Rebel News Podcast - THIS flawed doomsday model is the basis for modern climate policy

00:00:00.000 Hello Rebels, you're listening to a free audio-only recording of my weekly Wednesday night show,

00:00:04.340 The Gun Show. Tonight my guest is Michelle Sterling from Friends of Science and we're

00:00:08.900 talking about how one flawed doomsday scenario seems to be the thing all other climate policies

00:00:15.900 are based on. Now if you like listening to the show then I promise you're going to love watching

00:00:19.740 it but in order to watch you need to be a subscriber to Rebel News Plus. That's what

00:00:23.660 we call our long-form TV-style shows here on Rebel News. Subscribers get access to my show as well as

00:00:29.380 Ezra's nightly Ezra Levant show and David Menzies fun Friday night show Rebel Roundup. It's only

00:00:34.820 eight bucks a month to subscribe and just for our podcast listeners you can save an extra 10%

00:00:38.980 on a new Rebel News Plus subscription when you use the coupon code podcast. When you subscribe just

00:00:44.580 go to rebelnews.com slash subscribe to become a member and now please enjoy this free audio-only

00:00:50.440 version of my show.

00:00:59.380 One flawed doomsday model has become the basis for most modern climate policy. I'm Sheila Gunn-Reed

00:01:13.160 and you're watching The Gunn Show.

00:01:32.080 Did you know that most of the climate change fear-mongering and many government policies

00:01:36.620 today are based on representative concentration pathway 8.5 or RCP 8.5 as it is commonly known.

00:01:44.120 It's very confusing stuff but here's Robinson Meyer describing what an RCP is in the Atlantic.

00:01:50.880 When climate scientists want to tell a story, interesting choice of words story, about the

00:01:55.340 future of the planet they use a set of four standard scenarios called representative concentration

00:02:00.940 pathways or RCPs. RCPs are ubiquitous in climate science, appearing in virtually any study that uses

00:02:08.340 climate models to investigate the 21st century. They've popped up in research about subjects as

00:02:14.580 disparate as southwestern mega droughts, future immigration flows to Europe, and poor nighttime sleep

00:02:23.160 quality. Each RCP is assigned a number that describes how the climate will fare in the year 21st.

00:02:30.940 Generally, a higher RCP number describes a scarier fate. It means that humanity emitted more carbon

00:02:38.700 dioxide into the atmosphere during the 21st century, further warming the planet and acidifying the ocean.

00:02:47.140 The best case...

00:02:49.140 ...from her home in Calgary is Michelle Sterling from Friends of Science. It's always a joy to have

00:03:04.220 Michelle on the show because she... I try to pay attention to all these things in the world of climate

00:03:10.560 change and climate change rebuttal, but even when I think I know it all, Michelle's like, Sheila,

00:03:15.640 there's something else we should talk about. It just came out today, which I think is great. Michelle,

00:03:20.860 thanks for coming on the show. You wanted to talk about Ross McKittrick's new article because he

00:03:26.460 focuses on something that you frequently talk about, and that's how all of climate policy really is built

00:03:34.480 on this false premise. Well, I would say all climate policy is built on it, but certainly

00:03:40.820 the more catastrophic view, the climate emergency view, we're all going to die, we're all going to be

00:03:46.660 crispy critters. This is based on what's called the representative concentration pathway 8.5, which is one of

00:03:56.240 several scenarios that the IPCC has used as modeling scenarios. And this was developed by Van Wuren et al. in about 2011.

00:04:06.960 And the whole purpose of it was to evaluate what factors change climate over time. But it wasn't meant to be a

00:04:18.780 particular pathway or choice. And you'll find groups like the Canadian Institute for Climate Choices, which is a

00:04:25.580 recycled version of the pan-Canadian collaboration of experts on carbon and also eco-fiscal. You'll find that they use it,

00:04:34.540 the Environment Canada's report uses it, and they compare this dramatic, catastrophic scenario that

00:04:42.460 would see us using like five or seven times more coal than the world presently uses, with no climate

00:04:49.680 mitigation, no climate policies. This is completely unrealistic. But as Ross McKittrick points out in his

00:04:58.840 article in the Financial Post today, that this is the commonly used reference, point of reference, this is

00:05:08.200 where the climate emergency comes from. And Roger PLK Jr. has pointed out that actually, Michael Bloomberg

00:05:15.400 and Thomas Thayer, two green billionaires, actively promoted this report called Risky Business, which is also

00:05:24.360 founded on that same catastrophic scenario. So that's where the emergency comes from. And you'll even find

00:05:30.920 in Bjorn Longberg's new book, which I have, yay, a pre-press copy. You'll even find in there that Bjorn Longberg

00:05:39.720 says the same thing, that it's a false alarm. He explains the same scenario and how it is being misused.

00:05:46.680 So, you know, people should calm down a little bit, be more rational about climate policy.

00:05:54.200 Speaking of calming down a little bit, you folks at Friends of Science have done a really incredible

00:06:00.280 rebuttal to, I think, one of Catherine McKenna's favorite experts on climate change, and that's Dr. Catherine

00:06:08.360 Hayhoe. She did a report called Alberta's Climate Future. And you guys rebutted that with a report called

00:06:15.400 Facts vs. Fortune Telling. Why don't you tell us about that?

00:06:19.640 Okay. Yes, Alberta's Climate Future was a report that was commissioned by the previous NDP government.

00:06:26.120 And Dr. Catherine Hayhoe is a very well-recognized climate scientist. She has been criticized,

00:06:33.800 again, by Roger PLK Jr. for the fact that she does have a commercial enterprise associated with her

00:06:39.880 climate work. And yet she's also been part of things like the fourth national climate assessment

00:06:46.840 in the States, which also gave a very catastrophic view. And he felt that there was some conflict of

00:06:54.120 interest in that, that she did not identify that in that report, that she has a commercial operation.

00:07:02.600 So in our report, we looked at what she had done, and she chose a certain time period from about 1950 to

00:07:10.600 1980 as a baseline, and then up to 2013 to evaluate climate changes. So we took a longer view. So we took

00:07:23.560 the longest records in Alberta from like the 1800s up to the present day. And we can show you that the

00:07:32.360 evidence shows that her claims of a catastrophic future are not true based on the historic evidence.

00:07:41.720 Now, she likes to say that, of course, climate changed in the past, but now we're the factor

00:07:46.120 changing the climate. But you don't see that in any of the evidence presented. In fact,

00:07:51.080 in fact, as many people in Calgary will know, eight of the worst floods in Calgary's history happened

00:07:57.960 before 1933. And two of those floods, the volume was much greater than the catastrophic flood of 2013.

00:08:06.760 So, you know, why was that not climate change back then? Well, you know, there was no human influence

00:08:13.240 deemed to be affecting climate prior to 1950. So where did all those big floods come from?

00:08:20.840 Why that big precipitation back then? And why is this singular flood of 2013, now human caused climate

00:08:28.920 change? We also identified the fact that she chose 21 locations in Alberta to analyze. And those 21

00:08:39.640 locations just happened to fall in the most industrialized heartland of Alberta, the biggest

00:08:47.400 agricultural area of Alberta, the place where most of the population since 1950 has grown in Alberta.

00:08:54.120 And so, you know, there's what's called an urban heat island effect, which means there's a lot of

00:09:00.120 retained heat from human activities, industrial activities, from buildings in major cities. And

00:09:07.400 all these factors, land use, water diversion, deforestation, and industrial or residential buildup,

00:09:18.360 these all do cause some warming. But we don't find any sign of CO2 warming in the evidence presented.

00:09:28.680 So, you know, we dispute her findings, basically.

00:09:32.760 You know, it's fascinating. I think you had a speaker, actually, at one of your fantastic Friends of

00:09:38.200 Science banquets that pointed out that many of the temperature measuring stations

00:09:45.640 around the world are put in places where they happen to be on pavement. So if the sun is shining,

00:09:54.440 naturally, it's much warmer. They aren't in places where they're sort of sheltered from those external

00:10:03.320 factors that cause, you know, the temperature to increase. And it appears as though Catherine Hayhoe

00:10:09.160 is doing much the same in her examinations.

00:10:12.920 Well, you know, I'd have to go and look at all the particular sites that she chose, and I haven't

00:10:18.360 done that. But, you know, the fact is that many of these stations are placed on the outskirts of town,

00:10:24.600 and then town grows into a city. And so then they end up inside the city. And I think it's on What's

00:10:30.440 Up With That. I think that Anthony Watts has done a lot of work on this area and submitted a couple of

00:10:36.920 papers on it, where they actually did go and take pictures of all these places, showing that, you

00:10:43.080 know, what used to be in the middle of a field is now a temperature monitoring device that's in the

00:10:47.720 middle of, you know, eight lanes of traffic, you know, all paced around and within the midst of a city.

00:10:55.640 So obviously, you're going to get very distinct and different readings, like Roger Pielke Sr. has a paper

00:11:03.240 on land use and its effect on climate. And it shows that in the city of London, for instance,

00:11:10.440 there can be an 11 degree difference between the interior of the city and the exterior of the city

00:11:16.680 out in the rural area. So I can send you a link to that. You know, as it's, it's quite a significant

00:11:24.680 difference. Well, most rural Albertans know when you see the weather being reported in Edmonton or

00:11:30.840 Sherwood Park or one of the bedroom communities in the winter, knock five degrees off that

00:11:37.160 and plug your car in because it's always colder out in the country. And of course, of course,

00:11:43.560 people and cars and buildings and, and heating those things that generates heat, of course.

00:11:48.680 But does that cause major atmospheric shifts? I'm not sure. However, if Catherine Hayhoe's promises

00:11:56.680 hold true, she's promising us a one degree Celsius rise in winter temperatures. Don't threaten me with

00:12:04.200 a good time, ladies. That sounds great. Yeah. Yeah. Well, the problem with some of,

00:12:11.000 you know, she's downscaled. It's called downscaling the global climate model. So she's taken a global

00:12:17.080 climate model and tried to, you know, zero it down into Alberta. And the problem with doing that is that

00:12:25.080 each region of the world is quite unique. Like we are definitely affected by the Pacific Ocean, El Nino,

00:12:31.720 the Rocky Mountains, especially in the south by Chinook winds. So these are fairly unique features

00:12:38.200 that would not show up in a global model because they're, they're not tuned to that. So, you know,

00:12:44.120 on the one hand, she was saying, well, you know, there might be warmer temperatures,

00:12:47.320 there might be more droughts. Well, there probably will be more droughts, because we had 40 droughts in

00:12:53.480 the past 100 years on the prairie. So it's a pretty common feature. And part of Alberta and Saskatchewan

00:12:59.320 are right in the Palliser Triangle, which is a semi-arid region that was discovered in 1865 by

00:13:06.600 Captain John Palliser. So, yeah, it's a drought-prone region. And floods, yes. You know, most of

00:13:14.520 southern Winnipeg or southern Manitoba and part of Saskatchewan are in the basin of Lake Agassiz,

00:13:21.320 which is a glacial lake. So that indent is still there. The soil is quite fertile. But when there's

00:13:28.120 a lot of rain or a lot of snowpack and runoff in the spring, it's going to flood. It's a flood-prone

00:13:34.280 region. Yeah, it's funny. The people who named High River didn't have a crystal ball. They named it that

00:13:42.200 because the river did get high and did sometimes flood. It wasn't like, okay, well, we have a crystal

00:13:48.200 ball. We're looking. We're there. We're seeing 2013. Let's name this town. No, it's a name.

00:13:54.520 Like so many places, it's a feature of the region. Now, you guys have, changing lanes a little bit,

00:14:01.640 a really great series of videos on your YouTube channel. I thought the editing was very clever,

00:14:07.960 where you sort of debunk myths that Quebec seems to hold about itself as far as how green they are.

00:14:19.800 And I thought it was really clever. You sort of presented the myth and how Quebec feels about

00:14:24.360 itself and then kind of shot it right down. And it's two Michels for the price of one.

00:14:29.400 And in English and in French. Yeah. Yeah, my French is a bit rusty, but I thank people for being

00:14:38.600 very kind about my efforts. You know, it's funny, especially this will resonate with people in

00:14:45.560 Western Canada, that Quebec prides itself on being all green and hydro-based and everything. But it's

00:14:51.640 actually the second largest petroleum user in the country. And they use a lot of natural gas,

00:14:58.680 a lot of oil for their home heating and their industrial base. You know, they claim to,

00:15:05.000 they have some very, very stringent climate targets, like ridiculously stringent climate targets.

00:15:10.920 They're already one of the lowest emitting jurisdictions in the world. But it's going to be

00:15:16.520 very, very hard for them to meet these targets. You know, we often think they're very progressive,

00:15:22.280 and you know, they've got the $7 day care and all this stuff that our equalization payments are

00:15:28.200 paying for. But you know, they have a cap and trade system with California. So they don't have any

00:15:35.800 carbon tax, no carbon tax rebate. But the price of that, of the value of those carbon tax permits,

00:15:45.640 is quite low now compared to the carbon tax. And the whole point of the federal carbon tax is that

00:15:55.240 the provinces are allowed to have a different program, but it has to meet the same standard

00:15:59.960 as the federal carbon tax, and it doesn't now. So the people don't get a rebate. And there probably

00:16:08.440 will be some punishing after effects, because they're not meeting the targets. And also another

00:16:14.040 interesting thing, you know, they, they often say, oh, we can all go EV, we can build an east-west

00:16:18.680 grid, you can have power from James Bay out to Alberta, what a great thing, we'll run on wind and

00:16:23.480 hydro. Well, that grid is impossible. And not only that, there was an article by Jean Michaud and

00:16:30.360 Germaine Belzile, who wrote that, even though there's all this tremendous hydro output from James Bay

00:16:38.840 Dam, it's not enough to run an EV fleet for Quebec, they'd run out of power. So, so there goes that idea,

00:16:47.560 too. Anyway, very interesting to look at the contradictions in their policy, like, who dreamt it up? It's,

00:16:53.320 it's really crazy. Some liberal somewhere, probably. Now, you've issued, or reissued, I guess it is,

00:17:01.800 a report by Robert Lyman, why renewable energy cannot replace fossil fuels by 2050. It's the consensus

00:17:12.680 among some pretty mainstream, I guess, politicians, including Elizabeth May, who think that we can go

00:17:21.560 full 100% renewable electricity generation by 2030. For me, even just dreaming of the infrastructure

00:17:29.480 required to do that, I think it's just insurmountable. But I mean, there's the whole

00:17:36.280 reliability issues with green energy that we need to factor into all of this, there's no possible way

00:17:41.560 we can ever go fully green by any point in human history, I don't think.

00:17:47.160 Well, let's say there's some new technology down the road, like small modular reactors, or,

00:17:53.880 or something to that effect there, you know, or maybe there's some grand innovation in battery storage,

00:17:59.480 it doesn't look that likely in near term. But, you know, over time, we have developed new technologies. So,

00:18:07.080 let's say that there's hope, but it's certainly not within the near term. Yeah. So, you know, when Elizabeth

00:18:13.880 May is saying that we can go 100% renewable, she is, of course, imagining that we could run power lines

00:18:19.560 between Quebec, and Muskrat Falls, and Site C Dam, and Manitoba, and, and la-dee-da, we'd all be well,

00:18:26.840 and fine, and good. But, you know, you, once you start digging into the details, and Robert has done that,

00:18:33.080 he assessed the wind, water, solar plan, which was developed by some scientists in the, in the United

00:18:43.320 States, where they believed that by simply interconnecting all of these different renewable

00:18:49.000 modules, all would be good. But Robert did the math on it, and he found that, you know, it would take about

00:18:55.080 200 years to put out the relatively, the relative number of solar panels that are required, for

00:19:02.680 instance. You know, so that's not in the next decade. We've had other people do assessments here

00:19:10.120 in Canada, that we don't have enough power to run the present EV policy. Another fellow named Ken Zaire

00:19:19.400 did a paper, which refutes a paper that came out of BC, where these authors in BC, Keller et al, 2019,

00:19:29.240 they felt that it would be possible to go all EV using renewable energy in BC, voila, but he found

00:19:36.360 that that would mean you'd have to wipe out all of the vineyards and put solar panels there instead.

00:19:41.480 So, you know, there, once you start to get into the details, you find that these things are extremely

00:19:47.880 complex. The power grid is very, very complex. And it's not just like Lego. You can't just stick

00:19:55.560 parts together and it works overnight. It's a very complex system. And as you point out,

00:20:01.880 if you don't have hydro like Norway, then you better have coal and natural gas, because that's what you're

00:20:08.920 going to need. If you don't have nuclear like Ontario, you better have coal and natural gas. And if you want

00:20:15.560 to put wind and solar on the grid, you better have natural gas and preferably some coal for your

00:20:20.600 base load because it's the cheapest. You know, as you were talking, I wrote down land use when you're

00:20:27.480 talking about solar. And then right after that, you mentioned wiping out the vineyards to put out

00:20:33.000 solar panels. And just think about how much arable farmland that produces the nation's food and exports,

00:20:41.800 cheap, reliable, potable, dry goods, like chickpeas, to developing countries. Just think about how much

00:20:53.640 of that supply would have to be absolutely destroyed to produce green energy. To what? To virtue signal?

00:21:04.280 I mean, really, Canada's net zero already, if not, you know, a carbon sink.

00:21:12.680 Well, again, you know, a lot of people don't realize that

00:21:16.360 you have to put up so many wind and solar farms to try and create the amount of power generation,

00:21:26.120 because it's not actually generating power. It's capturing

00:21:29.080 kinetic energy and turning it into power. But unlike a coal plant or a gas plant that is burning

00:21:37.240 a fuel and generating power as it goes, on demand, you can turn it up or down, you know,

00:21:43.400 wind and solar are completely reliant on Mother Nature, and she's just not very reliable. Not to

00:21:50.520 mention, you know, people will say, oh, here, we have the nameplate capacity of X number of megawatts,

00:21:56.920 but that's not the actual generation that will happen in the course of the year. So when you look

00:22:03.560 at the Alberta electric system operator reports from 2018, you find that the most generation came

00:22:11.400 from coal, the next came from co-generation, which is actually waste heat from the oil sands and other

00:22:18.680 industrial operations that are turned into power and turned back to the grid. And wind, it was down there

00:22:25.320 around maybe seven percent. Solar didn't show up at all. And, you know, biofuels and others are very,

00:22:31.400 very tiny. And in the middle, there's natural gas from either combined cycle or the simple cycle gas

00:22:39.320 plants. So, you know, wind cannot provide the power that we need, not at this time, probably never.

00:22:49.400 Probably never. Now, I said potable, I think there, but I meant portable when I was referring to dry goods,

00:22:55.880 because potable refers to water. Portable means you can give someone a sack of chickpeas. Now,

00:23:06.280 chickpeas and beans and lentils and pulses, all those things that Canada is so vital in providing the food

00:23:14.600 supply to the developing world. And that would absolutely be destroyed if we tried to go green. 0.70

00:23:21.720 Now, you mentioned biofuels, and that is an incredible segue into the next thing I want to talk about,

00:23:27.400 because one of these movies is about, at least in part, the impact on of the push for biofuels,

00:23:36.520 how that actually harms the food supply, the domestic food supply in Europe. And that movie

00:23:47.240 is a movie by a Morian Pools. And he's got two really great documentaries out right now. I've had

00:23:56.600 Morian on the show a couple of times to talk about them. Now, you guys are going to be hosting those

00:24:01.480 documentaries on your YouTube channel. And I cannot recommend these documentaries enough. So why don't

00:24:07.160 you tell us about them? Right. Well, Morian Pools is a European filmmaker, originally from Holland.

00:24:14.680 And he worked around the world in conflict and poverty countries for about nine years,

00:24:19.480 made about 50 films. So he was really a favorite of particularly the left wing. And he came back to

00:24:27.160 Europe, and was astonished to find that in a country that once had been a bread basket, where

00:24:34.440 and self sufficient in its own food, you know, farmers had turned away from producing potatoes,

00:24:41.320 and moved to producing biofuels, and creating these monocultures, and putting up solar panels,

00:24:49.400 and putting up wind farms, and tragically, also becoming indebted to the bank over these

00:24:55.320 subsidies, supposed income earners, because the subsidy ratios, when they're cut off,

00:25:01.400 you know, then you're finished. So now you don't have a crop and of edible food, and you also can't

00:25:08.840 pay for your installations. So this, he found this very disturbing, and he wondered why it was,

00:25:15.880 because he just come from these countries where people literally are living hand to mouth,

00:25:19.960 and they can't produce enough food for themselves. And so he started looking into the climate policies,

00:25:24.840 and found that was the root of this evil. And, and started interviewing climate scientists,

00:25:31.160 skeptics, and those who go along with the anthropogenic global warming view, and also

00:25:38.360 interviewing farmers. And, you know, there's a very moving point in one of, in The Uncertainty

00:25:44.920 is Settled, where he talks about how, at the end of World War II, there was very little food in the

00:25:51.160 city. And this woman came to a farmer out in the country, with a beautiful jewel necklace, and offered

00:25:59.000 it to him for a bag of potatoes. And he gave her half a bag of potatoes. But there was almost no food.

00:26:07.320 So, you know, he sees this as a very, very concerning trend in the West, that we're not self-sufficient in

00:26:13.240 food anymore. We don't value our farmers like we should. And farmers are being run off their land,

00:26:20.520 because they're entrapped in these wind and solar deals, and biofuel deals, that are negative and

00:26:27.400 destructive to society as a whole. And it's based on, you know, this false alarm, false alarm of the climate

00:26:38.280 emergency. So that's one film. The second film is Paradogma. And Paradogma began, or originated,

00:26:47.400 in the fact that when he made The Uncertainty is Settled, he got such pushback. You know, formerly,

00:26:53.480 if he sent out a press release about one of his films made in one of these conflict countries,

00:26:59.640 oh, you know, the press was all over him, they republished his press releases everywhere.

00:27:04.280 And now, you know, he sends out a press release on his climate change issues. Boy, you know,

00:27:09.880 he's a heretic. He's a leper. You know, we don't even want to talk to you. And he usually goes with 1.00

00:27:16.360 his films to the screenings, so that he can answer questions to the audience after. You know,

00:27:22.360 he's had protests, he's had threats, people have tried to ban his films. So that's what Paradogma is

00:27:29.720 about, like, how can we have a democratic society if people are not allowed to express opposing views,

00:27:36.760 you know, in peaceful, civil manner. So I think it's quite timely in light of everything that's

00:27:42.440 going on in the world at this time. And in full disclosure, I'm in that second film, Paradogma.

00:27:49.160 Mariah interviewed me outside of a screening for the previous movie that he made,

00:27:54.360 The Uncertainty Has Settled, which, I mean, I enjoyed that movie so much because I hadn't even

00:28:00.120 thought about the effect on the food supply. And I should have. It should have been something that

00:28:05.160 mattered to me. But I was more concerned about the macro effects of climate policy on,

00:28:10.680 you know, the nation's economy when, frankly, to my embarrassment, I wasn't even thinking about

00:28:16.120 farming and the food supply. I was thinking about how a carbon tax hurts a farmer, but I wasn't

00:28:23.720 thinking about, you know, when you switch from growing grain to growing corn and that corn doesn't

00:28:31.160 end up in the food supply or it doesn't go to feed cattle somewhere, it goes to be turned into,

00:28:37.080 you know, biodiesel. Well, you know, what effect does that have on society and the food supply? I didn't

00:28:43.320 even consider that. And it was a very eye opening movie. And I'm so happy that those movies are going

00:28:49.880 to be available over on the Friends of Science YouTube channel. So please, everybody subscribe to

00:28:54.520 the Friends of Science YouTube channel so that you know, and ring that little bell so that you know

00:28:59.800 when they posted those movies so that you don't miss them. And yeah, I'm in that second movie for like

00:29:05.800 a minute and a half. They'll be offered for free. And so, you know, just screen them. So we're going

00:29:14.920 to start with The Uncertainty is Settled on the 24th. And then July 1, we'll start with Paradogma.

00:29:21.480 And he has a third one coming out back in the fall, Back to Eden, I believe it's called anyway. So

00:29:27.480 that one will be screened at that time as well. Fantastic. Now, and beautifully shot, I must say,

00:29:35.000 you know, I worked in film and television for many years. And really, The Uncertainty is Settled. It's

00:29:40.120 beautifully, beautifully shot. If you've got a big screen, watch it on that. Yeah. And you know,

00:29:44.360 it's funny, because from what I understand, Mariah works usually just him alone or him and somebody else.

00:29:50.840 And so he's doing a lot of this beautiful cinematography by himself. So I mean, it's,

00:29:57.400 it's really great. Now, another thing that I'm very embarrassed of, I did not know that you had

00:30:03.320 a children's book out. And, and as soon as we're done recording this interview, I'm going to order it

00:30:10.440 because my kids need it. I think parents who are looking for an alternative to the climate change

00:30:17.400 fear mongering that's shoved down our kids throats at school. And if, God forbid, they're watching

00:30:22.760 CBC or CBC Kids or something, you've got sort of a solution, a gentle solution to that. So please

00:30:29.720 tell us about your children's book. Well, we had done a video that was

00:30:35.080 based on a little family of hedgehogs, and how the little girl was having a nightmare every night,

00:30:41.160 fearing climate change, afraid of what Greta had said. And these words were echoing in her head.

00:30:47.320 And so, you know, she wakes up with a nightmare one night. And mom and dad and little brother,

00:30:53.400 who's also scared, all come into her room. And dad, you know, says, I'm going to show you what climate

00:31:00.600 change, where the climate change monster is, and basically, you know, flips over the bed,

00:31:05.640 and there's nothing there. So it's a cute little tale, nothing very long, nothing very complicated.

00:31:11.560 But it does show kids that, you know, this is out of proportion. And just as Bjorn Lomborg keeps saying,

00:31:23.400 you know, it's a false alarm. So we try, and then at the end, we offer just some information about,

00:31:31.880 say, the Holocene, which is the period of time that we're in past 10,000, 12,000 years,

00:31:37.560 where there has been warming and cooling, warming and cooling, warming and cooling,

00:31:41.960 on a cyclical basis. So, you know, much of what we're experiencing now is quite natural. It

00:31:48.520 doesn't mean that humans have no impact. It certainly doesn't mean we shouldn't care for

00:31:52.760 our environment. We should. We should not be dumping sewage in the ocean. We should not be dumping plastic

00:31:58.280 in the ocean. But those are practical things we can deal with. But to scare little kids about climate

00:32:03.720 is wrong. Even Judith Curry, Dr. Judith Curry says, I don't know why they even bother teaching kids

00:32:09.240 this at school. It's not within their, their realm, where they can do anything about it.

00:32:15.880 Far too complex for them to understand it. And you're scaring them, you know, and for what purpose?

00:32:22.600 So, anyway, thanks for the, for noting the book. Yes. How do people get the book?

00:32:28.440 Uh, well, it's on my Amazon Kindle page. And you can also see our video, because we have it online

00:32:35.960 with that little video story. So, uh, one video version has a scream that is a bit loud for kids

00:32:42.280 who would be under 10. Okay. Um, name of the book? You got, you didn't even give the name of the book.

00:32:47.400 Um, kid friendly climate tales. Perfect. With the cutest little hedgehogs. Um, Michelle,

00:32:55.320 how else do people support the work that you do? So we've got the YouTube page. We've got the book

00:33:01.160 that, uh, you should have told me about sooner. And how else do people support the work that you do

00:33:06.920 at Friends of Science? Uh, well, you can become a member and donate on our website. Uh, there's a little

00:33:13.400 button there. And, uh, share our stuff. You know, some people may not be financially able at the

00:33:18.600 moment to, to deal with, um, uh, membership, but, uh, please just share our material. And,

00:33:26.120 you know, we don't want you to blindly agree with it. Uh, we're quite willing to engage in debate and,

00:33:32.120 and discuss the different perspectives. Our view is that the sun is the main driver. Um,

00:33:38.760 but that doesn't mean there are no other factors. And, um, we do actually, though,

00:33:45.240 state quite clearly that a carbon tax is, is not, uh, gonna change the weather. And in fact,

00:33:51.400 people should know about this. I don't know if you know, James Hansen, the climate scientist in

00:33:56.040 the United States, who is probably the root of the climate change concerns,

00:34:02.360 he's now pressing Canadians to support a petition for a $210 carbon tax by 2030. This is a real petition

00:34:12.840 that's online. And he's working with Citizens Climate Lobby. And the director of the executive

00:34:19.080 director of Citizens Climate Lobby is on the nonprofit foundation of Greta's associated with the

00:34:25.800 we don't have time green billionaires. So, you know, this is all about carbon offsets. Anyway,

00:34:31.080 he claims that if, if, uh, people support this $210 a ton carbon tax by 2030, the reason for

00:34:39.640 supporting it is that then the beneficiaries who get the rebate would find it to be enough money.

00:34:48.040 So talk about robbing Peter to save Paul. I mean, well, yeah, I mean, it'll pretty transparent

00:34:55.800 about what this is all about, that it's a wealth transfer thing and definitely not a climate change

00:35:00.760 thing. But you know what, Iran and China and Saudi Arabia, they're going to be laughing all the way 0.99

00:35:04.200 to the bank while we destroy our own economy. Of course, there's a geopolitical warfare going on,

00:35:10.760 and this is part of it. So places that are fossil fuel rich are going to be punished by places that

00:35:17.240 are not. So you might, Albertans would recognize this as a grandiose geopolitical equalization scheme,

00:35:25.240 but we don't have to play. That's a great way to put it. Michelle, thank you so much for coming

00:35:30.040 on the show. You're always so generous with your time. And it's, I just feel like I'm getting blasted

00:35:35.480 in the face with the fire hose of information every time you're on this show. We'll have you back on

00:35:41.400 again real soon. Thank you so much, Sheila. Well, I'm very excited to hear that Friends of Science

00:35:54.840 is hosting Mariah and Poole's documentaries. The first one is The Uncertainty Has Settled,

00:36:00.520 and the second one is Paradogma. And again, I make a cameo in Paradogma, so please watch.

00:36:07.240 And I'm also thrilled about Michelle's children's book. What a wonderful antidote to the fear

00:36:12.600 mongering our children receive at school about the climate and their role in ruining the earth.

00:36:18.840 Well, everybody, that's the show for tonight. Thank you so much for tuning in. I'll see everybody back

00:36:22.600 here in the same time, in the same place next week. Stay healthy, and remember,

00:36:27.560 don't let the government tell you that you've had too much to think.

00:36:44.200 We'll see you next week.

Rebel News Podcast - June 25, 2020

THIS flawed doomsday model is the basis for modern climate policy

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript