Agenda 21. And this all figures in with Agenda 21.
So say it again.
Agenda 21 was introduced at the Rio conference, I think it was back in 1988. I believe that was the year that they did that.
And basically, what they wanted to do with that was get people living in these smart, what they called smart cities, you know, and they wanted to make all the rural areas off limits to people, you know, so people couldn't enjoy the great outdoors
anymore. I don't know if you've heard that they're doing that in Canada right now, that they're fining people for walking in the woods.
I saw a video on that. I don't want to get distracted, but and the guy was like, watch me on video. I'm in my own backyard.
As I walk into the woods, I'm going to get arrested for for what? And then he goes into the woods. He's not damaging them.
He's not doing anything. That's for another show back to climate change. The Club of Rome founded in 68 is way before 1988.
So take me back in time to these people who thought we've got to save the world from overpopulation. And we need something we can wrap the whole world around, like an issue that we can force this on. It's really population control, right?
Yes, absolutely.
Tell me about that.
My then I'm just going to throw some stuff out there, but it's just idea. It's just where I would go if I wanted to learn one more. We have this group of guys who are really politically powerful, a club of roms.
That's right.
They were the world's richest men.
I'm just making this up now, smoking cigars, hanging out, talking about world problems. How can we solve population control? Because I remember my grandmother used to think war was the answer to population control.
Like, there's too many people. What's mother nature going to do? What if these smart guys, we need something we can basically make them eat, stop eating meat, you know, stop eating cows, stop burning so much oil, except it's not for environmental.
They're trying to literally kill people, control the population. And then they see this article from that doctor. What was his name?
The doctor who came up with the idea of CO2.
Roger Revelle?
Roger Revelle. And maybe they go, well, that's it. He's our guy.
It sounds perfect. It ties into anything we make up. We can tie back to climate change, like we're speaking of, whether it's a hurricane or the polar bears not having the iceberg to live on.
We can tie back to that guy's idea. But it has nothing to do with the environment. It's all they were trying to control the population.
I think that's really true.
And I also have a chart in that book called The Demographic Transition. And basically, what that says is that if you raise people's living standard, that the birth rate will naturally fall off by itself. And so all the people...
That's a great idea.
Because at first, I was on those guys' side. I'm like, well, yeah, it's true. I remember my grandmother telling me, how are we going to control the population?
What you're saying is genius, because they hadn't considered, yeah, if I'm in China and I'm digging ditches, I got to have 10 kids.
I'll be lucky if one lives, because they're child labor and working in the mines, mining for people's Tesla batteries, the lithium.
Yeah, that's right.
But if I'm in America and I'm a computer scientist and engineer, I have a great job. I may not have any kids. I may have one kid, two.
I'm not having 10, unless it's my religion. I don't think they had really thought of that. And either way, it's a bad twisted idea.
It's fake, basically, anyhow, either way.
Yes. And then another thing too, you know, this whole thing about the trans. And I hope I don't offend anybody by saying that.
When you think about that, that's the plot. That the whole trans steal, or they think somebody can change their sex to the opposite sex. Well, the whole reason why they did that is to keep the population down, too.
Because those people will never be able to have any children. And then they're against the family. Also, you know, if the parents don't go along with the children wanting to change their sex, then they take...
In California, they passed a law that they can take the children right away from their parents now. I don't know if you heard about that. So, it's all control of the population.
Right.
So, I like to keep focused on the solutions, Lynne, on my show, on the positive.
That's just how everything ties in though, right? You can connect all the dots, in other words.
If you know the truth, it helps. Like, what are you really trying to do? Like myself, I was true environmentalist.
I drove a four-cylinder, got good gas mileage in the 80s, not a V8. It was the right thing to do in my mind.
Why? I used to feel that way too. And I was against nuclear energy too.
But now, as I learn more about this, I realized that that's actually has killed less people than coal by far, and also, you know, gasoline too.
Yeah, the nuclear power is the thing I don't think they saw coming, and the environmentalists too, trying to push reductions in CO2. Nuclear power is the only way you're going to have power.
And it sounds like you're, I used to be like you are as a child, actually, this is how nerdy I am.
On a big, where most people are making posters for maybe, you know, your cheerleader or your football team, making a map of how a, me and my brothers, a nuclear power plant works in terms of the rods and the cooling and everything, a model. Yeah.
So it sounded great. But the fact is, so I lived in New Mexico, where, you know, Los Alamos, it's not a 100 percent safe.
Well, of course not. Nothing is, you know.
It's not, if we haven't learned anything, but look at Russia, the Chernobyl, I think it is. It's, to me, it's not the idea. It's not like, oh, let's just do that kind of answer.
There's no, to me, the real answer is we will need a third source energy, like the free energy you may have heard of, the idea of getting free energy. Why does it have to be one or the other? You know, nuclear power or coal.
Let's come up with something better, completely different, or useless power, which no one is doing, because like we're having this podcast right now, and that's using data.
And no one wants to use less power, including these environmentalists who are screaming about global warming. I guarantee you, they're texting on their phone all day.
And they're flying their private jets to these COP meetings.
I don't know if you've heard about the COP meetings that they have every year, where thousands and thousands of people will fly in to Davos or someplace like that, and they'll have a holiday. They'll have a big vacation out of it.
So in terms of solution, what do you think would happen if everybody in America, this is just completely a what if, because it's not going to happen, but if it happened, all of a sudden realize we're being conned, and no matter who Al Gore or Trump
or whoever's in the news saying, we're going to die because climate change, everyone's like, no, we're not, it's fake. What do you think they would do then?
I don't know, because once somebody gets an idea about something like that, it's very, very hard to change their mind, no matter how many facts you give them, unfortunately. But I think gradually, I think this is going to fall down.
This whole thing is based on such shaky science. That's one of the reasons I showed you some of those initial slides, just to show you how shaky that science is.
If it happened tomorrow that it fell apart, everyone's like, seriously, I'm changing the channel. The senators, the politicians would quit talking about it because they don't want to, as you said earlier, look like they made something up or wrong.
The trouble is, it will have taken 30 years for people to realize they've been conned.
So that's really set us back.
And what I'm getting to next is they're going to come up with the new con the next day, which 80%, 90% of people will believe.
We need to make people think better, so the 90% people start don't believing the new lie once they realize they've been lied to. Now, how do we stop people from believing they've been lied to, to think better for themselves?
That's a really good point. And I think in that book, I've talked about the various logical fallacies that they use in propaganda.
The first one is ad hominem, of course, where they don't really debate the subject, but they just hit the people that are the messengers, you know. So that's what they call ad hominem, right?
This is great. I didn't realize this is in your book.
And they started that with Fred Singer, as a matter of fact. They vilified him.
Yeah, vilification of the enemy is a key strategy in there. So here's a way you tell if who's telling the truth, who's being vilified the most.
That's for sure. Censorship is another thing, too.
You know, censorship is hard, though, because you just you'll never hear about it. You'll never hear the other side of the story on the news.
And then when you find those people online, you'll think they're not as smart because if they were, well, then they would be on the news. So they would be right. They'd be a best seller if they were the smart people.
So they can be.
So in answering your question, I think it's really the children in school that we need to be teaching these things to how to do critical thinking.
And one way they could do that would be each child could bring in an article from a newspaper about climate change and then being asked to identify those logical fallacies that are in that article. One of them is just lack of information.
Oh, that would be rough for kids though because you can get beat, literally get beat up. Some people will literally beat you up for your beliefs. That can be kind of dangerous for a kid, for anybody, adult or kid.
But maybe on a different topic, one that's not so passionate, religious almost to people, that's a good idea, critical thinking. Bring in an article, not a debate, a breakdown of facts.
Well, this whole COVID thing had happened too. That's another example of propaganda. And while they censored a lot of those doctors, they were talking about cures for COVID.
They said use ivermectin and hydroxychloride, one of them.
One of my clients was a doctor in the immune, immunology, the idea of the disease. And she was like, now's the worst time to vaccinate. You don't vaccinate during an endemic.
It's the worst time because you don't build herd immunity. So she's like, it's a classic, like, don't do this, and yet they're doing it. And of course, all of them are censored, and they would lose their jobs.
Or if they're working at a university, if they spoke up, they would not just be censored, they'd be fired. Yeah, I like the part about bringing articles to school of your kids.
Is there anything that we haven't mentioned that you'd think would be helpful for people listening or watching?
Well, the only other thing I could add, I guess, would be that I know we're not having a climate emergency, because if there was, we wouldn't have cryptocurrency, because they have to use a tremendous amount of energy to do the data mining that they
The data centers themselves are small cities now.
They need nuclear power plant just to own the data centers.
You know, we're going to have to build a slew of those. That's the only way that we're going to keep from having blackouts and brownouts.
To be, I used to work in semiconductor as a process engineer, and I left because I didn't even own a computer. And I would have never foreseen where food is of less value than your phone or your Internet.
Like, I could go for food longer than I could go without my phone. Most people. What you're saying, where would we put all the data centers underground, the power plants?
And for what? What's left? Where's the trees, the forest, the park?
Why?
Yeah, and another thing, these big AI centers that they have now, the AI, that takes a tremendous amount of power. So, I don't know where this power is going to come from.
We're going to have to take a lot of the regulations off the planning of these nuclear power plants, so don't get them stored.
A long time ago, it would have been impossible to start a nuclear power plant. They started accepting applications again.
That's good. They're going to have to.
In terms of the big myth of climate change, if there was one thing you wanted to leave people to remember, to clear things up, what would be the biggest myth of climate change you want them to remember?
Well, you have to think about that.
Well, there's too many of them. That's why it's an easy con, because there's so much to think about and break down. You give up and just believe it because you have to, because we're going to die if you don't.
That's for sure.
Well, I think maybe one of the biggest myths is, is that if you go back and look at some of the predictions that they were making back in the 1980s and 1990s, they even had a five-part documentary called Race to Save the Planet.
It was a five-part documentary, and they said that by the year 2000, the temperature was going to go up four degrees. Of course, none of that ever happened. They were saying that they wouldn't have any more snow back in the 1980s and 90s.
Of course, we've had these huge snow storms since then, so they kind of had to change their tune about that.
But all these predictions, and when you think about it, astronomers can tell you when there's going to be a solar eclipse and when there's going to be a lunar eclipse. They can tell you to the exact minute when that's going to take place.
But yet these so-called climate scientists can't... None of their predictions have materialized. I can't think of a single one.
One of them was the sea level increase. They said that the level of sea level increase was accelerating, right? Well, somebody just did a study within the last year.
It came out that they just looked at all the tidal gauges for all the coastal areas, you know, all over the world. They said that the rate of ocean rise, sea level rise, is about 1.6 millimeters per year. 1.6 millimeters.
Well, a millimeter, that's about the thickness of your fingernail, okay? And so what that really means is that in 10 years, that would be 6 tenths of an inch that the ocean would go up.
I would bring it back to, I don't, I'm not trying to have a discussion about the sea level. Anything could change that. Let's talk about is the temperature real?
What is the actual temperature data? Because it's all about the heating and cooling. Let's stick to the temperature.
Okay.
Well, one thing that they did was that they, you know, had all these. I wanted to show you the urban heat island effect. You know, the temperature being hotter, you know, being measured is hotter.
There's so much concrete in a big city.
Yes, exactly.
That's right. So if they were to just take all the big cities out of their calculations and just do the rural areas, and they've done that already, they find out there isn't any temperature increase at all.
Yes, that's what I found looking at the data, because I did find if I looked at the data, Phoenix, a slight, so there's a maximum temperature and a low temperature, low and a high and a meter. So the low temperature seemed to be like not changing.
It was the high temperature in Phoenix slightly going up. And why would that be? Because it's storing heat.
It's going to take longer and longer for it to cool down. But eventually, it does cool down. More or less, there's no rising.
But if I took it from a rural town, I sometimes I'd almost wonder if it was getting cooler still.
Oh, I believe that it is. As a matter of fact, and this is in that nine-page paper that these guys wrote back in 1991.
They said the interesting thing about that is that the low temperatures are not quite so low, but the high temperatures have actually decreased a little bit. So they're taking the average, right? So that, and they said, well, that's actually good.
Back to when I went and bought the data from weather, from a weather station for 20, 30, 40 years.
What do I plot? The minimum, the maximum, the average? Because if I was only to plot the maximum, it's clearly going to go skewed in Phoenix versus the average or the low.
It's almost like, it's a little mind, it takes a bit of thinking to think actually, what am I actually going to plot when I only have one weather station and one town, little on trying to group everything together.
And so what they did was they said, well, we're making adjustments for the urban heat island effect. But then the question is, well, how do you make these adjustments? How much do you adjust it?
That gets me back to the fundamental thing.
I don't want to argue. I just want to see what the temperature is.
Yeah.
The temperature, nothing else. Can you give me that?
That's science, right? Science is data-driven, and you don't use computer models in science, which is what they did, you know?
Yeah.
We had a hundred different-
You know, do you believe in God or not?
Yes, absolutely.
We could argue all day about that. The temperature, hello, it's not my belief. Do I believe in global warming?
Can I see the temperature? I can see it. It's like going outside and talking to God.
I could just- Why don't we just look at what the temperature is?
That's absolutely right. That's science. And anything other than that is not science.
I'm reminded of how I came to believe and then not believe.
It was when, so back in the 80s, I'm driving a four-cylinder, trying to conserve gas pollution. It's the right thing to do. I'm an environmentalist.
Nobody cares about CO2 or burning gas. Gas is 99 cents a gallon. Everybody's burning as much as they can with the V8.
All of a sudden, people are concerned. The newspaper has, as you say, articles about flooding and hurricanes, and in the goal, CO2, at first, people get it.
And then after a while, when it got so intense, I'm like, no, nobody cares that much about the environment. We're still throwing plastic into the ocean. We're still doing all kinds of things bad for them.
Why? That's when I really started to ask in terms of critical thinking, because nobody... That would tip me off.
I know there's more to this. They do not care that much about this.
That's right. And all of these environmental groups, they just turn their heads the other way when they hear about all the birds that are being killed, slaughtered by the wind turbines, and whales in every century.
I quit my wildlife whatever federation. Oh yeah, I quit all of them after I realized how fake they were.
And then it takes about 500 times as much land for the same amount of energy that you get, you know, from solar panels.
And then they still have to have coal or, you know, natural gas plants to back them up when the sun's not shining and the wind's not blowing.
It was, Lynne, it was the Curly Q light bulbs. Energy-saving light bulbs. So back in the 90s, when this whole scare started, the Sierra Club, literally, the whole agenda, the whole solution to climate change, replace all your light bulbs.
The thing is, my day job is doing environmental testing and somebody broke one of those and they contain mercury. And you're like, what should I do? Is it a problem?
Yeah.
Well, most, yeah, most people think, well, it can't be that bad of a problem.
Otherwise they wouldn't let you have them. Has anybody tested the air and see what happens if you break one in a house? And when they did, I wasn't the first to do it.
It was the state of Maine that the people in the office are like, you know, we should go out into this house and see what happens. You're like, wow, this is a hazardous environment.
It sure is.
So I call the Sierra Club back, call them up and come. You know what? I'm a big supporter.
I give you money and you send me a backpack. I appreciate it and I love you, but your solution is, first of all, very toxic. And how do you know it's going to work?
But besides that, it could literally hurt people really bad. No, our data shows if we just put one of these in everybody's houses, yeah, it'll solve the whole problem like, can you show me any data on that logic? Anything at all?
No, just talk, right? Just talk.
That's absolutely right.
Oh my God, they don't have a clue. Which would the problem with that, Lynne, is it's not that I'm making fun of them because I kind of am.
It's, oh my gosh, this is like you're driving really fast, as fast as you can, doing something to save yourself from this global warming. And you actually don't know that that's going to work.
Exactly.
Did you, for example, consider that as soon as people start saving electricity by getting light bulbs, they're going to leave the lights on all the time.
Yeah.
Which is what they do, right? They're like, oh, we don't need to worry about energy saving bulb. Your power consumption didn't go down.
So now you have sick people from Mercury and you didn't actually do anything to solve your global warming problem. That's what I mean by when you laughed. I'm like, they don't have a clue.
And they don't have any way of disposing of these light bulbs to throw them in the trash.
And same thing is true of the solar panels too. Solar panels have all kinds of toxic ingredients in them, and they should be recycled when they wear out.
That was actually my process when I was an engineer at Motorola. The same one they used for Boron. It's been a while.
Boron trichloride, BCL3, horrible dioxin-containing stuff. That's how they make solar panels, most of them. And they don't make them in America because it's too toxic.
Because it can get by with environmental regulations. I think you're doing good by in solar panels, and yet they're being made. China and the Third World are hurting people with the air and the water.
They are coming out with some more non-toxic methods to make solar panels.
That's good.
The fact is, those stuff for 30 years have been making millions of them that are toxic, and it's still not non-toxic. But back to this Sierra Club, or if you think, okay, I'm going to get a solar panel, it's not going to last forever.
It's because technically, when you embed the stuff into the silicon to make the solar energy work, those things move once they're embedded in the material over time.
That's interesting. I didn't know that.
That's why they lose efficiency, which at some point, you're like, you know what, I'm only getting so many wattages and efficiency out of my solar panel, I'm going to throw it away and get a new one. It's cheaper and better, right?
So much for environmentalism. You don't care. You just want a faster, better solar panel.
And then you're not going to think about how are they making those? And you're not going to know unless you're an engineer in the field.
Yeah.
And doing the talks of dirty, you're never going to know how bad, which is gets us back to using less power, which no one's using less power. So it's silly. It's like ludicrous.
It's insane. It's insanity.
Oh, yes. So like you said, you know, when this whole thing, you know, topples, which it definitely is, I think, starting to already this whole hypothesis, don't come up with another one, like you said, no, it would be too late.
We won't have any meat. What else? They're trying to cut off everything.
Our water, our food, our fuel. They're going to control us basically like they wanted to.
I guess the only answer to that is we just have to be as self-sufficient as we can. And just be prepared for anything that might happen.
I don't think it's too late. I think if enough people became aware, as long as they don't get caught up in the new lie, whatever it is, they're going to fight back hard.
Theoretically, if it is a free country, we can always vote to repeal methane taxes on our food and cow taxes. And the people that run the trade department for the stock market, they could just say, no more cap and trading system.
Yeah, the cap and trade. I don't know if you ever heard about Enron, the company that went bankrupt around 2000. And they were in this whole cap and trade thing.
And they made billions of dollars out of that. And they were doing it because of acid rain. That's what got the whole thing started, there was the acid rain.
Back in the 1980s, they were talking about sulfur dioxide.
I haven't heard that term in a while.
And then they said…
Remind me what the acid rain is.
Okay, well, you know, when these plants generate power, you know, they're generating sulfur dioxide.
Do you mean coal burning?
Coal burning plants, right. And then sulfur dioxide goes up into the atmosphere, where there's a lot of water, you know, liquid water and clouds and everything. It joins up with the oxygen and makes sulfuric acid.
And then because the weather travels from west to east, they said that the sulfur dioxide was coming down with rain. They were calling it acid rain then, right? And it was killing the fish in the lakes and killing the forests and everything.
And so that went on for years and years. They talked about that. And so they started this cap and trade thing.
That's how that all got started with sulfur dioxide. And then they said, well, Enron made billions of dollars on that. And Enron was, you know, they were all...
So the cap and trade for people who don't know it means basically we want to limit the amount of coal plants.
So the amount of carbon dioxide you can produce.
If you produce less carbon dioxide, you know, then you get a permit that you're allowed to produce so much of that and you're not using it all, then you can sell that permit to another company that's producing too much.
Or if I want to produce more, I can use a card. Thing is, we're all still making the same amount of CO2. The idea was going to limit how much you could make, but it doesn't really limit how much you can make.
It just makes it more expensive or something like that. It's all smoking.
Ultimately, the consumer is going to pay that. You know, the taxpayers and the consumers, they're going to get hit with this in the end.
Because you're still going to use as much power. You're still going to use as much power. You're still going to be as much CO2 made.
They're just making money off of us and you're paying for it.
That's right. So that was one of their motivations, for sure.
The thing about coal, because I'm a true tree-hugger, mountain climber, environmentalist, just seems the right thing to do. Don't litter. There's a solution for the coal.
So at first, I'm like, oh yeah, coal bad. It also makes mercury in the air. That was the Sierra Club's excuse for banning coal plants.
It makes mercury. I'm like, well, how can we have a mercury light bulb in someone's house and it breaks and it's okay if they breathe it? Yeah.
But you can't.
That's a good point.
Yeah. No, not to them, it wasn't. To them, no data, but they're still sticking to there is less mercury produced in light bulbs than there is at a coal plant.
Yes. But I'm back to what happens if I break one in my house and I get sick, I don't know, die, what? Am I not important?
Is the planet, is there another way? To which, what people forget, me included is we think we're going to throw out the coal plant, it's bad either way, it's dirty. You could put a scrubber on a coal plant.
Absolutely.
And make it fine.
Why is everyone forget? You can put an air filter, I'm using air filter simply for the technology, all this, whatever you want to pick that's bad. You can always filter it.
Let's even say 90 percent. It just costs money. We can do it.
Make it a little bit more expensive, but not that much.
But not as expensive as solar panels and wind turbines.
So we say, well, that'd be too expensive. Our utilities go up. Not as much as they will do if we're all trying to do solar or nuclear, something else.
Yeah, you just shoved under the rug or nobody thinks about it.
Well, they never talk about that. That's right.
No. I mean, it's easy peasy. We could do it tomorrow.
We don't have to shut the plant down. Workers could stay. There'd be more workers, more high-tech workers, because that would be a high-tech actual think process, not just on burn stuff.
Yeah.
They're probably not going to hear it anywhere but here, Lynne.
Oh, yeah.
So your two books will be in the show notes, exposing the great climate change lie, and then your first book, The Green New Deal, which is also a fascinating topic, which the Green New Deal, which was introduced in 2019, it of course is
intentionally. See, people think they have choice like, I'll buy an electric car because it's cool and new in Tesla. No people. In 2019, right, Lynne?
Green New Deal, we will replace gas with electric, right? They made that up. You think you have a choice, it's been made for you, and we will make you be a vegetarian, no more meat.
That's right.
So this is all about control then, in other words, right?
Because otherwise it will be CO2 and the planet will overheat and there will be another hurricane. You don't want that to happen. And yeah, how do they do that?
Methane tax on the cows that admit flatulence and whatever reason. Basically, a high tax on that. Farmer passes on to your food to where basically you can't afford to eat meat anymore.
And the manufacturer shut it down to where, unless you're a super rich person, flying it in on your private jet from an exotic country, you're not getting a hamburger. And number three, I don't know what this means, Lynne, extrapolate it.
I think I got it from your book or some place when I was trying to prepare for this. The Green New Deal introduced in 2019 is going to rebuild every, quote, structure in America. What does structure mean?
Every single structure, every bit of water, people, everything.
Yeah, water.
Well, that was agenda 21.
That's what agenda 21 wants to do. It would be pure totalitarianism, pure control over everything. It's really communism.
That's what it is.
Pretty much nothing to do with temperature. Absolutely nothing. Just being, we're being, we're being used, played.
And I don't think it's too late. But I also don't have faith on people, again, not picking up on the new life. So it's great, great work you're doing.
Well, thank you.
Good book, The Great Climate Change.
And I'm a pretty hard guy. I'm a scientist, engineer, hard guy to please in terms of just the facts and the pictures and the...
Well, thank you very much.
Yeah, so well done. Thanks for being, thanks so much for being on my show.
Thank you for inviting me.
Have a great day.