Juno News - WHO wants a global vaccine passport to ＂make travel easier＂

00:00:00.000 Welcome to Canada's Most Irreverent Talk Show.

00:00:05.600 This is the Andrew Lawton Show, brought to you by TrueNord.

00:00:10.940 Pretty much the only way to refer to it here.

00:00:14.380 It is a power grab by the World Health Organization.

00:00:17.580 Last week or two weeks ago, it might have been,

00:00:20.020 the World Health Assembly was, as the name suggests,

00:00:22.760 assembled in Geneva, Switzerland.

00:00:25.600 And they were talking about all these sorts of things

00:00:28.120 that on the surface sound nice they sound good they sound like the sorts of things that we are

00:00:34.400 all going to get behind they want to just facilitate movement around the world well

00:00:38.400 that's good who doesn't like traveling they want to talk about all of the ins and outs of making

00:00:43.800 life better or better protecting citizens and as we've heard time and time again over the last

00:00:49.820 several years when something is for your protection it generally comes at a cost a cost to your

00:00:55.480 mobility rights, a cost to your speech rights, a cost to your ability to make your own decisions

00:01:00.720 as a citizen. And to be honest, whatever you think of the COVID hysteria that has dominated much of

00:01:07.700 the world for much of the last three years, I would hope that everyone could kind of agree with

00:01:12.560 the fact that the World Health Organization has not been a credible voice on this or on anything.

00:01:17.980 It was great when their focus was on preventing malaria in the developing world, but now their

00:01:22.980 focus is preventing mobility everywhere in the world. This organization that would capitulate

00:01:29.240 literally and figuratively to China, that would literally hang up on a Taiwanese reporter that

00:01:35.820 dares to ask about Taiwan's inclusion in the World Health Organization, which in fairness,

00:01:40.820 if I were Taiwan, I wouldn't be pushing for at this point. And an organization that believes 1.00

00:01:45.420 it should be the sole decision maker on all of these things that affect the individual decisions

00:01:51.520 that should belong to individual people but increasingly we have governments that are

00:01:56.600 abdicating their obligation to their citizens and I would say their national sovereignty

00:02:00.880 to the World Health Organization so it's been curious that as the global leaders were talking

00:02:07.420 all about this stuff in Geneva there was very little mainstream media attention there was

00:02:12.460 very little attention at all I should say first and foremost I had been looking into going to

00:02:18.640 Geneva to cover it myself but when I looked at the agenda for the meetings and I looked at the

00:02:23.340 documents a lot of the stuff that people were interested in wasn't appearing there there wasn't

00:02:27.840 a lot of talk on the agenda about the global pandemic treaty that's coming into force next

00:02:32.740 year hopefully there wasn't a lot of discussion about global vaccine passports but the joke was

00:02:37.760 on me because all of these things were discussed they just didn't want to draw attention to them

00:02:42.360 well I'm glad that one woman who was there to shine a light on this is with us today Michelle

00:02:47.200 Bachman, former U.S. Congresswoman, former Republican presidential candidate, and now the

00:02:53.100 dean of the School of Government at Regent University joins me. She was in the belly of

00:02:58.380 the beast. And more importantly, she's also my cruise mate on the Mark Stein cruises the last

00:03:05.000 couple of years. And we're going to be sailing again in a few weeks time. Michelle, it is great

00:03:10.140 to talk to you. Thanks for coming on today. So good to be with you, Andrew. Thanks for having

00:03:14.840 me on today. So let's just start with why you went there, because I would imagine that you

00:03:20.080 were probably not a popular voice there as someone who is speaking out against a lot of the very

00:03:25.640 things that these people have been pushing for with, sadly, a fair bit of success the last few

00:03:30.440 years. Well, I wanted to go because of how consequential this meeting is. These kind of

00:03:36.980 meetings drive me crazy. I have no interest in being in meetings gobbledygook. Let's have a

00:03:42.400 bigger and better bureaucracy. But this is more than just changing a bureaucracy of the subset of

00:03:49.740 the United Nation dealing with health care. That's what this is. The United Nations health care arm

00:03:55.080 is called the World Health Organization. They've always been an advisory only body. And so countries

00:04:01.460 had the ability to just reject whatever they said or adopt it if they thought this was a good thing.

00:04:08.000 and it was fairly a fairly inconsequential organization you can see the good altruistic

00:04:14.400 purpose for it if there's an area in the world that needs help nations of the world can band

00:04:20.320 together to try and help that area that's all good but now this is a malevolent plan to take

00:04:27.840 the world health organization and supercharge it to the global surveillance system the global

00:04:34.400 tracking system uh the global tracing system of all people on earth and we had that not only in

00:04:41.600 geneva but an announcement was made yesterday andrew from the european commission basically

00:04:47.920 in brussels and the european union they made an announcement together with the world health

00:04:53.760 organization that the world health organization would adopt the global digital passports that

00:05:00.320 have been created in brussels for the use of the 80 nations in the european union but now the world

00:05:07.200 health organization is going to take that example of a global digital passport where everyone has

00:05:13.680 a digital id on their phone and they've got a qr code and then will be tracked and traced by all

00:05:20.000 of that that announcement was made yesterday this is very curious to me because at the g20 last

00:05:27.200 november the health minister of indonesia made this very casual offhand remark at the at the g20

00:05:34.880 that the top g20 nations have gotten together we've all decided we're going to have global

00:05:39.840 digital passports they will be put forth by the world health organization will adopt amendments

00:05:46.080 in may in geneva and we're just going to go ahead and have this surveillance well

00:05:50.480 it didn't happen in geneva and so they waited till after all of the votes were taken if they

00:05:57.120 took any votes they didn't take any votes on the proposed 307 amendments to the international

00:06:02.320 health rules they didn't take any votes on the global pandemic treaty they waited until about

00:06:07.680 a week after the whole shebang was over and then they announced in a press release oh by the way

00:06:14.240 we're going to empower the world health organization now they're going to be the

00:06:18.880 ones in charge of this digital health care passport and we will be and they'll be the

00:06:24.960 the ones in the process of tracking and tracing and surveilling the rest of us and giving

00:06:29.660 permission if we can get on a public conveyance like a plane and go somewhere while they also

00:06:36.380 call the shots on what literally what vaccines we have to have and boosters and whatever they

00:06:41.820 come up with. Yeah, I'm glad you mentioned that timeline because I was just saying in my intro

00:06:47.280 on this segment that I looked at the agenda and ultimately decided it wasn't going to be worth

00:06:51.820 going because the things they were talking about on the agenda were not the things that we're

00:06:55.920 talking about now. And as I said, I mean, foolish on my part, because ultimately this was exactly 0.62

00:07:01.840 the purpose. But you're right that they do it in this way where I have to assume that the public 0.89

00:07:06.400 agenda was taking place alongside this parallel agenda where these folks were all talking behind

00:07:11.940 closed doors and all agreeing to what then gets announced two weeks later that no one voted on,

00:07:17.160 was not subject to scrutiny, people could not really question it about. And this is really

00:07:21.240 the story of the WHO, is it not? That, you know, they say they're this democratic body,

00:07:26.160 the product of states, but really all the action seems to take place outside of that democratic

00:07:31.040 forum. Oh, it does. You're right. We're living in a post-democratic environment. That's what the

00:07:37.680 WHO is. They despise the issue of democracy and of the delegates that were there. As a matter of

00:07:43.760 fact, it was 194 nations, essentially all nations on earth who are members of the WHO, and they

00:07:51.200 were all like a bunch of bobblehead dolls. Every single one of the delegates were reading off of

00:07:57.140 basically the same script. They used the word urgent, inclusion, equity. In other words,

00:08:04.180 we're going to have outcome-based socialized medicine for the world, a concept known as

00:08:08.600 universal health. So socialized medicine for the world, everybody gets the same level of health

00:08:13.960 care. And so all these little poorer nations think, great, this will be wonderful. We'll all

00:08:19.460 get American style health care. What they don't realize is that health care is about to be

00:08:24.680 downgraded, particularly in the West, and it'll be outcome based. So no one is getting high quality

00:08:31.620 health care, except for the John Carey's of the world and the elites of the world will have their

00:08:37.320 own health care system. And as a matter of fact, that was one of the shocking things to me. You're

00:08:42.680 right. The main event didn't happen in conferences A or B or the plenary sessions, where the real

00:08:51.320 rubber hit the road. We're in these strategic round tables, kind of optional meetings. But

00:08:57.000 they clearly laid out their timeline, their content, their strategy. And they talked about

00:09:03.320 the 307 amendments to the international health rules. The fellow in charge of passing them is

00:09:09.040 Dr. Abdullah Asiri. And he said, well, during the next pandemic, and they all talked about the next

00:09:15.040 pandemic. Remember, it was 100 years from the Spanish flu until COVID. But they're talking 0.96

00:09:20.940 about the next pandemic. They talk about it as though it's like coming out next week. I mean,

00:09:24.860 they got excited about monkeypox because they thought they had like another thing that they

00:09:28.800 could get involved in. Yeah, no, exactly. And Dr. Asiri said, you know, we can't with the next

00:09:35.540 pandemic, we can't use the old international health rules. We have to have new, bold, strong

00:09:41.160 health rules. Because the problem with the last pandemic was civil liberties. People had too many

00:09:47.600 civil liberties. So we've got to diminish and take away people's civil liberties. You can find this,

00:09:54.020 you can go to who.int, click on 76 World Health Assembly, and then look at the strategic round

00:10:02.180 tables the very first one on monday and you too can hear dr siri say the problem is too many civil

00:10:08.820 liberties and we got got to get rid of them one of the amendments does just that they scratch out the

00:10:14.740 words in the international health rules human freedom human dignity protection of civil liberties

00:10:22.740 that's gone this is a post-democratic world all they care about is empowering the world health

00:10:29.780 organization. So it really is the global Gestapo is probably a terrible word, but the global police,

00:10:38.140 if you will, for health care, they call the shots, not the individual nation states anymore on

00:10:45.020 health care decisions, or the ability to call an emergency. Remember, in the United States,

00:10:51.660 for instance, we lived under emergency powers for three years, emergency powers were only recently

00:10:58.720 lifted may 11th of 2023 this would give the right to dictate emergency powers to the world health

00:11:06.700 organization and then they can virtually do anything they want let me ask you michelle why

00:11:13.160 countries are not more resistant to this because i mean theoretically a country could do what the

00:11:19.160 united states was going to do had donald trump been re-elected which is withdraw from the who

00:11:23.660 entirely. They have that right. But what we saw was countries increasingly abdicating their own

00:11:30.020 decision-making to the WHO. I mean, we also saw corporations do that. I mean, if you were

00:11:34.700 to have a conversation about COVID on YouTube, YouTube is going to throw up a misinformation

00:11:39.360 label and they're going to say, you know, you violated what the World Health Organization sets

00:11:44.100 out as being best practices. So why were countries doing this? Because surely individual nation

00:11:49.900 states realize that this is not in their best interest to give this much power to an unelected

00:11:54.960 non-doctor bureaucrat, that Tedros Adhanom guy? Well, it's a few things, Andrew. We all know that

00:12:02.460 the Communist Party of China has global reach and global ambitions, and they've been, with their

00:12:08.800 Belt and Road Initiative, buying off Latin American countries, South American countries,

00:12:13.300 African countries. So they go in. Even some European countries. The Belt and Road is global 0.98

00:12:18.640 now yeah it is it's a global effort and they will say well we'll we'll pay for this airport for you

00:12:24.820 we'll pay for this highway for you we will uh take care of this infrastructure with you you just sign

00:12:30.180 here on the dotted line for your loan wink wink and we'll put this in for you well a lot of these

00:12:37.160 countries are used to loan forgiveness the united states for instance has done a lot of loan

00:12:42.040 forgiveness china isn't quite there they're not the ones who are going to do the loan forgiveness 0.96

00:12:47.420 So the number one entity that calls the shots of the World Health Organization is the Communist Party of China.

00:12:54.800 And so this is something that they want because this is the Chinese system.

00:12:58.900 This is the Chinese social credit system.

00:13:02.300 It is how China controls their own people. 0.99

00:13:05.160 So now this system that China has in place, this digital surveillance, is exactly what's being implemented through the WHO, only it's meant for all nations globally.

00:13:16.380 Why would the United States do this? Joe Biden was the lead aggressor a year ago trying to introduce 29 amendments to completely pivot the purpose of the WHO away from being an advisory-only body to be a regulatory and enforcement body when it came to health emergencies.

00:13:37.020 So that was last year, then Botswana and a few African nations objected. So we got a reprieve for a year, but we really didn't because behind the scenes, they were putting all of this into place.

00:13:50.980 And then this year, when I went, I fully expected that they would pass these amendments and pass the Global Pandemic Treaty. It was clear from day one, they were not going to pass it, they were going to wait until 2024. But that's a head fake, Andrew, because one week after they ended the World Health Assembly, they had a press conference yesterday, or they issued a press release, and announced that the WHO would take over the Global Digital Passport.

00:14:20.460 And that's really all you need for effectively global governance or global surveillance, because if the WHO controls the terms and the enforcement, they really are creating a platform for global governance.

00:14:35.640 and they're doing it through the global digital passport

00:14:38.340 because you're not traveling.

00:14:40.280 You're not getting on a plane.

00:14:41.920 You're not able to do things you are used to doing

00:14:44.720 unless your QR code is up to date

00:14:48.000 and approved by the WHO.

00:14:51.160 Yeah, and the way they couch it in all of these things

00:14:54.720 is about being for your convenience.

00:14:57.140 They basically say that you do this

00:14:59.660 and it's gonna make it a little bit more helpful.

00:15:01.360 You know, the airline that I travel with more often than not,

00:15:03.680 they've done this digital ID pilot project where when you log in, they say, oh, if you'd like,

00:15:08.860 you can do a facial scan on your phone and then you can actually board the airplane more

00:15:13.320 conveniently because we'll just take a picture of your face there and that will open the gate. 0.98

00:15:18.020 And it's like, I'm looking at this and I'm saying, first off, the voluntary never stays voluntary.

00:15:22.380 So this little like thing you can try if you want is going to become mandatory and, you know,

00:15:27.120 six months time. But also when you trade away things in the name of convenience,

00:15:31.640 you will end up realizing that it had nothing to do with that.

00:15:35.420 That was just PR.

00:15:36.600 And that's the whole thing with these global vaccine passports.

00:15:39.660 We shouldn't be making it easy for states and IOs like the WHO to standardize this stuff.

00:15:46.540 Well, this is really serious, Andrew.

00:15:49.740 People need to understand how far down the road this is.

00:15:53.940 Global socialized medicine isn't pretty.

00:15:57.860 And that's what they plan.

00:15:59.240 universal health being global socialized medicine the criterion for health care decisions is a

00:16:05.360 concept known as one health and they had a diagram and the diagram includes man animals

00:16:12.780 the environment and so when you look into it the health care criterion is man is worth no more is

00:16:20.620 no more valuable than an animal man is no more valuable than a lump of dirt so it's essentially

00:16:26.700 man equals a cockroach each equals a lump of dirt but i have to jump in there so for canadians that

00:16:34.220 deal with wait times now we have to wait behind a tree for our surgery basically well basically

00:16:40.020 because now at this point the uh john kerry made an appearance at this uh world health assembly

00:16:47.280 and both dr tedros gibratius and john kerry said that you know we had focused on infectious

00:16:55.440 diseases. Well, yeah, three years, COVID-19, we'd focused on infectious diseases, but now we're

00:17:01.360 going to turn away from that. Now we're going to pivot and we're going to focus on climate change.

00:17:05.720 And really here's the bottom line. These climate change people have been desperate to put a

00:17:12.120 control system into place, effectively a global government on the basis of climate change.

00:17:17.780 Nobody bought it for 60 or 70 years. Nobody cared. They didn't buy it. But after COVID,

00:17:24.200 These climate change people saw how effective you could control people globally through health care. So on day two of the strategic roundtable, John Kerry comes in and he says, you know, I didn't realize that that health care is really driven by climate change.

00:17:43.420 I had no idea until my daughter told me.

00:17:46.380 And so Dr. Tedros Ghebreyesus said the same thing.

00:17:49.360 Yet we're going to pivot away from infectious diseases.

00:17:52.620 Our number one priority now at World Health is climate change.

00:17:57.100 And that's what John Kerry said.

00:17:59.140 So now the number one factor for the WHO will be, can we keep the earth's temperature at rising no more than 1.5 degrees?

00:18:09.540 so in that case the lump of dirt equals a cockroach equals mankind what that says is

00:18:17.160 the lump of dirt is going to win every time so whatever it is that the elites who control the

00:18:23.480 world health organization want they will make the decisions it's not up to the 194 nations anymore

00:18:31.100 it's up to these elites because in the global pandemic treaty they create this little group

00:18:36.780 of elites called like the council of the parties or the commission of the parties, something like

00:18:41.360 that. And they irrigate to themselves perpetual rulemaking authority. They never have to meet

00:18:48.460 again for the World Health Assembly. This little commission on the parties will meet with

00:18:54.940 perpetual authority and they'll just create the rules to give the WHR more power and more power 0.81

00:19:01.700 and more power and the sick thing is that led by joe biden in the united states all these nations

00:19:09.220 are willingly voluntarily giving up their sovereignty over health care decision making

00:19:15.620 it is a fatal ridiculous tragic decision and so you know you may have a global audience i hope you

00:19:24.380 do andrew because people in other countries people in canada this is the time now to wake up

00:19:30.940 and realize we're very far down the road with this thing because now the world health organization

00:19:37.600 is calling the shots for the eu and they're already announcing they're going to call the

00:19:42.760 shots for all of the other nations that join in on this global digital passport and the ability

00:19:49.060 to travel is contained in that our health records will be contained in it most likely our digital

00:19:54.680 currency will be contained in it perhaps even the right to buy and sell will be contained in it

00:20:00.440 It's extremely serious. And it's how you can control people. And it's already off the ground.

00:20:06.780 And yesterday they made the announcement that the WHO was controlling this without a vote.

00:20:13.760 They just grabbed the power. You know, if I were the leader of an African medical group, 0.99

00:20:18.860 I'd be very angry that no one cares about the HIV outbreak anymore. No one cares about the

00:20:24.100 malaria outbreak that they all care about, you know, shutting down oil refineries in Alberta

00:20:28.940 and West Virginia or wherever they are.

00:20:32.180 Michelle Bachman, I'm so glad you went there

00:20:33.980 when no one else in the world

00:20:35.220 was interested in covering this.

00:20:37.100 It's wonderful to see you again.

00:20:38.780 Thanks so much for coming on today.

00:20:40.520 Thanks, Andrew.

00:20:41.740 All right, that is former presidential candidate

00:20:44.080 Michelle Bachman.

00:20:44.740 As I said, my cruise mate on the Mark Stein cruise,

00:20:47.780 which I know a few folks are going to be coming along.

00:20:49.900 That's just in a few weeks time.

00:20:51.060 So when I'm away for a couple of weeks in a little while,

00:20:53.900 you'll know it's because I'm singing some duet

00:20:56.440 with Michelle Bachman up in the Crow's Nest,

00:20:58.540 which you think I'm joking, actually happened last time.

00:21:01.480 And hopefully there's no video of it, not because she was bad, because I was.

00:21:04.940 We are going to talk about this a little bit more.

00:21:07.560 And I think in the context that we were talking about with climate there,

00:21:11.660 it is a perfect segue into this other discussion.

00:21:14.480 We know that Canada has committed itself, as have many countries around the world,

00:21:19.020 to this idea of net zero, which means we are supposedly going to get down to net zero

00:21:24.820 in our carbon emissions by the number keeps changing 2035 2030 I think it's supposed to be

00:21:31.340 next week or something if you give them enough time they just keep moving it closer and closer

00:21:35.960 and the way we get there is always the key it's one thing to just set a target and set a date on

00:21:41.740 a calendar and say net zero by x time on x day of x year it's another thing when you talk about

00:21:46.940 what that actually means on the ground and we see no shortage of quite radical proposals put forward

00:21:52.680 in the name of achieving net zero, and most of them end up coming down to that idea of a just

00:21:58.300 transition, of just transitioning our economy away from one that involves oil and gas without any

00:22:04.160 real alternative proposed. Well, one that we have talked about, which has been proposed by folks in

00:22:10.160 the oil and gas sector, is this idea of carbon capture. Now, I am not going to insult you by

00:22:16.500 describing probably poorly the scientific basis of it but carbon capture is essentially this idea

00:22:23.340 of not ceasing the production of things that result in carbon emissions but rather finding

00:22:29.000 ways to harness and capture that carbon those carbon emissions and doing so in a way that they

00:22:34.780 still contribute to the overall goal of reducing emissions so let's talk about this in a bit of

00:22:40.560 context because there is a little bit of criticism of carbon capture and some of it was put forward

00:22:45.700 in a recent piece that was co-authored by a gentleman who joins me now, Dr. Kenneth Green,

00:22:51.400 who is a senior fellow at the Fraser Institute. Kenneth, good to talk to you. Thanks for coming

00:22:56.320 on today. Good to be with you. Now, I admit not being a scientist, I've bought into some of the

00:23:01.980 hype on carbon capture because it's kind of proposed by conservative politicians, by people

00:23:06.780 in the oil and gas sector as being this market-friendly way of achieving the government's

00:23:12.140 goals, which if you accept the goals or at the very least are not optimistic that those goals

00:23:17.780 are going anywhere, it's a better alternative than, say, just outlawing the industry, which is,

00:23:24.000 I think, where a lot of the activists want. But you're a bit of a skeptic.

00:23:27.680 Yes, I am. And I'd love to get back to the other topic you were talking about, which is

00:23:31.600 all the environmental measures that are coming on have the same pattern of implementation that

00:23:36.360 you can actually understand them by looking at how they're implemented rather than what they're

00:23:39.880 supposed to do. But back on carbon capture and storage, I am a skeptic of this. I view it as,

00:23:44.920 and I discuss it as a fig leaf that's appealing to many, many people. First of all, there is a

00:23:49.960 little grain of truth, a nugget of truth in there, which is oil companies have been using the idea

00:23:54.940 of taking carbon dioxide, re-injecting it into old wells and old fields to push up more oil and gas.

00:24:02.120 They've been doing that, that's carbon storage part. They've been doing that for decades and it

00:24:06.960 works well. And so there's a small reality there, which is somebody can say, look, they've taken

00:24:11.200 many, many tons of CO2 and put it into the ground and it stays there. And so it's technologically

00:24:17.020 feasible. But it's a fig leaf because really it's not feasible to capture carbon dioxide

00:24:24.020 emissions from power plants or from agriculture or from any other source, capture them, bind them

00:24:30.700 chemically, store them somewhere underground at any kind of scale that would have any impact

00:24:36.820 at all on global greenhouse gas emissions or air concentrations or warming or anything

00:24:42.840 else.

00:24:43.860 But it's a fig leaf because governments, as you said, when conservative governments get

00:24:48.640 to say, we have an alternative to your socialist net zero 2050 plan, which is technology made

00:24:56.100 by good old-fashioned, private Canadian companies,

00:24:59.500 carbon capture and storage is one of those things.

00:25:02.200 So they love it because it's a good figly for them.

00:25:04.760 The industry loves it because they get to say,

00:25:06.500 even though they know they really can't reduce emissions

00:25:08.600 very much anymore because of by efficiencies,

00:25:11.040 they've plumbed the depths of how efficient they can be

00:25:14.400 and they're way efficient, right?

00:25:16.300 But they've hit the limits on that.

00:25:17.500 So it's a figly for them to say,

00:25:19.540 we listen, we get it, we hear it.

00:25:21.100 You don't want us emitting carbon dioxide in the air.

00:25:24.040 So we'll do this carbon capture and storage thing.

00:25:27.100 And so now let us keep operating, let us stay in business, right?

00:25:30.100 So you'll like it.

00:25:31.100 The environmentalist groups like it because it's a figly for them that when they get to

00:25:34.480 a negotiation where companies are saying and have proven that a proposed environmental

00:25:39.580 plan is completely unaffordable and they'll simply have to go out of business, the

00:25:43.560 environmentalist can say, we'll give you this little loophole of you can pretend that carbon

00:25:47.620 capture and storage is going to work and that we're going to actually let you go ahead and

00:25:51.540 do it so that you can to take away your ability to claim that you're going out of business but

00:25:57.000 they really never have any intention of allowing the kind of environmental disruption it would take

00:26:00.900 to do carbon capture and storage so it's sort of a universal fig leaf everybody loves it but

00:26:05.780 nobody believes it's actually going to happen um and and there's with good reason it's never going

00:26:11.300 to happen now does your skepticism extend to kind of related phenomena like carbon recycling these

00:26:17.400 other things that we also hear about as being ways to just reduce the carbon in the atmosphere

00:26:22.680 without reducing it at source? Well, yes. I mean, I wouldn't call it skepticism. In this case,

00:26:28.760 it's really simply an understanding of physics, right? Carbon dioxide, the best way to understand

00:26:33.580 carbon dioxide, which you breathe out every time you exhale, is it's a waste gas. That means there's

00:26:39.120 no energy inherent in it. It's a stable chemical that really has no energy inherent in it that you

00:26:45.540 can you can exploit so to do anything with it you have to pump energy in to trap it to bind it to

00:26:51.680 split it apart in order to do anything with it and that means the very idea that you're going to

00:26:56.220 somehow use that to reduce your energy production is silly right you're actually going to have to

00:27:01.960 pump more energy in to to bind co2 than to leave it alone and so yeah i'm generally skeptical of

00:27:08.380 anything that claims to be taking co2 and making anything useful out of it because it is essentially

00:27:13.220 a planetary waste, which has no energy potential for exploiting, is mostly inert. It's chemically

00:27:20.120 inert. And so, yeah, I'm generally dubious, not to say skeptical, but I'm scientifically

00:27:27.520 and engineering dubious of those kind of claims. So what would be a better policy then,

00:27:34.120 if I can just put you on the spot there? Or is it basically challenging the premise

00:27:38.680 that we need to go after it this way in the first place?

00:27:43.220 Well, I think a better policy is moving our focus away from controlling the global thermostat

00:27:59.460 by indirect control of gas emissions. We can barely measure well, much less control,

00:28:05.940 that being greenhouse gases and CO2. And we should shift our focus to asking

00:28:10.900 if the climate is warming or cooling or is more variable than we ever thought it was,

00:28:15.620 which we know, how can we make ourselves as societies more adaptive, more resilient,

00:28:21.140 and better able to deal with whatever climate future eventuates, right? It happens to us.

00:28:27.300 And we can do a lot of that with conventional engineering, conventional economics.

00:28:31.860 We don't have to be using, invoking speculative technologies to do that.

00:28:35.860 Sea level rise. Countries, the Netherlands and others, have dealt with rising sea levels and

00:28:40.820 sea levels above their land decades and centuries. The Romans dealt with moving massive amounts of

00:28:47.060 water from areas that had water to areas that didn't have water. So we can deal with drought.

00:28:51.860 We can move things around. We can harden areas. California's earthquake damage. I grew up in

00:28:57.140 California. My first earthquake experience in 1969, I was eight years old, nine years old.

00:29:01.700 the Silmar earthquake destroyed massive amounts of the San Fernando Valley. By today's standards,

00:29:08.420 an earthquake much stronger than that, hundreds of times stronger than that, would not do anywhere

00:29:12.900 close to the level of damage that was done before because we learn. Engineering, technology, we do

00:29:17.860 learn. And so we could be addressing the risks of climate change, flooding, drought, heat waves,

00:29:23.380 cold spells, whatever you want to call it through conventional technology locally, globally as well.

00:29:30.020 But instead, the world, for reasons I can't get into, I'd love to, but for political reasons,

00:29:37.620 has chosen this laser focus on controlling the greenhouse gases and explicitly doing so

00:29:43.220 only through redistribution of wealth. That's the part I would get to on a whole program,

00:29:46.820 which is when you dig down into every program and you can ask,

00:29:50.500 what's the root thing that in this program the government will not do without? It's the

00:29:56.740 component that says we're going to take the money from these people and give it to our constituents

00:30:00.900 who will vote for us who like our agenda and so um well just to add to that that's also baked in

00:30:07.060 even at the global level as well it's you know within countries like canada it's redistribution

00:30:11.380 of wealth then on the global scale it's redistribution of wealth from canada to

00:30:15.140 tubaloo or something well it has been since the united nations framework convention on climate

00:30:19.540 change the very first treaty ever signed created the principle that developed countries would go

00:30:24.900 first and that developed countries would fund the transition for the developing countries by giving

00:30:30.180 them, giving being the operative term, technologies and money, massive wealth transfers in order for

00:30:36.980 them to build out their energy systems and things without producing greenhouse gas emissions.

00:30:43.220 That was actually the central operating principle of the very first climate agreement

00:30:47.620 and has stayed the central operating principle of every climate agreement ever since,

00:30:51.300 regardless of the fact that China moved from developing country to developed and is by far

00:30:56.620 the biggest greenhouse gas transmitter in the world and will be over time overwhelmingly the

00:31:02.500 world's largest contributor to the increase of greenhouse gases around the world, it's still

00:31:07.680 based. The Paris Accord, the previous UN Accords are all based. The central operating principle is

00:31:15.000 redistribution of global wealth. There is an aspect to this that you touched on a couple of

00:31:20.520 answers ago about the difficulty in even measuring objectively and accurately emissions. And I think

00:31:27.800 also global temperature is one I've seen some criticism about. So, you know, we pin so much

00:31:32.720 on those two metrics, the idea of, you know, global temperature right now, we've, you know,

00:31:36.420 got to get to no more than 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels is the goal. But

00:31:42.280 measuring global temperature is not as ironclad and objective as the UN likes to say, and nor is

00:31:47.580 the measurement of admissions no and it's funny you should mention that but we have a study coming

00:31:52.220 out of the fraser institute in oh the next couple of weeks a month well i'm excited comparing

00:31:57.260 comparing whether we should be using measurements of the climate or models computer models of the

00:32:01.980 climate in order to make our decisions about what policies to implement with regard to climate

00:32:06.300 change so you can look for that fraser institute uh www.fraserinstitute.com now they'll love me

00:32:12.540 even more, which is good. But back to your question, I mean, yes, measurement of climate

00:32:18.220 is a problem that you can't just stick a thermometer into the atmosphere and wave it

00:32:21.980 around to get the temperature of the earth any more than you can get the actual temperature of

00:32:26.220 a room you're in. If you think about the room you're in, it's warmer towards the ceiling,

00:32:29.900 it's colder towards the floor, near the air conditioning vents, it's colder still,

00:32:33.100 over by the window, it's warm. How would you compute just the temperature of your room?

00:32:38.140 Well, it'd be a huge exercise dividing your room into little squares,

00:32:41.580 taking in that temperature at the center of each square doing a spatial average and try to do that

00:32:46.140 for the globe so yes humility is definitely um required in in asking the question can we know

00:32:53.580 the earth's average temperature of the atmosphere the average temperature of the earth's atmosphere

00:32:58.940 on the other hand the modeling the question of can we model it with a computer is even more absurd

00:33:05.260 right so it is true the temperature measurements are i mean i i would not want to depend upon them

00:33:12.220 for some sort of industrial process that had to be tightly controlled like making chips i wouldn't

00:33:16.540 just say that level of measurement would be good enough for me but it's better than simply running

00:33:21.180 a computer model that looks like a video game and saying wow in this one in this scenario the rcp

00:33:26.540 8.5 uh the world gets super hot and zombies take over okay well yeah we'll go with that one so um

00:33:33.100 Well, and this brings the fact that the famous hockey stick graph, which I think it was a Paul

00:33:38.680 Martin that mailed out a copy to like every Canadian household. And it's been the subject

00:33:43.160 of, you know, vociferous debate and even litigation on that. But again, I mean, we've seen,

00:33:49.420 to go back to the COVID question, the perils of modeling, which, you know, what you get out of

00:33:54.000 it is no better and in some cases worse than what you put into it. And I'm even more glad you

00:33:59.180 mention that because I have a book out called The Plague of Models. That's by me, Kenneth P.

00:34:03.200 Green. You can get it on Google Play. I am proudly censored by Amazon, which is not allowing works

00:34:07.920 on COVID policy that are contrary to get through unless you have divine intervention or the

00:34:12.740 intervention of somebody like Elon Musk in order to get your book approved. But you can get mine

00:34:17.280 on Google Play, The Plague of Models. And basically, it talks about exactly this. In the 1970s,

00:34:21.640 here's the thing. In the 1970s, computers got cheap and labs got expensive. And so people

00:34:27.680 started replacing, and regulators wanted to move really fast on regulations and rules,

00:34:32.760 much faster than they could based on laboratory experiments done in traditional laboratories with

00:34:37.860 scientists working on liquid wet chemistry and biology and things. So models increasingly took

00:34:43.260 over as evidence, but they're not evidence. A model actually takes away information,

00:34:48.780 doesn't give you more, right? A picture of a supermodel doesn't tell you much about the actual 1.00

00:34:53.120 person. A picture of a truck doesn't tell you that much about the actual truck. A picture of

00:34:58.240 Bugs Bunny doesn't tell you anything about the actual behavior of rabbits, right? Those are

00:35:02.800 models. And so when we moved to models and away from research, we took this huge step into

00:35:10.000 speculation and it's across the board. It's on almost virtually any topic that you see a chart

00:35:16.960 or a graph on. Any model that actually projects into the future is inherently modeled, right?

00:35:22.400 since nobody has a crystal ball. So all of these things saying, by 2050, we're going to do this.

00:35:27.360 By 2050, our emissions are going to go like this. By 2050, the temperature is going to go like that.

00:35:30.800 By 2050, this is going to happen. That's going to happen. All of that is completely speculative

00:35:34.960 based on assumptions about the world. There's no data in it. It's right. It's originally a data

00:35:40.800 free exercise. And so we have to be very wary of anything based on modeling. As you said, COVID

00:35:46.800 being a case in point. Curiously, as people will notice in my book,

00:35:50.240 people are blaming the wrong models for the problem with COVID. The initial models of how

00:35:55.360 lethal it was were more accurate than you'd think. But the models suggesting that the

00:35:59.760 measures like lockdowns, masks, social distancing, that those things would work,

00:36:05.440 those models were horrible. And those models were relied upon for the governments to say,

00:36:10.400 yeah, we want to do these crackdowns because this model says, this will flatten the curve,

00:36:14.800 right? Trudeau would say, plank the curve. He had to get cutesy with the whole planking thing,

00:36:19.280 because you know he did that when he first ran for office yeah yeah so uh the whole plank the

00:36:24.640 curve flatten the curve thing was based on modeling that's that said that these measures

00:36:29.760 um of masking distancing staying at home closing schools would slow the spread of covid even though

00:36:36.880 historically we knew that the evidence from all previous infectious diseases and recorded where

00:36:43.280 where there is evidence, we knew those would not work. We knew those would not work. So

00:36:48.540 that's the COVID scandal part, which again, you can read about.

00:36:53.420 Yeah. And just, you know, I remember an episode of the West Wing a while ago where, you know,

00:36:57.280 the president was sitting with a couple of economists and asking them for their predictions

00:37:00.700 of what was going to happen. And, you know, one says, you know, we're going to, you know,

00:37:04.480 the economy is going to get better. One says, we're going to go to a recession. The third says,

00:37:07.900 we're going to hold. And he's like, two of you are going to look very stupid in six months time, 1.00

00:37:11.740 which I think is a pretty good way of summing up, you know, how unscientific some of these so-called scientific measures are. 0.83

00:37:19.040 Well, it's a fascinating piece and a fascinating topic, and I look forward to the ones that are coming down the pipeline,

00:37:24.300 especially as you've been able to tease some stuff I didn't even know about that's coming up.

00:37:28.420 Dr. Kenneth Green, Senior Fellow with the Fraser Institute, thank you so much.

00:37:32.380 A pleasure to be with you today.

00:37:33.840 All right. Thanks very much.

00:37:34.860 I didn't realize when I started off on the show today that there would be such continuity from the first topic to the second topic.

00:37:41.180 But as we were discussing with Michelle and then with Kenneth, the reality is the COVID playbook is now becoming the climate playbook.

00:37:50.440 And one of the things, I should have brought this up with Michelle, in the U.S. and specifically its military history for the last, I don't know, 30 years or so, you hear this term mission creep, which is basically when the mission just creeps from its stated objective to something else over time.

00:38:06.360 And World Health Organization, Politburo, mission creep is insane.

00:38:12.280 And I would say public health mission creep in general.

00:38:14.840 It used to be that public health offices were telling you, you know what, you should wear a condom so you don't pass chlamydia around.

00:38:22.260 Or they were saying you should get your flu shot every year so you don't get the flu.

00:38:25.920 And it was a fairly safe, stable, predictable message that you'd get time and time again.

00:38:32.640 And as soon as I say that, I know there are going to be people saying the flu shot's not safe.

00:38:36.540 The point I'm making is that public health really was an afterthought for many, many years.

00:38:40.980 And the World Health Organization was an afterthought for many, many years.

00:38:44.800 You didn't need to think about it.

00:38:45.780 Then they got a taste of power.

00:38:47.760 The World Health Organization, the public health bureaucrats,

00:38:50.700 they got a taste of power that they've never had in their lives before,

00:38:54.540 and they do not want to let go of it.

00:38:56.580 So it is no secret that there's been this public healthification

00:39:00.080 of pretty much everything since then all of a sudden climate is now a public health issue

00:39:05.840 the one that you see and the world health organization literally uses this word

00:39:09.740 an infodemic when they believe that information the flow of information should be treated the way

00:39:17.040 a virulent disease is and that's why they now think that misinformation is a new pandemic in

00:39:23.200 need of regulations you need to flatten the curve of misinformation by which they mean information

00:39:28.420 that runs contrary to their own edicts and proclamations,

00:39:32.360 even though their own edicts and proclamations run contrary to their edicts and proclamations

00:39:36.720 from three, four, five months earlier.

00:39:39.160 So all of a sudden, yeah, you have to be more worried about it.

00:39:41.920 I would love to go back to not having to think about it.

00:39:43.980 I would love to have to go back.

00:39:45.440 I would love to be able to go back to not even knowing the name of my local medical officer of health.

00:39:50.420 But you don't get that luxury.

00:39:52.060 And you look at some of them that were getting hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars a year

00:39:56.320 and providing some just insane recommendations.

00:40:00.840 The one up in Peel region that said,

00:40:03.020 if you have a sick child,

00:40:03.920 you should lock them in your bedroom, 0.56

00:40:05.280 in their bedroom, basically.

00:40:06.720 And this stuff was entirely normalized in the COVID era.

00:40:10.000 People saying don't have unvaccinated relatives over

00:40:12.860 for Thanksgiving dinner, for Christmas dinner.

00:40:15.280 This is what the public health bureaucracy brought us.

00:40:18.620 And now this level of power,

00:40:21.000 this level of intrusion,

00:40:22.020 this level of control is coming in the name

00:40:24.460 of flattening the climate curve.

00:40:26.320 So you better be warned.

00:40:28.080 Thanks to Michelle Bachman and Kenneth Green for coming on the show and sharing what, again,

00:40:32.740 I thought were going to be unrelated insights, but ended up weaving a common thread.

00:40:37.120 So we always enjoy when we get to have some continuity on the show.

00:40:40.620 That does it for us for today.

00:40:42.720 We'll be back tomorrow with more of Canada's most irreverent talk show here on True North.

00:40:47.240 Thank you.

00:40:47.720 God bless and good day to you all.

00:40:52.220 Thanks for listening to The Andrew Lawton Show.

00:40:54.300 Support the program by donating to True North at www.tnc.news.

Juno News - June 06, 2023

WHO wants a global vaccine passport to ＂make travel easier＂

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript