THIS flawed doomsday model is the basis for modern climate policy
Episode Stats
Words per Minute
149.44449
Summary
In this episode, Michelle Sterling from Friends of Science joins me to talk about how one flawed doomsday scenario has become the basis for most modern climate policies, and how it's being misused. She talks about Ross McKittrick's new article in the Financial Post about how climate change fears are based on a false premise, and why we should be worried about it.
Transcript
00:00:00.000
Hello Rebels, you're listening to a free audio-only recording of my weekly Wednesday night show,
00:00:04.340
The Gun Show. Tonight my guest is Michelle Sterling from Friends of Science and we're
00:00:08.900
talking about how one flawed doomsday scenario seems to be the thing all other climate policies
00:00:15.900
are based on. Now if you like listening to the show then I promise you're going to love watching
00:00:19.740
it but in order to watch you need to be a subscriber to Rebel News Plus. That's what
00:00:23.660
we call our long-form TV-style shows here on Rebel News. Subscribers get access to my show as well as
00:00:29.380
Ezra's nightly Ezra Levant show and David Menzies fun Friday night show Rebel Roundup. It's only
00:00:34.820
eight bucks a month to subscribe and just for our podcast listeners you can save an extra 10%
00:00:38.980
on a new Rebel News Plus subscription when you use the coupon code podcast. When you subscribe just
00:00:44.580
go to rebelnews.com slash subscribe to become a member and now please enjoy this free audio-only
00:00:59.380
One flawed doomsday model has become the basis for most modern climate policy. I'm Sheila Gunn-Reed
00:01:32.080
Did you know that most of the climate change fear-mongering and many government policies
00:01:36.620
today are based on representative concentration pathway 8.5 or RCP 8.5 as it is commonly known.
00:01:44.120
It's very confusing stuff but here's Robinson Meyer describing what an RCP is in the Atlantic.
00:01:50.880
When climate scientists want to tell a story, interesting choice of words story, about the
00:01:55.340
future of the planet they use a set of four standard scenarios called representative concentration
00:02:00.940
pathways or RCPs. RCPs are ubiquitous in climate science, appearing in virtually any study that uses
00:02:08.340
climate models to investigate the 21st century. They've popped up in research about subjects as
00:02:14.580
disparate as southwestern mega droughts, future immigration flows to Europe, and poor nighttime sleep
00:02:23.160
quality. Each RCP is assigned a number that describes how the climate will fare in the year 21st.
00:02:30.940
Generally, a higher RCP number describes a scarier fate. It means that humanity emitted more carbon
00:02:38.700
dioxide into the atmosphere during the 21st century, further warming the planet and acidifying the ocean.
00:02:49.140
...from her home in Calgary is Michelle Sterling from Friends of Science. It's always a joy to have
00:03:04.220
Michelle on the show because she... I try to pay attention to all these things in the world of climate
00:03:10.560
change and climate change rebuttal, but even when I think I know it all, Michelle's like, Sheila,
00:03:15.640
there's something else we should talk about. It just came out today, which I think is great. Michelle,
00:03:20.860
thanks for coming on the show. You wanted to talk about Ross McKittrick's new article because he
00:03:26.460
focuses on something that you frequently talk about, and that's how all of climate policy really is built
00:03:34.480
on this false premise. Well, I would say all climate policy is built on it, but certainly
00:03:40.820
the more catastrophic view, the climate emergency view, we're all going to die, we're all going to be
00:03:46.660
crispy critters. This is based on what's called the representative concentration pathway 8.5, which is one of
00:03:56.240
several scenarios that the IPCC has used as modeling scenarios. And this was developed by Van Wuren et al. in about 2011.
00:04:06.960
And the whole purpose of it was to evaluate what factors change climate over time. But it wasn't meant to be a
00:04:18.780
particular pathway or choice. And you'll find groups like the Canadian Institute for Climate Choices, which is a
00:04:25.580
recycled version of the pan-Canadian collaboration of experts on carbon and also eco-fiscal. You'll find that they use it,
00:04:34.540
the Environment Canada's report uses it, and they compare this dramatic, catastrophic scenario that
00:04:42.460
would see us using like five or seven times more coal than the world presently uses, with no climate
00:04:49.680
mitigation, no climate policies. This is completely unrealistic. But as Ross McKittrick points out in his
00:04:58.840
article in the Financial Post today, that this is the commonly used reference, point of reference, this is
00:05:08.200
where the climate emergency comes from. And Roger PLK Jr. has pointed out that actually, Michael Bloomberg
00:05:15.400
and Thomas Thayer, two green billionaires, actively promoted this report called Risky Business, which is also
00:05:24.360
founded on that same catastrophic scenario. So that's where the emergency comes from. And you'll even find
00:05:30.920
in Bjorn Longberg's new book, which I have, yay, a pre-press copy. You'll even find in there that Bjorn Longberg
00:05:39.720
says the same thing, that it's a false alarm. He explains the same scenario and how it is being misused.
00:05:46.680
So, you know, people should calm down a little bit, be more rational about climate policy.
00:05:54.200
Speaking of calming down a little bit, you folks at Friends of Science have done a really incredible
00:06:00.280
rebuttal to, I think, one of Catherine McKenna's favorite experts on climate change, and that's Dr. Catherine
00:06:08.360
Hayhoe. She did a report called Alberta's Climate Future. And you guys rebutted that with a report called
00:06:15.400
Facts vs. Fortune Telling. Why don't you tell us about that?
00:06:19.640
Okay. Yes, Alberta's Climate Future was a report that was commissioned by the previous NDP government.
00:06:26.120
And Dr. Catherine Hayhoe is a very well-recognized climate scientist. She has been criticized,
00:06:33.800
again, by Roger PLK Jr. for the fact that she does have a commercial enterprise associated with her
00:06:39.880
climate work. And yet she's also been part of things like the fourth national climate assessment
00:06:46.840
in the States, which also gave a very catastrophic view. And he felt that there was some conflict of
00:06:54.120
interest in that, that she did not identify that in that report, that she has a commercial operation.
00:07:02.600
So in our report, we looked at what she had done, and she chose a certain time period from about 1950 to
00:07:10.600
1980 as a baseline, and then up to 2013 to evaluate climate changes. So we took a longer view. So we took
00:07:23.560
the longest records in Alberta from like the 1800s up to the present day. And we can show you that the
00:07:32.360
evidence shows that her claims of a catastrophic future are not true based on the historic evidence.
00:07:41.720
Now, she likes to say that, of course, climate changed in the past, but now we're the factor
00:07:46.120
changing the climate. But you don't see that in any of the evidence presented. In fact,
00:07:51.080
in fact, as many people in Calgary will know, eight of the worst floods in Calgary's history happened
00:07:57.960
before 1933. And two of those floods, the volume was much greater than the catastrophic flood of 2013.
00:08:06.760
So, you know, why was that not climate change back then? Well, you know, there was no human influence
00:08:13.240
deemed to be affecting climate prior to 1950. So where did all those big floods come from?
00:08:20.840
Why that big precipitation back then? And why is this singular flood of 2013, now human caused climate
00:08:28.920
change? We also identified the fact that she chose 21 locations in Alberta to analyze. And those 21
00:08:39.640
locations just happened to fall in the most industrialized heartland of Alberta, the biggest
00:08:47.400
agricultural area of Alberta, the place where most of the population since 1950 has grown in Alberta.
00:08:54.120
And so, you know, there's what's called an urban heat island effect, which means there's a lot of
00:09:00.120
retained heat from human activities, industrial activities, from buildings in major cities. And
00:09:07.400
all these factors, land use, water diversion, deforestation, and industrial or residential buildup,
00:09:18.360
these all do cause some warming. But we don't find any sign of CO2 warming in the evidence presented.
00:09:28.680
So, you know, we dispute her findings, basically.
00:09:32.760
You know, it's fascinating. I think you had a speaker, actually, at one of your fantastic Friends of
00:09:38.200
Science banquets that pointed out that many of the temperature measuring stations
00:09:45.640
around the world are put in places where they happen to be on pavement. So if the sun is shining,
00:09:54.440
naturally, it's much warmer. They aren't in places where they're sort of sheltered from those external
00:10:03.320
factors that cause, you know, the temperature to increase. And it appears as though Catherine Hayhoe
00:10:12.920
Well, you know, I'd have to go and look at all the particular sites that she chose, and I haven't
00:10:18.360
done that. But, you know, the fact is that many of these stations are placed on the outskirts of town,
00:10:24.600
and then town grows into a city. And so then they end up inside the city. And I think it's on What's
00:10:30.440
Up With That. I think that Anthony Watts has done a lot of work on this area and submitted a couple of
00:10:36.920
papers on it, where they actually did go and take pictures of all these places, showing that, you
00:10:43.080
know, what used to be in the middle of a field is now a temperature monitoring device that's in the
00:10:47.720
middle of, you know, eight lanes of traffic, you know, all paced around and within the midst of a city.
00:10:55.640
So obviously, you're going to get very distinct and different readings, like Roger Pielke Sr. has a paper
00:11:03.240
on land use and its effect on climate. And it shows that in the city of London, for instance,
00:11:10.440
there can be an 11 degree difference between the interior of the city and the exterior of the city
00:11:16.680
out in the rural area. So I can send you a link to that. You know, as it's, it's quite a significant
00:11:24.680
difference. Well, most rural Albertans know when you see the weather being reported in Edmonton or
00:11:30.840
Sherwood Park or one of the bedroom communities in the winter, knock five degrees off that
00:11:37.160
and plug your car in because it's always colder out in the country. And of course, of course,
00:11:43.560
people and cars and buildings and, and heating those things that generates heat, of course.
00:11:48.680
But does that cause major atmospheric shifts? I'm not sure. However, if Catherine Hayhoe's promises
00:11:56.680
hold true, she's promising us a one degree Celsius rise in winter temperatures. Don't threaten me with
00:12:04.200
a good time, ladies. That sounds great. Yeah. Yeah. Well, the problem with some of,
00:12:11.000
you know, she's downscaled. It's called downscaling the global climate model. So she's taken a global
00:12:17.080
climate model and tried to, you know, zero it down into Alberta. And the problem with doing that is that
00:12:25.080
each region of the world is quite unique. Like we are definitely affected by the Pacific Ocean, El Nino,
00:12:31.720
the Rocky Mountains, especially in the south by Chinook winds. So these are fairly unique features
00:12:38.200
that would not show up in a global model because they're, they're not tuned to that. So, you know,
00:12:44.120
on the one hand, she was saying, well, you know, there might be warmer temperatures,
00:12:47.320
there might be more droughts. Well, there probably will be more droughts, because we had 40 droughts in
00:12:53.480
the past 100 years on the prairie. So it's a pretty common feature. And part of Alberta and Saskatchewan
00:12:59.320
are right in the Palliser Triangle, which is a semi-arid region that was discovered in 1865 by
00:13:06.600
Captain John Palliser. So, yeah, it's a drought-prone region. And floods, yes. You know, most of
00:13:14.520
southern Winnipeg or southern Manitoba and part of Saskatchewan are in the basin of Lake Agassiz,
00:13:21.320
which is a glacial lake. So that indent is still there. The soil is quite fertile. But when there's
00:13:28.120
a lot of rain or a lot of snowpack and runoff in the spring, it's going to flood. It's a flood-prone
00:13:34.280
region. Yeah, it's funny. The people who named High River didn't have a crystal ball. They named it that
00:13:42.200
because the river did get high and did sometimes flood. It wasn't like, okay, well, we have a crystal
00:13:48.200
ball. We're looking. We're there. We're seeing 2013. Let's name this town. No, it's a name.
00:13:54.520
Like so many places, it's a feature of the region. Now, you guys have, changing lanes a little bit,
00:14:01.640
a really great series of videos on your YouTube channel. I thought the editing was very clever,
00:14:07.960
where you sort of debunk myths that Quebec seems to hold about itself as far as how green they are.
00:14:19.800
And I thought it was really clever. You sort of presented the myth and how Quebec feels about
00:14:24.360
itself and then kind of shot it right down. And it's two Michels for the price of one.
00:14:29.400
And in English and in French. Yeah. Yeah, my French is a bit rusty, but I thank people for being
00:14:38.600
very kind about my efforts. You know, it's funny, especially this will resonate with people in
00:14:45.560
Western Canada, that Quebec prides itself on being all green and hydro-based and everything. But it's
00:14:51.640
actually the second largest petroleum user in the country. And they use a lot of natural gas,
00:14:58.680
a lot of oil for their home heating and their industrial base. You know, they claim to,
00:15:05.000
they have some very, very stringent climate targets, like ridiculously stringent climate targets.
00:15:10.920
They're already one of the lowest emitting jurisdictions in the world. But it's going to be
00:15:16.520
very, very hard for them to meet these targets. You know, we often think they're very progressive,
00:15:22.280
and you know, they've got the $7 day care and all this stuff that our equalization payments are
00:15:28.200
paying for. But you know, they have a cap and trade system with California. So they don't have any
00:15:35.800
carbon tax, no carbon tax rebate. But the price of that, of the value of those carbon tax permits,
00:15:45.640
is quite low now compared to the carbon tax. And the whole point of the federal carbon tax is that
00:15:55.240
the provinces are allowed to have a different program, but it has to meet the same standard
00:15:59.960
as the federal carbon tax, and it doesn't now. So the people don't get a rebate. And there probably
00:16:08.440
will be some punishing after effects, because they're not meeting the targets. And also another
00:16:14.040
interesting thing, you know, they, they often say, oh, we can all go EV, we can build an east-west
00:16:18.680
grid, you can have power from James Bay out to Alberta, what a great thing, we'll run on wind and
00:16:23.480
hydro. Well, that grid is impossible. And not only that, there was an article by Jean Michaud and
00:16:30.360
Germaine Belzile, who wrote that, even though there's all this tremendous hydro output from James Bay
00:16:38.840
Dam, it's not enough to run an EV fleet for Quebec, they'd run out of power. So, so there goes that idea,
00:16:47.560
too. Anyway, very interesting to look at the contradictions in their policy, like, who dreamt it up? It's,
00:16:53.320
it's really crazy. Some liberal somewhere, probably. Now, you've issued, or reissued, I guess it is,
00:17:01.800
a report by Robert Lyman, why renewable energy cannot replace fossil fuels by 2050. It's the consensus
00:17:12.680
among some pretty mainstream, I guess, politicians, including Elizabeth May, who think that we can go
00:17:21.560
full 100% renewable electricity generation by 2030. For me, even just dreaming of the infrastructure
00:17:29.480
required to do that, I think it's just insurmountable. But I mean, there's the whole
00:17:36.280
reliability issues with green energy that we need to factor into all of this, there's no possible way
00:17:41.560
we can ever go fully green by any point in human history, I don't think.
00:17:47.160
Well, let's say there's some new technology down the road, like small modular reactors, or,
00:17:53.880
or something to that effect there, you know, or maybe there's some grand innovation in battery storage,
00:17:59.480
it doesn't look that likely in near term. But, you know, over time, we have developed new technologies. So,
00:18:07.080
let's say that there's hope, but it's certainly not within the near term. Yeah. So, you know, when Elizabeth
00:18:13.880
May is saying that we can go 100% renewable, she is, of course, imagining that we could run power lines
00:18:19.560
between Quebec, and Muskrat Falls, and Site C Dam, and Manitoba, and, and la-dee-da, we'd all be well,
00:18:26.840
and fine, and good. But, you know, you, once you start digging into the details, and Robert has done that,
00:18:33.080
he assessed the wind, water, solar plan, which was developed by some scientists in the, in the United
00:18:43.320
States, where they believed that by simply interconnecting all of these different renewable
00:18:49.000
modules, all would be good. But Robert did the math on it, and he found that, you know, it would take about
00:18:55.080
200 years to put out the relatively, the relative number of solar panels that are required, for
00:19:02.680
instance. You know, so that's not in the next decade. We've had other people do assessments here
00:19:10.120
in Canada, that we don't have enough power to run the present EV policy. Another fellow named Ken Zaire
00:19:19.400
did a paper, which refutes a paper that came out of BC, where these authors in BC, Keller et al, 2019,
00:19:29.240
they felt that it would be possible to go all EV using renewable energy in BC, voila, but he found
00:19:36.360
that that would mean you'd have to wipe out all of the vineyards and put solar panels there instead.
00:19:41.480
So, you know, there, once you start to get into the details, you find that these things are extremely
00:19:47.880
complex. The power grid is very, very complex. And it's not just like Lego. You can't just stick
00:19:55.560
parts together and it works overnight. It's a very complex system. And as you point out,
00:20:01.880
if you don't have hydro like Norway, then you better have coal and natural gas, because that's what you're
00:20:08.920
going to need. If you don't have nuclear like Ontario, you better have coal and natural gas. And if you want
00:20:15.560
to put wind and solar on the grid, you better have natural gas and preferably some coal for your
00:20:20.600
base load because it's the cheapest. You know, as you were talking, I wrote down land use when you're
00:20:27.480
talking about solar. And then right after that, you mentioned wiping out the vineyards to put out
00:20:33.000
solar panels. And just think about how much arable farmland that produces the nation's food and exports,
00:20:41.800
cheap, reliable, potable, dry goods, like chickpeas, to developing countries. Just think about how much
00:20:53.640
of that supply would have to be absolutely destroyed to produce green energy. To what? To virtue signal?
00:21:04.280
I mean, really, Canada's net zero already, if not, you know, a carbon sink.
00:21:12.680
Well, again, you know, a lot of people don't realize that
00:21:16.360
you have to put up so many wind and solar farms to try and create the amount of power generation,
00:21:26.120
because it's not actually generating power. It's capturing
00:21:29.080
kinetic energy and turning it into power. But unlike a coal plant or a gas plant that is burning
00:21:37.240
a fuel and generating power as it goes, on demand, you can turn it up or down, you know,
00:21:43.400
wind and solar are completely reliant on Mother Nature, and she's just not very reliable. Not to
00:21:50.520
mention, you know, people will say, oh, here, we have the nameplate capacity of X number of megawatts,
00:21:56.920
but that's not the actual generation that will happen in the course of the year. So when you look
00:22:03.560
at the Alberta electric system operator reports from 2018, you find that the most generation came
00:22:11.400
from coal, the next came from co-generation, which is actually waste heat from the oil sands and other
00:22:18.680
industrial operations that are turned into power and turned back to the grid. And wind, it was down there
00:22:25.320
around maybe seven percent. Solar didn't show up at all. And, you know, biofuels and others are very,
00:22:31.400
very tiny. And in the middle, there's natural gas from either combined cycle or the simple cycle gas
00:22:39.320
plants. So, you know, wind cannot provide the power that we need, not at this time, probably never.
00:22:49.400
Probably never. Now, I said potable, I think there, but I meant portable when I was referring to dry goods,
00:22:55.880
because potable refers to water. Portable means you can give someone a sack of chickpeas. Now,
00:23:06.280
chickpeas and beans and lentils and pulses, all those things that Canada is so vital in providing the food
00:23:14.600
supply to the developing world. And that would absolutely be destroyed if we tried to go green.
00:23:21.720
Now, you mentioned biofuels, and that is an incredible segue into the next thing I want to talk about,
00:23:27.400
because one of these movies is about, at least in part, the impact on of the push for biofuels,
00:23:36.520
how that actually harms the food supply, the domestic food supply in Europe. And that movie
00:23:47.240
is a movie by a Morian Pools. And he's got two really great documentaries out right now. I've had
00:23:56.600
Morian on the show a couple of times to talk about them. Now, you guys are going to be hosting those
00:24:01.480
documentaries on your YouTube channel. And I cannot recommend these documentaries enough. So why don't
00:24:07.160
you tell us about them? Right. Well, Morian Pools is a European filmmaker, originally from Holland.
00:24:14.680
And he worked around the world in conflict and poverty countries for about nine years,
00:24:19.480
made about 50 films. So he was really a favorite of particularly the left wing. And he came back to
00:24:27.160
Europe, and was astonished to find that in a country that once had been a bread basket, where
00:24:34.440
and self sufficient in its own food, you know, farmers had turned away from producing potatoes,
00:24:41.320
and moved to producing biofuels, and creating these monocultures, and putting up solar panels,
00:24:49.400
and putting up wind farms, and tragically, also becoming indebted to the bank over these
00:24:55.320
subsidies, supposed income earners, because the subsidy ratios, when they're cut off,
00:25:01.400
you know, then you're finished. So now you don't have a crop and of edible food, and you also can't
00:25:08.840
pay for your installations. So this, he found this very disturbing, and he wondered why it was,
00:25:15.880
because he just come from these countries where people literally are living hand to mouth,
00:25:19.960
and they can't produce enough food for themselves. And so he started looking into the climate policies,
00:25:24.840
and found that was the root of this evil. And, and started interviewing climate scientists,
00:25:31.160
skeptics, and those who go along with the anthropogenic global warming view, and also
00:25:38.360
interviewing farmers. And, you know, there's a very moving point in one of, in The Uncertainty
00:25:44.920
is Settled, where he talks about how, at the end of World War II, there was very little food in the
00:25:51.160
city. And this woman came to a farmer out in the country, with a beautiful jewel necklace, and offered
00:25:59.000
it to him for a bag of potatoes. And he gave her half a bag of potatoes. But there was almost no food.
00:26:07.320
So, you know, he sees this as a very, very concerning trend in the West, that we're not self-sufficient in
00:26:13.240
food anymore. We don't value our farmers like we should. And farmers are being run off their land,
00:26:20.520
because they're entrapped in these wind and solar deals, and biofuel deals, that are negative and
00:26:27.400
destructive to society as a whole. And it's based on, you know, this false alarm, false alarm of the climate
00:26:38.280
emergency. So that's one film. The second film is Paradogma. And Paradogma began, or originated,
00:26:47.400
in the fact that when he made The Uncertainty is Settled, he got such pushback. You know, formerly,
00:26:53.480
if he sent out a press release about one of his films made in one of these conflict countries,
00:26:59.640
oh, you know, the press was all over him, they republished his press releases everywhere.
00:27:04.280
And now, you know, he sends out a press release on his climate change issues. Boy, you know,
00:27:09.880
he's a heretic. He's a leper. You know, we don't even want to talk to you. And he usually goes with
00:27:16.360
his films to the screenings, so that he can answer questions to the audience after. You know,
00:27:22.360
he's had protests, he's had threats, people have tried to ban his films. So that's what Paradogma is
00:27:29.720
about, like, how can we have a democratic society if people are not allowed to express opposing views,
00:27:36.760
you know, in peaceful, civil manner. So I think it's quite timely in light of everything that's
00:27:42.440
going on in the world at this time. And in full disclosure, I'm in that second film, Paradogma.
00:27:49.160
Mariah interviewed me outside of a screening for the previous movie that he made,
00:27:54.360
The Uncertainty Has Settled, which, I mean, I enjoyed that movie so much because I hadn't even
00:28:00.120
thought about the effect on the food supply. And I should have. It should have been something that
00:28:05.160
mattered to me. But I was more concerned about the macro effects of climate policy on,
00:28:10.680
you know, the nation's economy when, frankly, to my embarrassment, I wasn't even thinking about
00:28:16.120
farming and the food supply. I was thinking about how a carbon tax hurts a farmer, but I wasn't
00:28:23.720
thinking about, you know, when you switch from growing grain to growing corn and that corn doesn't
00:28:31.160
end up in the food supply or it doesn't go to feed cattle somewhere, it goes to be turned into,
00:28:37.080
you know, biodiesel. Well, you know, what effect does that have on society and the food supply? I didn't
00:28:43.320
even consider that. And it was a very eye opening movie. And I'm so happy that those movies are going
00:28:49.880
to be available over on the Friends of Science YouTube channel. So please, everybody subscribe to
00:28:54.520
the Friends of Science YouTube channel so that you know, and ring that little bell so that you know
00:28:59.800
when they posted those movies so that you don't miss them. And yeah, I'm in that second movie for like
00:29:05.800
a minute and a half. They'll be offered for free. And so, you know, just screen them. So we're going
00:29:14.920
to start with The Uncertainty is Settled on the 24th. And then July 1, we'll start with Paradogma.
00:29:21.480
And he has a third one coming out back in the fall, Back to Eden, I believe it's called anyway. So
00:29:27.480
that one will be screened at that time as well. Fantastic. Now, and beautifully shot, I must say,
00:29:35.000
you know, I worked in film and television for many years. And really, The Uncertainty is Settled. It's
00:29:40.120
beautifully, beautifully shot. If you've got a big screen, watch it on that. Yeah. And you know,
00:29:44.360
it's funny, because from what I understand, Mariah works usually just him alone or him and somebody else.
00:29:50.840
And so he's doing a lot of this beautiful cinematography by himself. So I mean, it's,
00:29:57.400
it's really great. Now, another thing that I'm very embarrassed of, I did not know that you had
00:30:03.320
a children's book out. And, and as soon as we're done recording this interview, I'm going to order it
00:30:10.440
because my kids need it. I think parents who are looking for an alternative to the climate change
00:30:17.400
fear mongering that's shoved down our kids throats at school. And if, God forbid, they're watching
00:30:22.760
CBC or CBC Kids or something, you've got sort of a solution, a gentle solution to that. So please
00:30:29.720
tell us about your children's book. Well, we had done a video that was
00:30:35.080
based on a little family of hedgehogs, and how the little girl was having a nightmare every night,
00:30:41.160
fearing climate change, afraid of what Greta had said. And these words were echoing in her head.
00:30:47.320
And so, you know, she wakes up with a nightmare one night. And mom and dad and little brother,
00:30:53.400
who's also scared, all come into her room. And dad, you know, says, I'm going to show you what climate
00:31:00.600
change, where the climate change monster is, and basically, you know, flips over the bed,
00:31:05.640
and there's nothing there. So it's a cute little tale, nothing very long, nothing very complicated.
00:31:11.560
But it does show kids that, you know, this is out of proportion. And just as Bjorn Lomborg keeps saying,
00:31:23.400
you know, it's a false alarm. So we try, and then at the end, we offer just some information about,
00:31:31.880
say, the Holocene, which is the period of time that we're in past 10,000, 12,000 years,
00:31:37.560
where there has been warming and cooling, warming and cooling, warming and cooling,
00:31:41.960
on a cyclical basis. So, you know, much of what we're experiencing now is quite natural. It
00:31:48.520
doesn't mean that humans have no impact. It certainly doesn't mean we shouldn't care for
00:31:52.760
our environment. We should. We should not be dumping sewage in the ocean. We should not be dumping plastic
00:31:58.280
in the ocean. But those are practical things we can deal with. But to scare little kids about climate
00:32:03.720
is wrong. Even Judith Curry, Dr. Judith Curry says, I don't know why they even bother teaching kids
00:32:09.240
this at school. It's not within their, their realm, where they can do anything about it.
00:32:15.880
Far too complex for them to understand it. And you're scaring them, you know, and for what purpose?
00:32:22.600
So, anyway, thanks for the, for noting the book. Yes. How do people get the book?
00:32:28.440
Uh, well, it's on my Amazon Kindle page. And you can also see our video, because we have it online
00:32:35.960
with that little video story. So, uh, one video version has a scream that is a bit loud for kids
00:32:42.280
who would be under 10. Okay. Um, name of the book? You got, you didn't even give the name of the book.
00:32:47.400
Um, kid friendly climate tales. Perfect. With the cutest little hedgehogs. Um, Michelle,
00:32:55.320
how else do people support the work that you do? So we've got the YouTube page. We've got the book
00:33:01.160
that, uh, you should have told me about sooner. And how else do people support the work that you do
00:33:06.920
at Friends of Science? Uh, well, you can become a member and donate on our website. Uh, there's a little
00:33:13.400
button there. And, uh, share our stuff. You know, some people may not be financially able at the
00:33:18.600
moment to, to deal with, um, uh, membership, but, uh, please just share our material. And,
00:33:26.120
you know, we don't want you to blindly agree with it. Uh, we're quite willing to engage in debate and,
00:33:32.120
and discuss the different perspectives. Our view is that the sun is the main driver. Um,
00:33:38.760
but that doesn't mean there are no other factors. And, um, we do actually, though,
00:33:45.240
state quite clearly that a carbon tax is, is not, uh, gonna change the weather. And in fact,
00:33:51.400
people should know about this. I don't know if you know, James Hansen, the climate scientist in
00:33:56.040
the United States, who is probably the root of the climate change concerns,
00:34:02.360
he's now pressing Canadians to support a petition for a $210 carbon tax by 2030. This is a real petition
00:34:12.840
that's online. And he's working with Citizens Climate Lobby. And the director of the executive
00:34:19.080
director of Citizens Climate Lobby is on the nonprofit foundation of Greta's associated with the
00:34:25.800
we don't have time green billionaires. So, you know, this is all about carbon offsets. Anyway,
00:34:31.080
he claims that if, if, uh, people support this $210 a ton carbon tax by 2030, the reason for
00:34:39.640
supporting it is that then the beneficiaries who get the rebate would find it to be enough money.
00:34:48.040
So talk about robbing Peter to save Paul. I mean, well, yeah, I mean, it'll pretty transparent
00:34:55.800
about what this is all about, that it's a wealth transfer thing and definitely not a climate change
00:35:00.760
thing. But you know what, Iran and China and Saudi Arabia, they're going to be laughing all the way
00:35:04.200
to the bank while we destroy our own economy. Of course, there's a geopolitical warfare going on,
00:35:10.760
and this is part of it. So places that are fossil fuel rich are going to be punished by places that
00:35:17.240
are not. So you might, Albertans would recognize this as a grandiose geopolitical equalization scheme,
00:35:25.240
but we don't have to play. That's a great way to put it. Michelle, thank you so much for coming
00:35:30.040
on the show. You're always so generous with your time. And it's, I just feel like I'm getting blasted
00:35:35.480
in the face with the fire hose of information every time you're on this show. We'll have you back on
00:35:41.400
again real soon. Thank you so much, Sheila. Well, I'm very excited to hear that Friends of Science
00:35:54.840
is hosting Mariah and Poole's documentaries. The first one is The Uncertainty Has Settled,
00:36:00.520
and the second one is Paradogma. And again, I make a cameo in Paradogma, so please watch.
00:36:07.240
And I'm also thrilled about Michelle's children's book. What a wonderful antidote to the fear
00:36:12.600
mongering our children receive at school about the climate and their role in ruining the earth.
00:36:18.840
Well, everybody, that's the show for tonight. Thank you so much for tuning in. I'll see everybody back
00:36:22.600
here in the same time, in the same place next week. Stay healthy, and remember,
00:36:27.560
don't let the government tell you that you've had too much to think.