Rebel News Podcast - August 07, 2025


SHEILA GUNN REID ｜ The U.S. just hit the brakes on climate tyranny—so why is Canada still flooring it？


Episode Stats


Length

37 minutes

Words per minute

164.98695

Word count

6,199

Sentence count

419

Harmful content

Misogyny

1

sentences flagged

Hate speech

6

sentences flagged


Summary

Summaries generated with gmurro/bart-large-finetuned-filtered-spotify-podcast-summ .

Big things are happening in the U.S. when it comes to climate change. Are Canadians about to be left in the dust? Or will we catch up? In this episode, we discuss the recent Supreme Court ruling that strikes down a key piece of climate science.

Transcript

Transcript generated with Whisper (turbo).
Misogyny classifications generated with MilaNLProc/bert-base-uncased-ear-misogyny .
Hate speech classifications generated with facebook/roberta-hate-speech-dynabench-r4-target .
00:00:00.040 Big things are happening in the United States when it comes to climate realism.
00:00:04.720 Are Canadians about to be left in the dust or will we catch up?
00:00:08.600 I'm Sheila Gunn-Reed and you're watching The Gunn Show.
00:00:11.120 The Gunn Show
00:00:41.120 So this is from about a week ago, late July.
00:00:46.960 President Donald Trump's administration on Tuesday proposed revoking a scientific finding,
00:00:51.900 but it wasn't a scientific finding as we'll get into it.
00:00:54.280 It seems to be a court finding that has long been the central basis for U.S. action to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and fight climate change.
00:01:03.620 The proposed Environmental Protection Agency rule would rescind a 2009 declaration
00:01:09.220 that determined that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare.
00:01:15.000 The endangerment finding is the legal underpinning of a host of climate regulations under the Clean Air Act for Motor Vehicles,
00:01:24.080 power plants, and other pollution sources that are heating the planet.
00:01:28.340 Repealing the finding, quote, will be the largest deregulatory action in the history of America, end quote,
00:01:38.280 said EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin.
00:01:41.380 He also said there are people who, in the name of climate change, are willing to bankrupt the country.
00:01:47.340 They created this endangerment finding, and then they are able to put all these regulations on vehicles,
00:01:52.720 on airplanes, on stationary sources, to basically regulate out of existence,
00:01:57.100 in many cases, a lot of segments of our economy, and it costs Americans a lot of money.
00:02:03.280 I'm already jealous as a Canadian.
00:02:07.380 Joining me now to break all this down for us is Tom Harris of the International Climate Science Coalition Canada
00:02:14.540 in an interview we recorded earlier today.
00:02:17.480 Take a listen.
00:02:25.520 So joining me now is good friend of Rebel News and good friend of Reality Everywhere,
00:02:31.280 Tom Harris from the International Climate Science Coalition Canada,
00:02:36.720 and there's a lot of things happening in the realm of climate science.
00:02:42.280 I feel like we're breaking through some of the nonsense that we've had to live with for 10 years,
00:02:47.880 8 years, 20 years, depending on how you look at it.
00:02:51.300 So, Tom, I'll let you pick.
00:02:54.060 What should we talk about first?
00:02:55.920 Endangerment finding in the U.S.
00:02:57.740 This is really important for Canadians to understand.
00:03:03.740 Kate, start it off.
00:03:06.020 Let us hear it.
00:03:07.020 Yeah, we'll have to edit out that gap.
00:03:09.240 That's okay, we will.
00:03:10.360 Yeah.
00:03:11.060 The reason is that over the next few months,
00:03:14.260 what's going to happen is we're going to see a lot more discussion of climate change science.
00:03:20.380 And what's going to become apparent to people is things like this.
00:03:24.280 This is the open letter from Richard Lindzen, MIT professor of meteorology,
00:03:30.220 William Happer from professor of physics from Princeton,
00:03:34.180 and Stephen Koonin, who interestingly was the person who headed up climate change research under the Obama administration.
00:03:40.160 And they make some pretty definite statements.
00:03:42.420 And this is going to be coming in support of the endangerment finding retraction,
00:03:49.300 which we can discuss in a second.
00:03:51.280 It says,
00:03:51.680 And here's where they hit the nail on the head.
00:04:16.060 Science demonstrates fossil fuels and CO2 will not cause dangerous climate change.
00:04:21.600 Okay, so they're very, very direct.
00:04:23.620 So what we're going to see is there's going to be a lot of discussion about several things which support the retraction of the endangerment finding.
00:04:31.520 But I think we have to, first of all, define what that is.
00:04:34.400 What is this thing?
00:04:35.300 Yeah, you know, the environmental groups have been trying for decades, literally,
00:04:40.200 to get the EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, to control carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act.
00:04:47.000 And in particular, they've been pushing for motor vehicles to be regulated based on their carbon dioxide emissions.
00:04:53.380 Now, at first, the Bush administration, they just rejected this.
00:04:56.320 They said, no, you know, we don't have the mandate.
00:04:59.820 We don't have the authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.
00:05:03.760 But in 2007, things changed.
00:05:07.440 There was a court case between various states and the EPA, and it was called EPA versus Massachusetts.
00:05:14.340 And the Supreme Court decided in their infinite wisdom that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases were pollutants.
00:05:23.120 Okay, they were pollutants.
00:05:25.140 And this required, there's no choice.
00:05:27.200 This required the EPA to actually determine if greenhouse gases, and in particular, carbon dioxide, was this a threat to human health and welfare?
00:05:37.220 And that was a very important question, because if it is, if they decided it is, then they have no choice but to regulate it.
00:05:44.780 Now, the interesting thing, Sheila, is we have to realize that 80% of all the greenhouse gas emissions that are put out by humans, except for water vapor, in the United States and Canada is carbon dioxide.
00:05:57.380 Okay, so carbon dioxide, 80% of the greenhouse gases that we're talking about.
00:06:01.620 So really, the endangerment finding was asking this question.
00:06:04.740 And again, the EPA had no choice.
00:06:07.700 Once the court declared that carbon dioxide and these other greenhouse gases were pollutants under the Clean Air Act, they had to conduct an assessment as to whether or not it was dangerous to humanity and the environment.
00:06:21.120 And they decided that it was.
00:06:23.640 Now, you can just guess who was president at the time.
00:06:27.480 It was Obama.
00:06:28.480 It was the beginning of his term.
00:06:30.060 So they declared that, you know, greenhouse gases, in particular, carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide, plus three other fluorine type gases, that these were a threat, and the words were, to the population's health and welfare.
00:06:45.360 Okay, this was the decision.
00:06:46.880 And that's the foundation from which they built all of these regulations about motor vehicles, about oil and gas, about industrial processes.
00:06:56.000 It's all based on the endangerment finding.
00:06:58.340 Now, it's interesting that Alan Carlin, who was a chief economist at the EPA at the time, he did a really good analysis to show that there was no reason to classify carbon dioxide, in particular, as a pollutant.
00:07:11.940 It was not a threat to health and welfare.
00:07:14.980 But the EPA ignored it.
00:07:16.620 In fact, you'd laugh to hear what they told him.
00:07:18.960 I'm paraphrasing.
00:07:19.900 I don't remember the exact words.
00:07:21.200 But they essentially said, well, your findings, your report on this endangerment finding is not useful.
00:07:28.880 It's not helpful, because we've already decided to regulate greenhouse gases, because we've already decided that they'll be harmful to human health and welfare.
00:07:39.120 So, you know, Sheila, I always turn that into a bit of a joke when I give presentations.
00:07:42.920 You know, we always talk about evidence-based decision-making.
00:07:45.880 Well, what this was is decision-based evidence-making.
00:07:50.540 Right.
00:07:51.100 Yeah.
00:07:51.900 So they had decided that greenhouse gases, in particular carbon dioxide, was a threat.
00:07:57.540 And so they assembled all the data to support this.
00:08:00.580 But, of course, it isn't.
00:08:01.740 So the foundation of the policies that are restricting industrial development in the United States and reducing our massively increasing our price of cars and all sorts of things, this is called the endangerment finding.
00:08:14.580 So what's happening now is Lee Zeldin, who's head of the EPA in the United States.
00:08:20.260 Yeah, I know.
00:08:22.140 You're laughing.
00:08:23.300 I love his quote.
00:08:24.560 He's so candid.
00:08:25.400 He's so straightforward.
00:08:26.040 He said, we are driving a dagger through the heart of the climate change religion, you know, which I say, hooray, hooray for you.
00:08:34.880 So what's happening now is they've put out a proposal to rescind the endangerment finding.
00:08:40.480 And they've published lots of material.
00:08:43.080 You know, this will undoubtedly be cited as well.
00:08:45.400 But just a few days before that, they put out a report from what's called the Climate Working Group for the Department of Energy.
00:08:53.680 And there were five scientists involved there that actually Chris Wright, who's head of the Department of Energy, he chose these people because they were, you know, obviously agreeing with President Trump, but also because they represented a spectrum of, you know, expert advice.
00:09:10.160 There was Ross McKittrick from Canada, which is nice.
00:09:12.620 He's actually one of the authors of this report.
00:09:15.240 It's about what are the real impacts of greenhouse gas emissions when you look at government data, when you look at actual science, what's the real impact?
00:09:25.200 And John Christie and what's his name?
00:09:29.580 It'll come back to me.
00:09:30.960 But regardless, there were five of these scientists that I'll list later.
00:09:34.280 And Coonan, he was another one from New York University, Judith Curry from Georgia Institute of Technology.
00:09:39.640 Oh, yeah. And the other one is Roy Spencer, because Spencer and Christie, they're the they're the duo, the dynamic duo who do all the satellite measurements.
00:09:48.780 So those five scientists put together a report and they said some pretty interesting things.
00:09:53.520 And the report is open now for public comment.
00:09:56.380 What they said is it may be that the detriments, the negative effects of these climate mitigation policies could very well be worse than any positive benefits.
00:10:07.300 They also said in the report that just came out that the impact of American plans to reduce greenhouse gases will be undetectable.
00:10:16.240 It'll be undetectable on global climate.
00:10:19.500 And, you know, it's interesting because these fellows in the report or I should say the and, you know, I'll send you a copy of it so you can actually put a link on.
00:10:28.640 It's actually put out the Canadians for sensible climate policy have what they call the backup book, which is, in fact, including this letter.
00:10:36.120 But what they said is that if we go to net zero in the developed world, it will bring about mass starvation.
00:10:43.580 OK, they're they're very candid and they talk about why.
00:10:46.120 And it's a very detailed report. But the bottom line is that Canadians should pay attention to this for several reasons.
00:10:52.140 First of all, because over the next few months and certainly when this goes to court, because it's going to go to court, no question about it.
00:10:59.320 We're going to hear a lot more from people like Richard Linson and Will Happer and Steve Kuhn and Ross McKittrick, all these people who are what I call climate realists.
00:11:07.980 And so what's going to happen is the the base of the Conservative Party, when all this climate realism is coming into the media to defend the recession of the endangerment finding, many people in the Conservative Party are going to say, well, what the heck?
00:11:23.140 Why are we supporting the climate scare?
00:11:25.240 Because more and more, we're going to hear that the climate scare is a mistake.
00:11:29.400 It's scientifically invalid.
00:11:31.380 It just doesn't work.
00:11:32.520 OK, there is no threat from increasing carbon dioxide.
00:11:36.320 There's only benefits.
00:11:37.660 And in fact, it's interesting because in the DOE report and in this letter, they talk about the massive increase in crop productivity because of CO2, which, of course, is plant food.
00:11:49.220 So that's number one.
00:11:50.640 Because of the massive influx of climate realist science that we're going to hear over the next few years, many people are going to say to Pierre Polyev,
00:11:59.440 well, then why the heck are you supporting the climate scare?
00:12:02.860 It's clearly a fake scare.
00:12:05.560 You know, it's just like out of Patrick's book, Patrick Moore's book, Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Prophets of Doom.
00:12:11.960 That's his book.
00:12:12.940 And he talks about how, in many cases, the catastrophes we're told about are invisible.
00:12:19.320 We can't see them.
00:12:20.260 We can't go to the north and count the polar bears.
00:12:22.780 You know, we can't actually see carbon dioxide.
00:12:25.000 We can't tell if there's an increase in extreme weather, which, by the way, there is not.
00:12:29.440 And that was one of the conclusions from the DOE report, is that we don't see an increase in tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, droughts.
00:12:36.380 None of those things are increasing in the U.S.
00:12:38.760 So we're going to see a battle royale basically erupting in the U.S. over this issue.
00:12:44.680 And the sequence of events is this.
00:12:47.340 First of all, it's open for public comment, okay?
00:12:50.220 And, in fact, it is right now.
00:12:51.840 And then the EPA, by the end of the year, will undoubtedly bring in the final regulation.
00:12:57.960 And then the lawsuits begin, okay?
00:13:00.400 The environmental groups are going to sue the pants off of them.
00:13:04.340 And it'll go initially to the D.C. Court of Appeals.
00:13:07.560 They go to a small group of three judges.
00:13:10.040 And if they decide to hear it, it goes to the full panel.
00:13:13.320 And no matter who wins at that point, it's almost certain to go to the Supreme Court if the Supreme Court will take it up.
00:13:21.300 And I think they will.
00:13:22.420 Because think about it.
00:13:23.460 If the Trump administration loses at the D.C. Court appeal level, you know, they're going to obviously appeal it to the Supreme Court because they want to get rid of this endangerment finding.
00:13:33.600 And to understand how significant it is, the endangerment finding is responsible for a trillion dollars of regulation.
00:13:42.240 Yes, yes.
00:13:42.820 31 different pieces of legislation driving up the cost of everything.
00:13:48.140 Yeah, yeah.
00:13:49.520 And $54 billion a year is what they say they'll save.
00:13:54.020 So Canada should pay very much attention to this.
00:13:56.920 It also demonstrates you don't always have to yield to the woke left.
00:14:01.900 You can fight back.
00:14:03.100 So hooray for Trump doing this.
00:14:05.600 You know, as you were talking, I was thinking about the things that this would affect for Americans.
00:14:10.020 And let's be clear.
00:14:11.880 This endangerment regulation was their end run around doing an unpopular carbon tax.
00:14:19.620 People don't like taxes in the United States, even more so than we don't like them in Canada.
00:14:23.660 And so this was their way of imposing expensive regulations that would act as a tax or levy by putting these pieces of regulation into automobile manufacturing.
00:14:37.660 So this is your emission standards that make your vehicle so super expensive and actually, at the end of the day, run less efficiently.
00:14:45.160 Yeah, and actually, you know, one of the benefits of getting rid of the endangerment finding is currently with these greenhouse gas regulations.
00:14:53.220 It massively increases the price of a car.
00:14:55.940 Right.
00:14:56.260 And this is where I think, sorry to interrupt you, I think this is where it's really going to affect Canadians.
00:15:00.140 Because if we have these emission standards still in Canada and they're making vehicles in the United States without them, they're not going to want our cars.
00:15:08.300 And we're already in the midst of a trade problem.
00:15:11.140 Yeah.
00:15:11.500 And Carney is going to thoroughly aggravate the situation with his carbon border adjustment mechanism.
00:15:18.200 And I should just explain what that is.
00:15:20.140 Carney, he campaigned on this.
00:15:22.060 Okay.
00:15:22.240 Canadians should have known better than to vote for him when this was part of his platform.
00:15:26.100 Under the carbon border, that mechanism I just spoke about, adjustment mechanism, any company in the United States that is not held to the same carbon dioxide reduction standards that we are in Canada, if they import into Canada, they have to pay a tariff based on the difference between what they had to produce it and what it would have cost to produce the same vehicle in Canada.
00:15:51.100 And this would apply to all sorts of things, not just cars.
00:15:53.560 So I'm sure Trump is going to be super annoyed when we put on this carbon border adjustment mechanism, because if they get rid of the EPA finding, it's going to be much cheaper to make all sorts of goods in the United States, to which Carney responds, then we'll tax the heck out of you to punish you for not doing this stupid carbon stuff.
00:16:14.540 Yeah, I mean, and even when you look at our integrated electricity grid, particularly here in Alberta, because our friends in Saskatchewan, but also our friends in Montana and Wyoming frequently bail us out when we have threatened brownouts.
00:16:27.980 So we're going to be buying electricity that is, will be created without these onerous standards that are driving up the cost of everything and what?
00:16:38.620 So Carney's going to expect us to already buy this electricity at a premium and then put a lever on it?
00:16:46.160 Yeah, yeah, exactly.
00:16:47.580 The carbon border adjustment mechanism is also going to thoroughly annoy Trump.
00:16:51.180 If he isn't already annoyed enough, we're going to really, really annoy him.
00:16:56.360 Yeah, I mean, vehicles are USMCA.
00:16:59.460 And so this is already covered under a trade agreement.
00:17:02.820 And we can't be slapping extra tariffs on.
00:17:05.360 I mean, it's just going to be really bad.
00:17:07.680 Yeah, yeah.
00:17:08.340 So, you know, the Conservative Party had better watch it because over the next few years, and it's going to take years to get through the courts.
00:17:14.880 And of course, the concern is that it may go to the Supreme Court after Trump has left his office, which I hope doesn't happen, because if it's a Democrat government, you know, that has some sway for sure on the Supreme Court.
00:17:27.000 So the hope is that all of this will be settled before the end of Trump's second term.
00:17:32.380 And so it's brilliant that they're doing it right at the beginning of this term, OK, because this is a long, long process.
00:17:38.460 And the environmental groups, they're going to go ballistic.
00:17:40.960 They already are about this.
00:17:43.540 And, you know, so I think in the long run, if it can be done while Trump is still president, that we will see the Supreme Court agree that, no, carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.
00:17:54.540 What are you talking about?
00:17:55.740 And they're going to help the EPA actually withdraw from this whole endangerment finding.
00:18:00.760 That's what I hope happens.
00:18:02.380 Premier, let's see God's ears.
00:18:04.000 Now, you just talked about the Supreme Court hopefully siding with Trump, but we have the International Court of Justice siding against humanity, really, when they say that countries, well, they don't mean countries here.
00:18:17.220 They mean the Western world, developed countries, have a legal duty to protect the climate and prevent harm from climate change.
00:18:25.720 I thought they had a legal duty to protect people.
00:18:28.600 Yeah, exactly.
00:18:29.620 Well, they're interpreting it as protecting people.
00:18:32.380 But, you know, they ignored completely this letter, you know, that I held up earlier, which was sent in 2023.
00:18:39.200 I mean, November 2023, they should have read it, but they didn't.
00:18:43.280 But, yeah, it was a unanimous passage of this advisory, they call it.
00:18:47.840 It's not binding, but it'll be used, you can be sure, by Canada and woke nations to actually back up laws that will force us to do the things they want us to do.
00:18:57.940 So, yeah, it's the International Court of Justice.
00:19:00.320 And this started with a group of college students in Fiji, if you can imagine that.
00:19:05.080 And, yeah, they managed to get support from a whole lot of island nations.
00:19:10.080 And then they got support from 150 plus countries in the General Assembly of the United Nations.
00:19:15.920 And so it was passed a couple of years ago.
00:19:18.640 They passed a resolution to ask the International Court of Justice to have a look at does the climate scare, does the climate crisis, as they call it, make a responsibility for developed countries to pay developing countries for the supposed damage that we're causing?
00:19:36.060 And to give some sort of a perspective of what it would cost if we did what the International Court of Justice says, it turns out that the price tag for Canada would be $750 billion a year to pay for our sins.
00:19:52.940 And the United States, yeah, and for the United States, it was supposed to be $5.6 trillion per year paid to developing countries to supposedly pay for our sins.
00:20:03.980 You know, and this actually goes back to the Warsaw Convention on loss and damage.
00:20:08.220 It was trying to do the same thing.
00:20:10.320 But the IGJC, International Court of Justice, they're now saying that this should be used as a foundation for international discussions, negotiations, and laws, actual laws, to force us to pay for our sins.
00:20:24.920 Now, you know, the crazy thing is, we were just interviewing Ken Green from the Fraser Institute just an hour ago, and he pointed out something I think that was really important for people to realize.
00:20:34.900 It's true that right now, the developed world, you know, Canada, the United States, England, etc., is responsible for most of the CO2 from humans in the atmosphere.
00:20:44.200 But the point Ken made is that China is expanding so quickly, I mean, since the year 2000, I was looking at a graph the other day, since the year 2000, they have multiplied their coal usage by five, okay, a 400% increase, if you can believe that.
00:21:01.260 And so, I mean, by the year 2100, Ken pointed out, with China expanding so quickly, India as well, most of the greenhouse gases that are supposedly going to be causing us all this trouble, which it won't be, but most of it will be from the developing world. 0.86
00:21:19.100 So, exempting them from reducing their emissions, which, you know, the Framework Convention on Climate Change does that.
00:21:25.900 I mean, a lot of people say, oh, well, China has to cap its emissions at 2030, according to the Paris Agreement.
00:21:32.180 And, you know, it's funny, because they know they have a sweetheart deal, because the underlying document under the Paris Agreement is the Framework Convention on Climate Change that was signed by Brian Mulroney back in 1992 in Rio.
00:21:45.660 It was at the Earth Summit. And it says in Article 4, and this is the rules, and China knows this, it says the first and overriding priority of developing nations, which they still count China as developing nations, the first and overriding priority is poverty alleviation and development.
00:22:02.820 So, what's going to happen come 2030 is China's emissions are going to soar through the limit, and people are going to say, oh, you're supposed to cap your emissions, and they say, nope, we've got an out clause.
00:22:13.940 And, you know, you'd laugh, Sheila, they cornered the Chinese negotiator in Peru back in 2014, when they were negotiating the Paris Agreement, and they asked him, you know, we'd like to revisit this Framework Convention, it doesn't quite seem fair anymore.
00:22:28.260 And the Chinese negotiator said, no, the purpose of the Paris Agreement is to enforce the Climate Framework Convention, it's not to change it.
00:22:37.840 So, China, who are supplying us with most of the green energy stuff, which isn't really green, they're just laughing all the way to the bank.
00:22:46.440 They'll be able to build coal stations across the world, throughout their country, as much as they want, sell us the green technology, which isn't really green, and they will make an absolute fortune.
00:22:56.900 So, I mean, obviously, you know, the Chinese representatives, they love this climate change. 0.99
00:23:01.640 Yes, they do.
00:23:02.720 Yeah, I know.
00:23:03.600 I'd be surprised if we wouldn't be obligated to pay them something under this.
00:23:07.340 Yeah, and it's sad that Pierre Polyev doesn't really attack this and say, look, you know, the major supplier of EVs is China, the major supplier of wind turbines and solar panels, etc., etc.
00:23:18.720 You know, this is a make-work project, a make-profit project for China, basically. 0.61
00:23:24.080 In fact, I'm just about to publish an article on this about how the West is being taken for a ride, you know.
00:23:29.920 We were just in Sicily, and we learned all about the mafia, okay?
00:23:34.240 And it's really pretty interesting because across Sicily, this is a bit of a side note, they put up this little sticker a few years ago.
00:23:42.980 And what it says in Italian is, a people who pays protection to the mafia are a people without dignity.
00:23:51.400 Well, guess what?
00:23:52.680 We're paying, basically, the Chinese now. 0.92
00:23:55.560 They're becoming our mafia in a way, you could say.
00:23:58.960 And we've got to have leaders that will stand up and say, look, you know, of course the Chinese support the climate scare. 0.97
00:24:05.540 They're making an absolute fortune.
00:24:06.840 They're making a fortune, and they're not going to ever, ever have to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
00:24:12.980 So, you know, people have got to point this out, and I'm very sad that Pierre Polyev is still supporting the scare.
00:24:19.040 I think what's going to happen is over the next few years, there's going to be a revolution from within his party saying,
00:24:24.880 Pierre, look at all this stuff that's coming out in the U.S. right now because of all these court cases.
00:24:30.700 You are supporting a bogus scare because, of course, Pierre Polyev wants to have electric vehicles.
00:24:35.900 He wants to have carbon dioxide stored underground, which is massively expensive.
00:24:41.340 That Pathways Alliance project that we talk about in today's Financial Post, $16.5 billion, totally useless to stuff CO2 underground.
00:24:52.440 That's going to add to your price, the cost of everything that uses energy.
00:24:56.640 And, of course, Pierre Polyev also wants the developing world to get off of coal, you know.
00:25:02.220 Well, no, coal is great.
00:25:03.900 I mean, it's a great energy source if you have proper pollution control.
00:25:07.480 It's storable.
00:25:08.200 You can just store it in a big pile.
00:25:10.900 Yeah, and, you know, when Pierre Polyev was running to be leader of the Conservative Party, I spoke to his campaign manager.
00:25:17.220 And the implication, he wouldn't have stated outright, obviously, for clear reasons, but the implication was that Pierre had to support the climate scare to become prime minister.
00:25:27.600 Well, guess what?
00:25:28.580 He's doubly wrong.
00:25:29.640 He's doubly wrong because, of course, he didn't win, even though he was supporting the scare.
00:25:34.800 And he doesn't know history, or at least he's pretending we don't know it.
00:25:39.040 Stephen Harper was a very strong skeptic about the climate scare.
00:25:43.540 He called the Kyoto Protocol a money-making socialist scheme, okay?
00:25:48.140 And he won the election, okay?
00:25:50.640 Trump has won two elections in a row saying the same thing, that this is a complete hoax.
00:25:57.120 So for the internal people who design communications for the Conservative Party, they're completely off base.
00:26:04.240 Not only are they wrong, because there is no climate scare, there is no climate crisis, I should say, and all of these policies are just going to make our products uncompetitive.
00:26:12.720 But it's not true that you have to support the climate scare to become elected.
00:26:18.000 We see that over and over across the world in other places as well.
00:26:21.400 So it's going to become apparent to grassroots people in the Conservative Party that their policy is totally wrong, and they better darn well change it, or they're going to stay in opposition forever.
00:26:33.080 You know what?
00:26:34.100 That might be your problem, going forward, and maybe not the problem of the good people of Alberta.
00:26:39.200 Yeah, yeah, that's true.
00:26:40.480 Maybe we'll lose you, and then, of course, we'll lose our piggy bank.
00:26:45.380 Yeah, and with us goes Saskatchewan, and I bet you these parts of BC would have a serious discussion.
00:26:51.880 But that is, I think, a cultural difference in this entire country.
00:26:57.700 It's grassroots conservatives in Alberta and Saskatchewan who work in industry, but who also work in agriculture, so who rely on the wind and the rain and the weather for their livelihood.
00:27:09.540 Yeah.
00:27:09.920 We don't believe in this stuff.
00:27:12.260 And so we're pretty hard to convince that being a tithe to the weather god will suddenly make him not smite us anymore.
00:27:19.460 Yeah, and I'm so happy about Albertans.
00:27:21.420 I lived in Coal Lake when I was in the Air Force, you know, and I always felt I was more Albertan than I was Ontarian.
00:27:26.200 But, yeah, I'm very happy that Albertans are prepared to stand up and make a noise about the things that are unfair in Canada.
00:27:34.180 And there's massive, massive problems.
00:27:36.620 But I'm hoping that more and more Albertans will speak out as the Americans are going to do in support of the endangerment finding retraction.
00:27:44.020 I think it's going to give, you know, there's, I should just advertise our book.
00:27:48.680 You know, this is a book from Canadians for Sensible Climate Policy, Energy and Climate at a Glance.
00:27:55.320 OK.
00:27:55.760 And it's written by Ron Davidson from the Friends of Science, who you know very well, and Sterling Burnett.
00:28:01.820 And I'm a contributing author, along with Bob Lyman and a few others.
00:28:05.040 But, yeah, so people have got to read this because it gives you factoids, you know, literally quick facts to fight against the climate scare.
00:28:13.140 And keep your eyes open because American media are going to be forced to reveal a lot of the other side of the argument because it's going to be a Donnybrook.
00:28:22.380 For the next four years, we're going to see a big amount of fighting in the U.S.
00:28:26.380 And happily, you know, we're going to hear from our side for a change.
00:28:30.440 Yeah.
00:28:31.080 Yeah.
00:28:31.340 And they're going to be treated fairly and not like crazy people for once.
00:28:35.040 Yeah, I look forward to it.
00:28:38.020 I look forward to those hearings with great anticipation.
00:28:42.060 Tom, I could keep you all day, but I know you've just already completed an interview and I've got to go into more interviews, too.
00:28:50.440 Tell our viewers how they can find out more about the work that you do.
00:28:55.480 Yeah, sure.
00:28:55.860 Just go to the website, icsc-canada.com.
00:29:00.900 Or you can check out americaoutloud.news where we have a podcast called The Other Side of the Story.
00:29:07.380 And Ken Green, who's a senior fellow with the Fraser Institute.
00:29:11.220 Fascinating interview.
00:29:12.260 We just did.
00:29:12.660 That'll be up on the weekend, actually.
00:29:14.620 So, yeah.
00:29:14.960 Check out icsc-canada.com.
00:29:17.440 My email address and phone number are there and people can contact me anytime.
00:29:21.660 And how do they support your work?
00:29:23.500 Because you are, you know, a tight little ship and you're sailing against the currents of a lot of green money.
00:29:32.160 Yeah, for sure.
00:29:32.900 And we don't have any government funding, unfortunately, but maybe fortunately, because then we can say what's real.
00:29:40.700 But, yeah, we welcome donations from anybody.
00:29:43.380 It's a nonprofit corporation, ICSC Canada.
00:29:46.300 And there's a big red donate button up on the right-hand side of icsc-canada.com.
00:29:52.780 And anything from $10 to $10,000, we're very happy and we'll acknowledge your donation and keep you up to date as to what we're doing.
00:30:00.260 You won't waste it on high-paid McKinsey-style consultants either, I'm sure.
00:30:06.900 That's for sure.
00:30:08.280 Tom, thanks so much for coming on the show and being so generous with your time and your knowledge on these topics.
00:30:13.140 Okay.
00:30:13.660 Thank you, Sheila.
00:30:21.660 As always, I turn over the last segment of the show to you because without you, there's no rebel news.
00:30:27.260 You know, we'll never take a penny from, I guess it's Mark Carney now or any level of government to do the work that we do to hold the government to account on behalf of the people.
00:30:38.120 That's who they work for.
00:30:38.860 They work for you.
00:30:40.160 It's my job to make sure they're doing that, or at least when they're not, that someone is pointing it out to afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted.
00:30:51.320 That's our job.
00:30:52.000 And so I want to hear from you.
00:30:54.620 One of the ways you can get a hold of me is by sending me an email.
00:30:58.460 Sheila at rebelnews.com.
00:31:00.100 Put gun show letters in the subject line so I know why you're emailing me.
00:31:03.820 But also, if you are watching, I know you guys are all who are watching this right now, premium subscribers to the show.
00:31:11.380 But if you are sharing the clips of the show to your friends, you know, the clips that we post on YouTube or on Rumble for free, please encourage your friends, potential new subscribers to leave comments there.
00:31:25.260 I go looking for their comments all the time and leaving comments also does another thing.
00:31:29.500 It helps push our content in front of more eyeballs.
00:31:32.300 The platforms see that our content is being engaged with, and so they serve it up in front of more people, and it's the best free way to help us.
00:31:44.700 And on my interview with Chris Sims about the hundreds of managers that they have over at the CBC, like managers, producers, senior producers, like, I don't even know what all these people do.
00:31:59.600 And I work in the industry, you know, just consultants and like managers, executive managers.
00:32:09.000 How are those people different?
00:32:10.000 And there's managers upon managers upon managers, managers for managers.
00:32:15.060 No wonder it costs a billion and a half dollars a year over there to produce content that you don't watch.
00:32:21.260 But I last week shows with my friend Chris Sims of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.
00:32:25.420 They dug all this stuff up.
00:32:27.540 You can watch clips of the show back on YouTube, and you can see exactly what we're talking about there.
00:32:33.540 And Chris is from media also.
00:32:35.460 She used to work at Sun News and CTV.
00:32:40.340 And so she was sort of like, what are they even talking about?
00:32:46.560 Well, I don't know when she doesn't know what I've been doing this job for 10 years.
00:32:52.500 Why do they need all those people working at the CBC, except for the fact that they don't have to worry about efficiency or meeting a budget?
00:32:59.780 Because they just come to us and say, please, sir, can we have some more?
00:33:04.100 More meaning our money.
00:33:05.760 And Carney will say, heck yes.
00:33:07.680 As long as you keep polishing those turds, I keep laying.
00:33:11.960 You got all the money you need.
00:33:14.480 So let's get into some of your comments.
00:33:17.460 And these are from YouTube.
00:33:18.640 Max Games 9043 says, who even watches CBC?
00:33:23.440 More employees than viewers.
00:33:26.060 I wonder.
00:33:27.260 You know, their viewership is a statistical rounding error of Canadians.
00:33:31.220 And that's odd considering it is in every single home, whether you have cable, satellite or like rabbit ears.
00:33:39.580 You're getting the CBC.
00:33:40.760 So for them to have that low of an audience, that's quite something.
00:33:48.740 That's quite something.
00:33:51.560 700 producers producing crap.
00:33:53.780 Well, that could be true.
00:33:57.560 But I think we could probably fire one out of every two and you wouldn't notice a change in the CBC quality.
00:34:06.560 I mean, you might not notice because like nobody watches.
00:34:09.220 But I would, I'd be willing to bet the quality didn't fall at all.
00:34:14.620 Right.
00:34:18.180 Strife 0212 says, that's disgusting elitism.
00:34:25.200 Yeah, I mean, it is.
00:34:27.040 They're entitled to their entitlements, aren't they?
00:34:32.700 SSPJ7BC says, sunshine is the best disinfectant.
00:34:36.340 Keep shining and exposing the corruption, rebel news.
00:34:38.420 Now, I'm just reporting on the good work that Chris Sims at the Canadian Taxpayers Federation did.
00:34:43.280 But I think it's so important that people who are doing the work to hold the government to account on behalf of the people, especially when they work for the people and it's the people's money they're wasting.
00:34:54.960 Like government doesn't have any money.
00:34:56.940 They have your money.
00:34:57.900 And they should be held accountable for that.
00:35:01.140 Michael E3R5F says, always great work.
00:35:06.840 Rebel News is the best and love the t-shirt.
00:35:08.540 I think you were referring to my t-shirt in that.
00:35:11.000 And it's a sweatshirt.
00:35:12.560 And it's from our Rebel News store.
00:35:14.300 You can go to rebelnewsstore.com.
00:35:16.460 And the shirt is, girls just want to have guns. 1.00
00:35:22.060 That's a great shirt.
00:35:23.280 I actually maybe have worn it out a little bit.
00:35:25.400 And that's not a criticism of the quality.
00:35:27.960 I just wear it all the time.
00:35:29.960 Like the cuff is starting to go a little bit.
00:35:32.380 But I've washed the daylights out of it and the logo is still great and it's not fading or anything.
00:35:39.480 So I'm actually wearing out the material itself of the shirt while the shirt, the construction remains the same.
00:35:50.740 Remy Valois 9584 says, CBC thinks they're Canada's Hollywood.
00:35:59.120 People watch things produced by Hollywood, as woke as it is.
00:36:03.540 I don't think people really watch things produced by the CBC.
00:36:08.500 Not since Anne of Green Gables.
00:36:11.240 Georgina Attridge2957 says, this is incredible, shocking.
00:36:15.300 It needs to stop.
00:36:22.000 McMichaelH8D says, and yet CBC is pretty much silent when it comes to fentanyl and Canada's part in this poisoning.
00:36:27.200 Well, why would they be critical of the government that is funding all these managers' jobs?
00:36:33.080 Right?
00:36:36.900 And Peter Batista1095 says, and the most disgusting thing about this, if you ask them, is that they will try to justify those exorbitant wages.
00:36:46.940 Such elitist arrogance.
00:36:48.080 They should be forced to work in the public sector for a year or two.
00:36:53.580 I think you mean the private sector.
00:36:55.080 So they can see public sector being government.
00:36:57.660 I think you mean with the public in the private sector.
00:37:02.240 Yeah.
00:37:03.400 Because they would have to meet performance targets.
00:37:05.700 And they wouldn't get to watch a yoga video at their desk every day.
00:37:09.700 And then talk to a consultant about whatever diversity nonsense they need to talk about.
00:37:17.160 And then go talk to their feelings with their union rep and things like that.
00:37:20.340 So, yeah, they'd be in for a real rude awakening.
00:37:24.400 Well, everybody, that's the show for tonight.
00:37:25.980 Thank you so much for tuning in.
00:37:27.900 I'll see everybody back here in the same time, in the same place next week.
00:37:30.620 And as always, don't let the government tell you that you've had too much to think.