Debunking election campaign climate change myths
Episode Stats
Words per Minute
158.26282
Summary
Michelle Sterling from Friends of Science joins me on The Gunn Show to talk about her new video debunking climate change myths and what the science says about climate change, and why it s not as bad as they make it out to be.
Transcript
00:00:00.000
Hello Rebels, you're listening to a free audio-only recording of my weekly show,
00:00:04.480
The Gun Show. My guest tonight is Michelle Sterling from Friends of Science. If you like
00:00:09.680
listening to this show, you will love watching it, but in order to watch, you need to be a
00:00:13.760
subscriber to premium content. That's what we call our long-form TV-style shows here on The Rebel.
00:00:19.360
Subscribers get access to my show as well as other great TV-style shows too, like Ezra's
00:00:24.900
Nightly, Ezra Levant Show, and David Menzies' fun Friday night show, Rebel Roundup. It's only eight
00:00:31.320
bucks a month to subscribe, or you can subscribe annually and get two months free. And just for
00:00:36.500
my podcast listeners, you can save an extra 10% on a new premium membership by using the coupon code
00:00:41.660
podcast. When you subscribe, just go to premium.rebelnews.com to become a member. And please
00:00:49.660
leave a five-star review on this podcast and subscribe in iTunes or wherever you listen to
00:00:54.380
podcasts. Those reviews are a great way to support The Rebel without ever having to spend
00:00:58.760
a dime. And now please enjoy this free audio-only version of my show.
00:01:18.220
Climate change has been in the forefront of this federal election campaign wherever we look.
00:01:23.420
But does anybody really actually care? And what does the science say about all of this
00:01:29.200
anyway? I'm Sheila Gunn-Reed and you're watching The Gunn Show.
00:01:32.660
Hi, Mr. Trudeau. Since your multiple use of blackface became an international scandal,
00:01:55.240
Canada's international reputation has been irreparably harmed. Have you reached out to any
00:02:01.220
African leaders or any leaders from the Middle East to apologize for your conduct?
00:02:05.000
Canada will continue to engage in a positive, constructive way around the world, standing
00:02:10.360
up for human rights, engaging with leaders right around the world, because we know that promoting
00:02:16.860
our values and prosperity for everyone around the world is good for Canadians and creates better
00:02:24.780
So that didn't answer the question at all. Have you spoken to any African leaders or leaders from
00:02:29.400
the Middle East to apologize for your personal conduct?
00:02:32.460
I have continued to engage with leaders around the world in a responsible way during an election
00:02:38.700
campaign. My focus is connecting with Canadians, as I was able to tonight. And I was very pleased
00:02:43.600
to see so many of the questions turned to the environment. In all sections, there was a clear
00:02:48.760
contrast between those on stage who don't think we should be fighting climate change and those of us
00:02:53.980
who do. And again, we are the only party with a clear plan to fight climate change.
00:02:58.940
That is my friend and very daring colleague, Kian Bextie, fresh off his federal court win to gain
00:03:05.300
access to the English language leaders debate and scrum. And you can see why the liberals sent
00:03:12.540
lawyers, I guess five of them, to try to keep him out. But besides Kian's actual journalistic
00:03:18.440
question shocking all the Putin press all around him, something else is happening here.
00:03:24.980
Kian asked a biting, relevant, salient question the world definitely wants answers to about Trudeau's
00:03:32.820
blackface scandal. And Trudeau somehow deflected to climate change. It's all the liberals can talk
00:03:40.780
about from their carbon tax to their bizarre tree planting plan. Do any of these liberal solutions to
00:03:48.740
climate change even work? Do they make sense? And is there even a problem that we should be
00:03:54.960
solving? My guest tonight has been doing some terrific work debunking some of the myths around
00:04:01.520
the political agenda of climate change from Greta Thunberg's constant scolding to Trudeau's
00:04:08.780
reforestry plan. Joining me tonight in an interview we recorded yesterday afternoon is good friend of
00:04:15.240
the show, Michelle Sterling from Friends of Science.
00:04:32.380
So climate change has really been the focus of a lot of politics these days, especially on the federal
00:04:39.640
election. And I'm not really concerned, or I'm not really convinced that I think Canadians care all
00:04:45.560
that much about it when we have things like jobs and debt to worry about. Joining me now from Calgary
00:04:53.760
is Michelle Sterling from Friends of Science. And I wanted to have Michelle on, well, for a bunch of
00:04:59.140
different reasons. But Friends of Science has had a video go viral lately. And it's been something that
00:05:05.960
hasn't been touched by the mainstream media. And I think it went viral because this is the sort of
00:05:13.400
climate change news that people really care about, as opposed to this stuff that we're constantly being
00:05:17.880
force fed in the mainstream media. Michelle, thanks for joining me. I wanted to have you on because you
00:05:24.220
have a video that has, I guess it's nearly 600,000 views. And that's a lot for little old Friends of
00:05:32.400
Science. It's called No Climate Emergency Says 500 Scientists to the UN. Can you tell us a bit
00:05:38.700
about that one? Yes. Well, there was a petition sent to the or a declaration sent to the UN in the
00:05:45.860
same week that Greta was there and she made her how dare you speech. And these 500 scientists from
00:05:51.880
around the world, it began in Europe. That's why it's called the European Climate Declaration. But
00:05:56.560
there are people from around the world who have joined in. And these 500 scientists basically say
00:06:01.020
there's no climate emergency, which is the most important thing to know. And they also say that
00:06:06.280
we should be less political with climate science and more scientific. And they're proposing that
00:06:13.440
perhaps in 2020, there be some kind of a bilateral meeting of people who hold dissenting views on climate
00:06:21.740
and with the UN and some of the other climate people there. So I think they're looking for a very
00:06:27.680
constructive path. Anyway, this was issued, we sent their press release from our service to about 500
00:06:35.440
media outlets, mostly in Canada. And nobody picked up the story. So it was so frustrating. I thought,
00:06:43.500
well, maybe I'll just do a video and read what's in the in the declaration. So I did that. And really,
00:06:49.900
to our great surprise, it just completely took off. Like we do have many videos that have maybe 10,000
00:06:55.420
views. The one on Ross McKittrick's letter got, I think, 32,000, 36,000 views. So we do have some
00:07:02.340
that get up there. But this one just really took off. So we now have, as you say, nearing 600,000 views.
00:07:09.700
And obviously, people are interested in knowing this. But the media, again, did not pick up the fact
00:07:16.360
that this story went viral. So you have to realize that there's a campaign going on right now across the
00:07:22.160
world with, I think, more than 300,000, 300 media outlets, who are signed up to this thing called
00:07:30.040
covering climate now. So their whole focus is to cover climate stories. And not one of them picked
00:07:37.700
up this story. So we did another video called censoring climate now, because that's obviously
00:07:42.980
what they're doing. Anyway, that's yes. I found your censoring climate now video very fascinating.
00:07:50.860
And like you say, there are media outlets who actually, I mean, I've sort of made it my beat
00:07:56.700
to cover issues of climate change from a skeptic's point of view. And when I say skeptic, I just don't
00:08:02.220
think that taxes change the weather. And when everybody else starts living like we're in a climate
00:08:07.060
emergency, maybe I'll start taking it seriously. But there are reporters who, like, that's their
00:08:14.740
beat, climate change, and the world is going to end. That's their beat. And they completely ignored
00:08:21.820
these 500 actual scientists, like hard scientists, their letter to the UN. They just completely
00:08:28.500
pretended like it didn't exist. And if your beat is climate change, and you're supposed to do straight
00:08:32.680
journalism, well, then report the news. Right. Well, I mean, you can see that the policies
00:08:39.140
they say at the Toronto Star, they will not engage in any what they call false ballots. Same with
00:08:44.960
National Observer, which of course, is run by Linda Solomon Wood, who is the sister of Joel Solomon,
00:08:52.880
who is part of the Tides organization and has been running part of the Tar Sands campaign in Canada
00:08:59.180
for years. So you know, they have an agenda. You know, if you look at all these journalists who
00:09:06.980
claim that they are dedicated to objectivity and accuracy and everything else, you know, when it
00:09:13.540
comes to climate, that's simply not the case. And the first thing they do is they call you a denier,
00:09:18.800
instead of reviewing what your actual stance is, because, and that there's a group called Climate
00:09:24.780
Feedback, actually, which is certified by the Poynter Institute. The Poynter Institute is a
00:09:31.480
journalistic institute in the United States. So they put together a group of climate scientists
00:09:37.460
who would comment on different science stories. So of course, they've shredded the story of the 500
00:09:44.060
scientists as if they're not climate scientists, what do they know? Well, most of the people on that
00:09:49.300
list were studying climate before the commentators in the critique were born. So because climate
00:09:56.480
science as a metier is really since 2005. Before that, there was not such a discipline as climate
00:10:03.640
science. It was earth scientists, atmospheric scientists, physicists, meteorologists, volcanologists,
00:10:11.480
oceanographers, you know, it's an interdisciplinary field. So Poynter Institute, of course,
00:10:18.040
is funded by groups like Tides. So, you know, it's very nice to say, oh, well, look, you know,
00:10:24.340
we did a critique, and we brought in the real climate scientists. If you look at who's on the
00:10:29.040
list there, two of them are forest agronomists. What do they know about critiquing climate science?
00:10:34.740
You know, they are part of the interdisciplinary field. But that's really the point. It's interdisciplinary,
00:10:41.780
and it's very complex. So I think I kind of went on too long there.
00:10:47.380
No, no, that's great. I just, it occurred to me when you were going on about how there's this
00:10:52.640
imbalance in the media. And it reminds me of a story I did. It was a few years back, actually,
00:10:57.860
it's probably one of the first real stories I did into like CBC's bias. And someone had written to the
00:11:05.780
CBC because they were watching this news story about these islands off the East Coast and they're
00:11:12.100
shrinking. I forget the name, it escapes me. I'm a landlocked Albertan. So that sort of stuff really
00:11:18.900
doesn't interest me unless CBC's lying. And so the guest that they were, that they had on the show
00:11:27.540
was saying, oh, well, these islands are eroding because of climate change. Like that was the only
00:11:32.020
reason they gave. And so this viewer wrote in and said, you didn't even, you know, like it's very
00:11:37.540
clearly erosion based on, uh, sea, sea, sea water moving like tides and stuff. And that wasn't even
00:11:45.240
presented as something that could have been, they didn't even present it as though it could have been
00:11:50.300
a reason, let alone the main reason. And the CBC ombudsman wrote this person back who forwarded me
00:11:57.960
the email that basically said, well, we don't, we don't have somebody on from the other side of the
00:12:03.580
debate. So if we are attributing something to climate change, we're not ever going to have
00:12:09.760
somebody on who says, well, maybe it could be this, or maybe it could be that, but it's not always
00:12:14.520
climate change. It's CBC policy that they don't offer the other side because they don't feel there's
00:12:21.420
another side at all. Yeah. Well, you know, what journalists feel and what the facts are are two
00:12:26.960
different things. Yes. You know, we shouldn't be talking about feelings on climate change. That's
00:12:32.340
what Dr. Catherine Hayhoe tried when she was in Calgary during the city's conference. She asked
00:12:37.320
the audience, you know, how do you feel about climate change? How has climate change impacted your
00:12:42.340
life? Well, of course, many people in Calgary were devastated by the flood in 2013. So they feel
00:12:47.820
pretty bad if you tie it to climate change. But that was an extreme weather event. You know,
00:12:52.620
eight of the worst floods in Calgary's history were before 1933. Human affected climate change is only
00:12:59.360
deemed to have started about 1950. And it's only deemed to be a portion of the change. So, you know,
00:13:06.440
Dr. Hayhoe was misleading the public. And yet she's just been given a huge award in the States as one of
00:13:12.940
the best, you know, science communicators in the world. Well, great. What's she communicating?
00:13:24.480
Self-help program. Yeah. Yeah. If I want to, if I want somebody who wants to know how I feel about
00:13:31.120
something, I'll go to a therapist. You know what I mean? Like, I want, I want the facts. And that's it.
00:13:38.140
That's it. Not feelings. Now, speaking of facts over feelings, you had a really great video probably
00:13:46.240
about a week ago around the time that St. Greta Thunberg came to visit us all. And you laid out
00:13:53.280
the facts. You said, don't worry, Greta, be happy. Yes. Yes. Don't worry, be happy. Yeah. This is based
00:14:00.760
on the 500 scientists and their declaration for one thing, because they say that, you know,
00:14:08.240
we don't really have to be concerned in that we have certainly until another 100 years, you know,
00:14:16.120
to figure out this issue. It's not a critical issue right now. But there's a little video that
00:14:22.360
Greta and George Malbio did together, which is posted on The Guardian. And I find it quite creepy.
00:14:28.120
You know, she's a 16 year old girl. He's a very mature man. And the two of them are making a big
00:14:34.420
pitch that there's a way to save the planet with these magical machines called trees. Well, trees
00:14:40.340
are plants. They're not machines. And, you know, they're advocating that everybody should run out
00:14:46.700
and plant a tree. And, you know, I'm not opposed to planting trees. I love it. But in this video,
00:14:52.200
we also show Greta that, you know, actually, China is building the Obor, right? And nobody's saying a
00:15:02.120
word about that. The Obor is this huge band of road of roads across Asia, and a marine path across Asia
00:15:11.300
to Europe. And, you know, George and Greta are not saying a word about that. And Greta's opening line
00:15:18.860
was from Extinction Rebellion's theme, which is, this is not a drill. So, you know, they try to scare
00:15:25.660
people, then they say, go plant trees, everything will be fine. And they don't even address the real
00:15:30.280
elephant in the room, which is the encroachment of China on the rest of the world. And China is not
00:15:36.680
going to be doing any climate activity of any merit in the near future. So we should be thinking
00:15:43.460
about these geopolitics and not focusing on this climate craziness. So you just brought up
00:15:50.700
Extinction Rebellion, and we had the Extinction Rebellion bridge out protests this week, all across
00:15:57.900
the country. I think in Edmonton, they lasted about an hour and a half before they got tired
00:16:03.820
and cold. Closest thing to work they've done in a long time. They gave up after 90 minutes. I don't
00:16:09.880
know how long they made it in Calgary. The police arrived in Edmonton. I watched some of the coverage
00:16:15.400
from Global, and they blocked traffic for at least an hour, hour and a half. At one point, the police
00:16:21.100
were actually standing in front of them, protecting them, instead of arresting them. You know, it's an
00:16:27.020
offense to intentionally block a traffic lane in Canada. So it's fine to have some kind of a protest.
00:16:37.560
You know, you can carry your sign, you could stand on the side of the road, lots of things you can do
00:16:41.740
without creating chaos. But this is intentional chaos. Their objective is to destroy capitalism.
00:16:49.360
And, you know, George Monbiot, who I mentioned before in the video with Greta, his plan is that
00:16:54.420
everyone will have a carbon ration. A carbon ration. So, you know, you'll have to carefully
00:17:00.700
meet out whether you're cooking, whether you're heating your house. And if you run out of your
00:17:05.480
carbon ration, well, you just buy more credits from someone who has them. Well, how's that going
00:17:10.220
to work out for people who are poor? So, you know, this is a very serious thing that's presented as
00:17:16.360
something innocuous. But I see it as very, very dangerous to society in general.
00:17:21.760
Yeah, it's, it's chilling to me how many people are lending the likes of Extinction Rebellion some
00:17:31.720
credibility, like Elizabeth May, like Greta Thunberg, I guess, to some extent, Justin Trudeau,
00:17:37.720
when he marched with Greta Thunberg, ironically against himself. It's very frightening to see,
00:17:44.980
like you say, these chaos makers and lawbreakers being treated as though they are not only the
00:17:52.060
scientific authority, but the moral authority when it comes to how the rest of us live our lives.
00:17:57.360
Right. And you notice that immediately after that video dropped, that was when Justin Trudeau
00:18:02.600
came out and said, well, now I'm going to plant two billion trees. And that money will come from
00:18:07.940
the TMX pipeline. You know, first of all, you know, we, we did another video about that great video.
00:18:15.860
And because we called up our forestry consultants and said, hey, you know, what's this with,
00:18:20.220
what's the reality of planting two billion trees in Canada? The first thing they said is there's not
00:18:25.460
enough land. So, you know, people imagine that it's okay, you can just run out and plant a tree
00:18:30.980
anywhere. Well, you need to tend it, you need to choose the right tree for the right place.
00:18:35.180
You need to make sure that it will grow and mature properly. And we have reforestry programs going on
00:18:41.760
everywhere in Canada that I think he, I think our guy said, one of his clients is planting 340 million
00:18:49.180
trees this year anyway. So to find a place to plant these additional trees that Trudeau is proposing
00:18:57.800
would mean that we'd have to actually start sort of expropriating land from farmers who sit in,
00:19:03.260
it's called the, it's called the white zone, no offense to anyone, but that's the technical term
00:19:08.560
for it. But it's the one between the boreal forest and the plains. So there is some rough
00:19:13.660
forage area there, probably your farms. That's, that's exactly where I am. I'm where the, I'm
00:19:20.140
exactly where the boreal forest sort of crashes into the grasslands. And my ancestors were pretty darn
00:19:29.400
hard to clear the land. And now Justin Trudeau is going to come along and reforest it. Well,
00:19:34.060
I'm sorry, but I'm busy feeding the world. Right. Yeah. Well, and it's problematic. The,
00:19:40.540
you know, people are jumping on the bandwagon with all of these kinds of green schemes,
00:19:44.940
which may have an element of merit within. I'm not opposed to planting trees. I'm not opposed to
00:19:52.000
beautifying the world. I'm not opposed to saving the planet. In fact, I think that I'm working for that
00:19:56.600
every single day. And I'm saving the planet from these stupid plans that will cost taxpayer a fortune
00:20:03.400
and not accomplish anything in terms of the environment or in terms of climate change.
00:20:09.760
So, you know, no one's doing the due diligence on these things. The same with net zero.
00:20:14.540
Sounds like a fantastic thing. It came up a few times in the leaders debate last night.
00:20:19.180
It's impossible. That's one of the things that these 500 scientists say. It's impossible to do net zero.
00:20:26.080
Certainly within the next 10, 20, 30 years. It's just simply cannot be done because you have to
00:20:33.080
think, what are things made of? Everything, except for woven baskets, are made from natural gas,
00:20:41.520
coal, and oil. Everything. You need that energy and you need the actual physical resources that come
00:20:48.740
from those materials, say, to make wind turbines, to make dams, to make solar panels. You know, if those
00:20:56.420
are your solutions, you need tons of fossil fuels. And if you want to electrify Canada, you need about
00:21:03.940
eight to 10 more power generation plants on the size of Site C Dam. And there's not one on the books
00:21:10.560
right now. And they take at least 20 years to plan and commission. But before that, you have to do all
00:21:16.440
the groundwork. You have to get the land. You have to put in the plans. You have to get approval from
00:21:20.820
the authorities. You have to get approval from the people who live there. And most people hate power
00:21:26.380
lines more than they hate pipelines. So it won't be an overnight process. So this is a very, very
00:21:33.000
dangerous, risky path that these people are putting us on. And not doing the due diligence. Like, why do
00:21:40.300
we pay public servants millions of dollars every year, if they're not able to advise these professional
00:21:47.020
politicians as to the implications of what's going on and what the end will be? It's very dangerous.
00:21:55.040
Yeah. And, you know, I've seen a lack of due diligence firsthand. I went looking for
00:22:00.280
information on Bill C-69. So that's basically the pipeline blocking bill. I went to find out if
00:22:11.020
the Ministry of Environment had done any sort of case study on the economic impact of C-69 on Alberta.
00:22:21.040
They hadn't done any. So then they referred me over to Natural Resources Canada. And guess what?
00:22:25.860
They hadn't done any. But they said, oh, you should check with Environment and Climate Change Canada
00:22:32.700
or the Canadian Energy Regulator. Well, lo and behold, I just found out two days ago from the
00:22:38.420
Canadian Energy Regulator, nobody did it either. Nobody is studying any of the things that they're
00:22:43.900
doing to us. And they don't even care. They're just writing legislation. Somebody else will deal with
00:22:50.900
a follow-up that somebody else always happens to be us here in Alberta, and they just pat themselves
00:22:55.600
on the back for being green. Well, you know, at this point, it's us here in Alberta, but we're going
00:23:01.520
to see that ripple effect go across Canada because Canada is founded on resources from many different
00:23:08.700
sectors. And one of them is the oil and gas sector in Alberta and the oil sands. When I worked at
00:23:13.360
Alberta Environment, the oil sands was driving one third of the Canadian economy.
00:23:17.900
So significantly declined since then. And that has had a ripple effect. You know, many oil sands
00:23:26.520
suppliers come from all across Canada. And you can see that Ontario has been a decline in
00:23:31.480
industrial, in their industrial base. Part of that is due to the decline in the Alberta oil sands.
00:23:37.120
And, you know, Quebec won't get off light either, because we've been funding their free child care
00:23:44.200
programs and such like with equalization for a long time. So, you know, they should think twice.
00:23:51.660
And this tar sands campaign, you know, people think, oh, you know, it's just you Albertans all
00:23:55.740
crying about it. No, it started a long time ago. Started in Quebec, started in Ontario. In fact,
00:24:02.180
Elizabeth May, we have a video on this. She was the leader of the Sierra Club in 2005. They were
00:24:08.580
granted money out of the US to push the GHG legislation in Canada and to establish a climate
00:24:15.500
action fund and a network of climate action, action years in Canada. So, you know, if you want
00:24:22.500
to look at the economic decline in Canada, I think you can look right at Elizabeth May as one of the key
00:24:28.340
figures. Ontario lost 75,000 jobs due to their green plan. And now it has lost 100,000. So you can see
00:24:38.900
this ripple effect is happening across the country. And yet people still take her seriously as some
00:24:46.000
sort of moral standard for the green movement as she rides around in the Canada Day parade in a
00:24:51.420
viper. Now, she's a very nice woman. Well, you know, I think she appears to be a nice person. But
00:25:00.980
but it's the policy that we have to look at, you know, we really should not be doing the cult of the
00:25:07.460
personality. It's the policy. And absolutely. And none of those policies will work. So I hope people
00:25:13.300
will watch our video about her. And and I hope the media will ask her those questions that we asked
00:25:18.640
because they're not tough ones. Now, I wanted to now move away from some of your the video stuff
00:25:24.960
that you've done, however great that it is. But you also, Friends of Science are great at rebuttal
00:25:31.640
reports. And you have a new one coming out. And it rebuts the the actuaries of Canada. Yes. Why are
00:25:41.980
actuaries getting involved in climate change? Well, it's a very interesting thing.
00:25:48.640
The people have to understand that a lot of what is behind the climate movement is the fact that
00:25:55.340
pension funds and institutional investors are deeply embedded and deeply invested in all things
00:26:02.740
climate. Most of them are signatory to this group that is transnational, unelected, unaccountable. It's
00:26:09.140
called the United Nations Principles for Responsible Investment. And they're all deep into this two degree
00:26:15.660
target. They are trying to shift investment to force a change in society through this group. And you have
00:26:23.580
to realize there's I think, at one point, there were like 1200 signatories of these major institutional
00:26:29.740
investors, that includes things like the Canada Pension Plan. And they all sit on an accumulated mass of
00:26:37.820
about 100 trillion dollars in assets under management. So what's who works with them to help them evaluate
00:26:47.580
risk? Well, this is a group of people called actuaries. And they're, shall we say, mathematical experts,
00:26:54.300
they're statistical experts, and they do the risk evaluations. And they try to be extremely objective.
00:27:01.100
This is one of the reasons why we were surprised. They issued a report called Time to Act.
00:27:06.940
This was from the Canadian Institute of Actuaries. And they felt that they could reach Paris targets
00:27:12.300
if we just gathered more information on extreme weather events. Extreme weather events are not
00:27:18.460
related to climate change, CO2, or human influence.
00:27:22.460
And they seem to be declining. Am I right about that?
00:27:25.340
Well, they're, they're very erratic. You know, in some cases, say in Canada, wildfires have declined.
00:27:34.300
I know it doesn't sound like it from everything you hear in the media, but they have declined.
00:27:40.300
But it's, it's, it's not something that you can just count them up and say, wow, look, we had
00:27:46.780
lots of wildfires in BC, therefore climate change is causing them. We did an analysis, one of our
00:27:52.380
people did an analysis of the BC wildfire season, a couple of years ago, and they found that
00:27:58.140
probably the hectares burnt were due to the pine beetle infestation and the fact that that deadwood
00:28:04.060
was not cleared out. But it wasn't due to climate change. It was an El Nino year. And El Nino is a natural
00:28:11.420
hot, shall we say, hot ocean phenomenon, that washes around the world, usually for like a year or two,
00:28:18.220
and, and changes some of the regional climate patterns. So it does affect BC, it does affect
00:28:24.620
Alberta, doesn't have much of an effect down east. That was an El Nino period. And lots of deadwood from
00:28:31.340
pine beetles. So yeah, you get lots of wood burnt. But once you burn a forest, you won't be burning much
00:28:37.900
for the next 40, 50 years. Yeah. No, it just seems strange to me that the actuaries would jump in
00:28:45.420
and just say, well, like, I still don't understand what role they're playing in all this. I get that
00:28:50.700
they mitigate risk. But what science are they presenting? They evaluate the risk for the
00:28:57.420
insurance companies. And so they assess all kinds of different factors related to a particular context
00:29:07.340
to evaluate mortality, to evaluate longevity, infrastructure risks. So they're really important
00:29:16.220
people. And they're very, very objective. In fact, they, the principles of conduct, their code of conduct,
00:29:25.340
requires them to consider the public duty first, over their profession, or their members, or their
00:29:31.020
clients. So we're hoping that this report that we issued called Misguided Math, Misinterpreted
00:29:37.740
Science, we're hoping that that will reach the actuaries, and they will be able to see that much of
00:29:44.540
the hysteria about climate change and extreme weather is based on faulty climate models, mathematical models.
00:29:52.700
And the problem is that, you know, this is a very complex area that ordinary people don't understand
00:29:59.580
very well. But I think that they will understand it extremely well. When you see that some of the
00:30:04.940
climate models, they discovered that on a 10 year forecast basis, there was a 30% error in their
00:30:12.380
assessment in designing these models. So they fixed it. So in a 10 year assessment, you know, some of the
00:30:20.140
projections are pretty close to what's happening in climate. But on the 100 year projections, they didn't
00:30:26.860
fix it. They did not include that 30% error margin. So that means that these projections that Elizabeth
00:30:34.940
May is citing from the IPCC report, we're all going to die because it's going to be so hot. Well, they're
00:30:39.820
way out of whack. They're statistically, you know, it's, it is incrementally unbelievable how far out of
00:30:48.300
whack it would be with this 30% error. So we tried to bring that to the attention of the actuaries and the
00:30:55.100
general public and policymakers people should know these models are skewed. They're flawed. They're
00:31:00.780
running way too hot. And that's the basis for public policy. It's the basis for carbon taxes. And it's
00:31:06.380
completely invalid. It's wrong. Michelle, I want to thank you for being very generous with your time
00:31:13.020
today. And I want to give you a chance to let people know how they can find some of your rebuttal reports,
00:31:18.300
some of the work that you're doing and to support Friends of Science because you don't have
00:31:23.340
a big deep pocketed helpers like so much of the environmental movement.
00:31:28.300
Yeah, we don't have. Well, if you look at our website, www.friendsofscience.org. There's a
00:31:35.820
little donate membership button up in the corner so you could help us there. If you like our materials,
00:31:41.020
you can share them. We're on Twitter at Friends of Science. We're on Facebook. We're on LinkedIn.
00:31:48.060
We just opened an Instagram account and YouTube, of course.
00:31:56.700
Yeah, so have a look at our videos. And, you know, we've got quite a compilation of videos. Some of them
00:32:02.380
are full presentations by scientists. Some of them are short videos by scientists. Some are commentaries by
00:32:08.540
me or other people where we're just trying to bring forward a plain language understanding of a certain
00:32:15.180
issue. And again, I'm not a scientist. I don't claim to be, but neither is Al Gore. So, you know.
00:32:23.100
You know, that's a great way to put it. And it's true. Your videos break down these
00:32:29.580
issues that are intentionally far too complex for the normal person to digest. I think that complexity
00:32:36.540
is by design so that you just throw up your hands and say, you know what, whatever.
00:32:40.460
Smarter people will deal with this. But you do a great job of breaking down the issues,
00:32:44.780
presenting facts in a way that arms people to go out in the world and make these arguments. And I
00:32:50.060
think that's great. Well, I think the most important thing that people can do right now is question.
00:32:55.100
You know, is to step and say, wait a minute, you're talking about trillions of dollars of my money and
00:32:59.740
my children's money. And I don't see any cost benefit analysis. I don't see any due diligence.
00:33:06.380
And I want to see these things before any of these policies are implemented. And really demand that of
00:33:12.540
any political leader and any, you know, green advocate, challenge them on it. I mean, at one
00:33:19.260
point we had somebody, we were tweeting Elizabeth May about the fact that wind and solar panels are made
00:33:25.580
from oil, gas and coal. And somebody on her side tweeted back and said, well, you know, are you sure?
00:33:32.460
Because we don't think so. We're missing a lot of stuff at school, like energy illiteracy is
00:33:40.300
truly killing this country and and putting us deeply at risk. Yeah, and it's making it easy for
00:33:47.020
our children to be brainwashed by the likes of Greta Thunberg. And, you know, it sounds like I'm
00:33:52.140
attacking Greta, but really her handlers. She's just the human shield in all of this.
00:33:58.140
Yes. And there's a, you know, huge green billionaire movement behind her. You can look at the
00:34:03.340
manufacturing for consent site and read about the people behind Greta. And again, as I say,
00:34:10.540
I'm not criticizing her either. She's being used, she's a child, and she's not in a position to make
00:34:15.980
a critical evaluation of what people are feeding her. And unfortunately, the rest of our children
00:34:21.900
are not either. So. Michelle, I want to thank you very much for coming on the show. We'll have you
00:34:28.060
back on very soon. I think it was a little bit too long between last appearances. But I'm busy with the
00:34:34.140
election and you're busy with disseminating the truth to the people. Yes. Well, thank you very much
00:34:41.260
for having us. And we really appreciate, really appreciate everything that you do and your team
00:34:46.860
as well. And congratulations on your win in court. Freedom of the press. Freedom of the press.
00:34:53.580
Thanks, Michelle. You have a good one. Okay. Thank you.
00:34:55.980
Only 17% of Canadians list the environment as their top priority in this election. You'd never
00:35:13.020
suspect that were true if you listen to the coverage from the mainstream media and the constant
00:35:19.740
moralizing from the Liberals, the NDP, and the Greens on the issue of climate change.
00:35:24.860
And mainstream media reports have been lamenting the fact that Canadians don't want to pay for
00:35:32.220
environmental initiatives. Will the Liberals' big promises of making life much more expensive for
00:35:38.860
the sake of being green translate into a win at the ballot box? Well, I guess we have about two weeks
00:35:46.380
before we find that out. Well, everybody, that's the show for tonight. Thank you so much for tuning in.
00:35:51.740
I'll see everybody back here in the same time, in the same place next week. And remember,
00:35:56.380
don't let the government tell you that you've had too much to think.
00:36:29.980
you met us, you would not let us say anything in the same place.