Rebel News Podcast - Debunking election campaign climate change myths

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

00:02:23.740 opportunities for everyone.

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 0.98

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 0.96

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?

00:13:19.940 Yeah. It's like a self-help program. Yeah.

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 0.97

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.

00:36:21.740 Thank you.

00:36:24.060 That's it.

00:36:26.060 Yes.

00:36:26.700 That's right.

00:36:27.260 That's right.

00:36:28.640 You went down towards me and said,

00:36:29.980 you met us, you would not let us say anything in the same place.

00:36:33.060 But now, let us go in давай.

00:36:35.700 Come on, let us go in.

00:36:38.060 Let us stay together again.

00:36:40.380 Let us go in.

00:36:42.260 That's right.

00:36:44.060 Let us go in.

Rebel News Podcast - October 10, 2019

Debunking election campaign climate change myths

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript