Bill Meyer Show Podcast - Sponsored by Clouser Drilling www.ClouserDrilling.com - 06-26-25_THURSDAY_8AM

Episode Date: June 27, 2025

Theoretical Physicist Dr. Ed Berry PhD joins the show from Montana. Says his science indicates humans are NOT to blame for the rise in CO2, at odds with the CO2 Coalition. Concerned about Trump climate court case. Open phones follow.

The Bill Myer Show podcast is sponsored by Clouser Drilling. They've been leading the way in southern Oregon well drilling for over 50 years. Find out more about them at ClouserDrilling.com. It's 11 minutes after 8. It's a pleasure to bring on Dr. Ed Berry. Dr. Ed Berry is a theoretical physicist and he's been putting out a lot of interesting papers as of late. It has to do with what is going on with climate change.

And there's a schism, I would say, on those people. I don't know if you want to call it the political right or people who are just not going down the whole nonsense that we're all going to die because of increasing carbon levels on the planet. Dr. Barry, it's a pleasure having you on. Welcome. Well, thank you very much, Bill. Hey, I was wondering if you could tell me a little bit about your background. You have a theoretical physicist, but what have you

been doing all of these years as a theoretical physicist, and how did you get involved in the climate change discussions here? Well, way back when I was doing my PhD thesis, I ended up doing something on climate, and I published that in 1965. And along with that, after my thesis, I published about another five or six papers that expanded on that subject. The subject specifically was how fast can small little water drops that form on the lower intake of clouds over the oceans cause large drops, rain drops, to fall out of the cloud?

And they do it in a probabilistic manner, a little drop colliding and coalescing until all of a sudden you get big drops and it falls out. And at that time, nobody could figure out how, it's called warm cloud meaning it has a lot of ice in it, how they could precipitate within 20 minutes. And everybody's calculation says it's going to take way over an hour. I did this and it came out. Yeah, I showed exactly how they could come out in 20 minutes.

Essentially, I started out with this theoretical piece in the climate physics. That subject, by the way, is still going on. People still link to and cite the papers that I did on that subject in climate. How fast rain can form in a cloud like that does determine some of the climate because if ocean clouds rain fast and disappear. More sunlight comes through to the ocean. It reduces the cloud cover. If we have a different, let's call it a nuclei distribution for the rain drop, it

could cause the clouds to last longer and precipitate slower, reflecting more sunlight and thereby cooling the planet. Essentially, this turned out to be the whole key, part of the key as to how the Earth maintains its certain temperature, its feedback from cloud cover, because the sun is pretty constant. And it's the idea how much sunlight gets reflected. I didn't know that at the time when I was solving that problem.

But in essence, I've always stayed into things related to that and what I do. An interesting spinoff is that way back in the, what was it, 70s or so, the airlines were having crashes due to wind shear. And people could not figure it out. I'm the guy that figured it out. And I work with FAA, and I showed them why certain kinds of downdrafts are dangerous and others are not. And this is all because of my theoretical physics and fluid dynamics, as well as I'm a sailplane pilot, so I've experienced a lot of stuff. And I combined that, I know the combined theory

with hands-on knowledge, I figured out what it was, they implemented what I told them, and there had been no wind shear accidents. Is that why we had that special kind, is that why we had that special kind of radar now that the microbursts, or the real focus on microbursts because of those down drafts that have tended to take planes down in the past? Yeah, exactly. That's definitely relevant. here because there's a disagreement that you're having with scientists and people from the CO2 coalition and just you know and I've told you before I've talked with many of their people quite often Gregory Ritestone in fact even comes

down here in southern Oregon quite often and there's a difference of opinion though about CO2 you're calling it the shootout at the CO2 Corral and what I'm wondering though is where do you do you and shootout at the CO2 corral. And what I'm wondering, though, is where do you do you and the scientists from the CO2 coalition out of D.C. Where do you differ and why does it matter? It's a it's a big deal, I guess. Well, to answer the last question first, yeah, this is the fundamental issue that decides whether human carbon dioxide causes climate

change or it does not. In other words, the first step that the alarmists take in their belief, I don't think they actually enumerate this in their head, but they have to assume that human carbon dioxide causes the increase in carbon dioxide. If it doesn't, they have no case. So it's key in that sense. And there's been a general belief that, yeah, our carbon dioxide causes all this increase. But if we get down to the actual physics and math and we go through a few little things, we could show that it doesn't happen.

And I'm not the only one. I started this from the bottom to the top. OK. Yeah, could you say that again, Doctor? I just lost your cell phone a little bit in Montana. Could you start that sentence again, please? I say that again, please. Yeah, could you start that sentence again? We lost,

your cell phone was cutting out. Oh, okay. You were saying that you are not the only scientist that was disagreeing about the human-based carbon. No, I cite about fifty other publications that No, I cite about 15 other publications that show that our carbon dioxide is not causing all the change. And there are three of them that specifically show there's major errors in this CO2 coefficient paper they publish. So, you know, I'm sure they're not the only one. I probably put the most comprehensive thing using all the information I had in my latest publication or through the posts on my website where I'm bringing all this together.

But it was good that the CO2 coalition finally had somebody put together their argument. I mean, they've been disputing this with people like me since 2018, right? But they never had an argument. They didn't say, I don't know if that makes sense. But once they put together their case, just like in a legal thing, they got to put together their case, then I had specifics to show why their case is wrong. And it wasn't easy to prove that it's wrong. And my argument is made, I mean, this is relevant now to say President Trump, he has made several

executive orders, three of them, on related to climate. Trump's on the right side of climate from my viewpoint. However, he's not curing the disease because he's not proving that the alarmists are wrong. Therefore, the alarmists are attacking him now in a new lawsuit in court, which by the way is a replica of the Hill v. Montana lawsuit that they used in Montana in 2023. Is this the Lighthizer v. Trump climate lawsuit you're referencing here, Dr. Berry? That's exactly right. That's it.

So Trump has to defend this thing properly. And one of the proper ways to do it is he has to use the argument that I'm showing that proves the CO2 collision is wrong. I mean, the CO2 collision is taking the same position as the alarmist in this case. And that's the last thing you want to do, go in to try to defend Trump. And since I say I agree with all of the alarmists. So number one step has to be, and this message has to get to Trump somehow, that look, the physics shows we are not even causing the increase, let alone even the warming.

Now that is something that I've talked with Gregory Wrightstone several times over the years. His take on it is that, from what I recall, now he's not here to talk about it, but that the earth is warming and that I think they do kind of agree with the fact that humans are to blame for some of this, but that warming is not harmful and is actually beneficial. Is that where you're going with the CO2 coalition's position is wrong in your opinion scientifically? Yeah, well, yes. They make the case that yes, we're causing all of CO2 increase and the CO2 increase is called the global warming, which is great as the alarmists want to hear. And the CO2 equal isn't just says well, but the alarming is good. Everybody wants more

warm. And that's not going to defend Trump, I'll guarantee you that, because we'll work in court. But that's their case, is that it's warm. I stand by and I say, yeah, okay, it probably is better warming, but that's not the point. The point is, we're not even causing the increase, and therefore we are not even causing any global warming. So if you prove in your case and you have a lot of scientific papers and formulas and stuff, we can't really converse about that. It's probably above most people's heads. But you have it here that human, the human-based or the human-created CO2 is not causing the increase in CO2 or is not causing the warming or both? What is

your science, your physicist science say about this? The first step is we're not causing the increase in the CO2. We're not causing the increase, okay. That's the first step. One might say yeah maybe one or two percent but you know we're not causing the increase in any way, fashion. And it's easy to go through the steps. We can't hardly do it on a radio program, but people can read my rebuttal on my website. So there's just a few steps and we can improve. This is easy to prove in court.

But I'm also a CCM, you know, which is a certified consultant meteorologist for the American Meteorological Society. As such, I've been in a reasonable amount of court cases, mostly before I came to Montana, mostly in California. I was in a major high-profile court case that was a murder trial where the California AG accused someone of doing murder. The thing was weather-related. So I had the experience of going through the steps of how to rebut this kind of stuff in a lawsuit. And I was the lead of several other expert witnesses.

I was the last one on the stand for the defense. And after the attorneys saw what I'm saying, they knew they had to rebut me somehow or they would lose their case. They kept me on the stand for five solid days. At the end, I convinced the jury that I was right and the fellow was innocent. So in other words, in a way, I'm not only just a scientist. I know how to win things. I mean, I do that in sports. I do it in everything, and I know how to win lawsuits. So I can understand how we can take this first step that we're talking about, that our CO2

doesn't cause the increase, to bring it to a proof in a court. And that's the important takeaway here. You're worried about, and most concerned most concerned about winning the court argument and winning the court argument, you're not going to win the court argument if you go with the main core of the climate alarmist's point of view is that humans are causing the increase in CO2. Is that kind of the bottom line of where you're coming from, Dr.? That's it, Bill. I mean, you don't go into a court case and start giving away your first key points and try to win on saying, well, warming is good.

That won't fly. You can't convince a judge that that's true. I mean, we can convince ourselves, but you've got to remember the other side is going to make good arguments that warming is bad. And so it's going to be a toss-up and that kind of a thing. And that is not a way to assure you win the lawsuit. I mean, my procedure, I can guarantee if we followed it, we will defeat that lawsuit. If we go in and give away the first two points here, namely that we say

yeah, human carbon dioxide causing all the increase, that increase is causing global warming, it's like uh-oh, you don't do that. It's like giving away all your first moves at a chess game. Well yeah, it's like you're tying your team hands behind their back. There's no way to fight this. And then you end up having these ridiculous climate lawsuits that end up winning. And of course, what's the ask from all of this? We shut down Western civilization. Isn't essentially what happens if we don't fight this accurately or properly. You got it. That's right. Because if the alarmists were to win this thing against Trump, they

will overturn his executive orders. Right? And now we have all this other green stuff coming back and Trump won't be able to do anything about it because if it's won in a court case, the Supreme Court is going to approve it. So it's a deadly road to go down if you don't go in with a winning attitude. Right? I mean, the CO2 coalition and some of the others and certainly the the political leaders, I mean, that's like having a football team, your favorite football team, the one you like this, if rather than fight the other team trying to win, they all sit on the grass and let the other team just run both.

Yeah, okay. Now, have you then, have you tried to talk with people? The CO2 coalition, has there been any response or did they call you a nut? I mean, what's this battle in the brouhaha? How is this playing out? Because you would think that the Trump administration would want to use the absolute strongest science knocking down their opponent's point of view if they were serious about winning this? Yeah, well, the ball's in their court, to put it mildly.

I mean, first of all, I just totally defeated them. They had their main author of their document come and make one post, and I showed them three little things, why he was totally wrong and went away. Now, they can't even defend their own claim that carbon dioxide caused all the increase. And I've written a couple of emails, public type, to a coalition, and they haven't directly answered me, but maybe they will. And I said, look, they have to get together. They have lost this particular thing.

There's no way they can win it in court. They have to go with the truth as shown by many scientists and get with the real world and start supporting the real thing. I mean, they would like to be the people that defend Trump, but I'm telling them that, look, you're not qualified to defend Trump unless you're able to prove in court that we're not causing the increase. And because we're not causing the increase, we're not causing the global warming. I mean, that's what we've got to prove.

And we don't have another idea here. You don't go into court and wax poetic about all things in climate science. It's fine if you're teaching a class at a university, but if you go on and just say all these things great and make it complicated and then everybody's supposed to believe you, it's fine teaching maybe, but you don't win a lawsuit with that kind of a procedure. And the CO2 collision is thinking in that kind of a procedure. And I've already told them by email that you're not going to win this way.

The only way you win is you win by going, having an exact plan. It's like a football game, have a play. They all coordinate. They all go together. Okay? Winning this kind of lawsuit, I should say defeating it, takes that kind of coordination, planning, practice, et cetera. And you don't just go into court and wing it.

And you don't make the case, by the way, in court. This is the other thing I told him, by saying, oh, our scientist is correct because he has a jillion publications and he does this and this and this. I say, great, this won't work. Case, first of all, it's not true. It goes against the scientific method. It goes against Aristotle. Second of all, that's the point we're going to use against the point is because that's how they come in.

Yeah, that's how they come in and say, we have loads of scientists, loads of papers. Got it. Okay, I get that. All right. I'm talking with theoretical physicist Dr. Ed Berry from Montana and he is making the claim here that the whole point of human-based global warming from human-generated CO2 is an absolute fallacy and that the Trump administration is ready to lose if they're going down the pathway of saying that, well, we do generate the carbon and it is our fault and that this is causing problems. Doctor, can you hang on a couple of minutes here?

Maybe some people want to ask a question or two of you. And like I said, we're not going to go into the actual theories. You have it up on your site at Barry dot com. I know there are some things we just don't want to get, you know, get on the talk radio world. Then people can go study what you have put out there. But seven seven oh five six three three Dr. Ed Berry rejoins me here for a moment or two next. The only thing better than hitting the open road this summer is your vehicle.

It's eight thirty two. Dr. Ed Berry, edberry.com, edberry.com, has information up there in which he's disagreeing with the CO2 coalition. Randy, you had a question here of Dr. Berry? Go ahead. In my research on this, carbon dioxide is not even a greenhouse gas. Okay now is this a question or where you going? I put Dr. Berry on hold for a moment. Okay yeah so in your opinion is carbon dioxide a greenhouse gas? Oh let me go to

back to Dr. Berry. Go ahead Dr. Berry what do you say? Yeah, it is. I mean, because there's a certain thing, the way the connections go between the molecules that make it a greenhouse gas. Now, one might argue it's not an important greenhouse gas, but technically, yes, you have to say it's a greenhouse gas. It's like water vapor. So they both are going to absorb infrared radiation, put it that way. Any other questions? Randy? I think he took off. OK, well, all right. I appreciate that. Hey, doctor, is there any way that you could get together with the CO2 coalition and and hash this out? And so there can be a united front here so that we're not just kind of

shooting into each other's tents, so to speak. And it's always difficult to get people to say, well, maybe our theories are not necessarily right on, but what say you? I made that proposal yesterday to email to Greg. So we'll see. I can't force them to do anything, but they have a more complicated organization. I'm one guy, you know, I like people, I can make a decision. I don't know what they have to go through to make a decision. So, all I can contact somebody in the Trump administration and at least listen to the points I want to make, because I'm afraid nobody else is going to make them.

I mean, the other good scientists I refer to, they're good, but they don't call public like I do. They don't fight like I do, etc. So I'm probably the spokesman for most of these people. Well, I'll tell you what. I have a friend here in southern Oregon who has great contact with Greg Reitstone. Would you mind if I gave him your phone number so he can call you after the show and maybe see if we can get CO2 Coalition and Ed Berry at least pulling in the same direction. Would that be a good idea? Is that okay with you? Of course, yeah. I'd be very happy to do that. All right, very good because I think it's important that the Trump

administration win this lawsuit, as you say, and if you're going in there conceding the point of your enemy on the other side that's trying to completely kill you all, you know, it's probably not a good legal strategy. I will concede your point there. Okay? Right. Yeah. Right. So what I'm going to do is post, link to your site on edbury.com and is there a good place where you overall, you kind of make the basic scientific article, or is the whole site based on that overall?

It is, and I think that people just go to adary.com and look at the menus at the top and they scroll down into submenus, that'll help you get to any place you want to go. All right, and the climate scam, as you put it, is based on three wrong assumptions. Human CO2 causes all of the CO2 increase, the CO2 increase causes higher global temperature, and a higher global temperature causes bad stuff to happen. So all three of their arguments you demolish on this site, right? That's all right. And that's what we have to do when we go to court. Hit them with everything. If you go to court, the idea

is to win. And be honest at the same time. Win and be honest. All right. Theoretical physicist Dr. Ed Berry calling from Montana. And we appreciate your time this morning, doctor. Thanks for being on the show and look forward to another call from the Southern Oregon Contact a little bit later. Okay? Thank you very much, Bill. All right. Thank you. It is 8 36 at KMED.

Yeah. You know, I, I would like to see these, uh, these climate people pull together and pull in the same direction and definitely to win this, uh, this Trump lawsuit, that's for sure. Getting ready to refinance or sell your property. Once you get the process started, email marketing, no fluff, just results. Get started at KMED.com. Click the advertise marketing tab. From the KMED News Center, here's what's going on. Oregon House Speaker, Democrat Julie Fahey is proposing adjustments to what would

be the largest tax increase in Oregon history to what could be close to the largest tax increase. Her amendments to the massive transportation bill wouldn't raise the gas tax as much, increase fees quite as much, would still triple the payroll tax, but it would eliminate the sales tax on new and used car purchases. The total cost to Oregonians, $12 billion over the next 10 years instead of $15 billion. House Bill 2025 is back in committee. Two gun control bills saw different results in the Oregon legislature Wednesday. Senate Bill 243 passed the House.

It empowers cities, counties or districts to restrict concealed carry license owners from carrying guns within their buildings that are used for official meetings. The bill also bans so-called rapid fire devices on guns. It now goes to the Senate. House Bill 3076 was sent back to the House Committee of the Judiciary killing that legislation. It would have created a massive state gun dealer licensing bureaucracy administered by the Oregon Department of Justice. Bill Lundin, KMED. Now we're here 770-5633. A little bit of more open phone time left here on

Conspiracy Theory Thursday. Boy, there's a lot of meaty stuff to chew on this morning, huh? Now, something else I wanted to mention. We had some breaking news out of the Supreme Court. This just happened a little bit ago. The U.S. Supreme Court today rules that South Carolina is allowed to stop abortion provider Planned Parenthood from taking part in the state's Medicaid program. In other words, it is legal for them to essentially defund Planned Parenthood. So that is one of the lawsuit's majority opinion. It was a 6-3 decision in the Medina or Medina, I'm not sure how you pronounce it, but versus Planned Parenthood, South

Atlantic, was written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, Epoch Times reporting that the decision reverses a federal appeals court decision that blocked the South Carolina, South Carolina rather, from excluding Planned Parenthood. So it is perfectly constitutional to throw Planned Parenthood out of Medicaid funding. Medicaid funding is once again not Medicare, Medicaid funding like Oregon Health Plan, style plan. and that's in this particular case in South Carolina. 7705633. This hour of the Bill Meyers show is sponsored by Fontana Roofing. For roofing gutters and sheet metal services visit FontanaRoofingServices.com. Hi this is my chef. News Talk 1063 KMED. You're waking up with the Bill Meyers show.

It's 842-7705633. By the way, Randy wrote me back and he said, Bill, you cut me off. Why don't they have a question and not just ask one question? After I asked one question, the line went dead. This is with Dr. Berry. Randy, sorry about that. I was trying to mute the doctor because he's a hard of hearing and he was using hearing aids, hearing aid devices with his cell phone, and it was creating a lot of noise when other people would talk. And in the process of trying to mute him so that you didn't have the noise interfering with you, I hung up on you instead.

So that's what happened. I was trying to do a little ballet, and sometimes it happened. It was not intentional. Let me go to Jim. Jim's in Grants Pass. Hello, Jim. How are you doing this morning? Go ahead. I'm doing pretty good, Bill. Thank you. When we're talking about the concealed carry permits, the one thing that didn't get mentioned that I considered was that Democrats don't carry concealed weapons. Only Republicans carry concealed weapons. So the public meeting, that's just another way to exclude Republicans from a public meeting.

I suppose, do you really think that it's only Republicans that are carrying concealed weapons? I know quite a few Democrats that have actually had them. Well, my point simply is that, you know, since their platform is anti-gun, Yeah. One could presume then there would be fewer overalls, what you're getting at. Yeah, there'd be fewer of them, because, anyway. Okay, well it's an interesting point. Thanks for bringing it up, Jim. Good to hear from you and GP. We go over to Tracy. Hi Tracy. How are you? Good morning from Washington State here. I've just said I'm doing really well just to minor notes comments

I really enjoy that spot on Creek versus Creek and For you Oregonians who have been in the Willamette Valley and up the west of Salem is a little town called Rick Rial Rick Rial. So it is Crick because that town literally means Royal Creek named by Quebecers who settled in the Willamette Valley. Crick versus Creek. Alright, there's one. What's the other one? Okay, so there was a comment earlier today about seeing flags while driving down the road. You know, occasionally we'll see somebody with a Don't Tread On Me flag or a US flag or up around here you'd even see Sikh liberation flags, the Sikh nation flags from the large

Sikh population in Vancouver, BC. I've seen it in central California. But the other day I came across a flag while I was driving down I-5 and I couldn't figure it out. I thought it was some redneck in their big hemi-powered truck with massive wheels. But no, it turned out to be something different. I took a photo, had to look it up online. It was the West Poplin Liberation Independence Movement. Huh? Yeah, that's what I said.

If you remember your geography, Irian Jaya is the west side of Papua New Guinea, north of Australia. Oh, okay. All right, yeah. So these guys had a massive flag on their car, on the back of their pickup truck, waving about. And so it always behooves everyone out there as you're driving along, like collecting license plates for the kids, you know, playing the old license plate

game, just to look at those flags and say, what's the story behind them? And this was a real bizarre one. Yeah, well, you know, I can't say of all those conflicts that's one that was not top of mind. I would have had to look that up too, Tracy. We have a large, you know, in Oregon too, there's a large Pacific population like the Marshall Islands and Palau and whatnot, Samoans, but that was the first one for West Papua of all places. Yeah, so Papua New Guinea for 500 points, Alex, right? That was the first one for West Poplar of all places. Yeah. All right.

And so Papa New Guinea for 500 points, Alex, right? That kind of thing. All right. Thank you very much, Tracy. Let me go to Larry. Larry's in Ashland. Larry, good to have you on the Bill Meyers show. What's on your mind?

Hey, good morning, Bill. Morning. Yeah, you know, I really enjoyed the chat with Dr. Ed Berry. And it was really encouraging to hear somebody talk about the legal aspects, the lawfare that's been going on against the people for 40 years on this whole carbon climate thing. And it's been really obvious to me that the whole carbon credit scheme and the brokerage houses that are making money on

every transaction and all the people that have gotten incredibly rich on the whole carbon credit sales fraud scam, I call it, we are finally talking about having legal effect and winning law cases, you know, court cases where, and I may eventually go to the Supreme Court, but we seem to be having a lot more success these days in the higher federal courts. And I'm just really glad to hear people starting to talk about, you know, legal cases on this whole climate change fraud.

And what Dr. Barry is talking about is winning the legal case. You know, we're not here to educate people. We're here to kill their legal argument and stop the damage that they wish to bring. And I appreciate that. I think the challenge that you have is that, you know, when you're... scientists of all stripes, they're human too. There's a lot of ego that is wrapped up in science and their papers and their point of views. There are careers that are wrapped up in such things and to have someone say that not only is your baby

ugly, but your baby is just dead wrong is tough to do. And I'm not shilling for Dr. Barry because like I said, I talk to Gregory all the time and I appreciate his scientific point of view. And the scientific point of view tends to be that, yeah, they'll concede the part about human-based CO2, but that it's not causing problems and the warming, if there is warming, is actually okay. And he's saying, Dr. Ed Berry is saying today, that, well, you go into court with that kind of an argument, you've already lost, even before you've done this. He has the science, and I've looked at his papers

on his site, edberry.com, and I think he makes a compelling case. I'm not a theoretical physicist, though, but they're going to be talking to people who are other physicists and meteorologists and climate scientists and fighting back and forth. It would most likely behoove the Trump administration to go in with that kind of an argument too. It's like, you know, not only are these people wrong, they're dead wrong and everything about them, and they're just kind of trying to screw us all over, you know, the climate kids and all these things. And it's really telling too that when you do a Google search for example on you know Ed Barry PhD you'll get all kinds of stuff you know you get the ads at the top and then there's all kinds of LinkedIn

Amazon this Amazon or get American Meteorological Society but there's nothing directly from or about Ed Barry till you get to the bottom of the page and so it's the usual deal where the people that are controlling the message to all of us are putting up the fact-checkers, quote unquote, that are calling his position mythical. And you know, it just, the whole thing stinks to high heaven. And I think we all need to wake up to this and just be aware that we've been lied to ever since Al Gore stood up on a scissors lift and pointed to his fake chart you know saying hey we're all gonna die yeah you know and then ten years later well we're still

all going to die and then ten years after that oh it's another ten years and how dare you yeah all the rest Larry appreciate the call 7705633 we're talking on conspiracy theory Thursday about all sorts of things. Let me grab another call. Good morning. Hi, who's this? Good morning, Bill. Hi, Tom. I had a tough time listening to Ed.

I just couldn't quite hear him and everything. And I apologize for that. I do the best I can. It was a challenging... Yeah, I understand. Yeah, the hearing aid is on a cell phone and it's probably one of the ways that he can do it best. But yeah, it was a tough one. I appreciate that.

But I think we were able to get most of the gist that his scientific papers proves, in his view, that everything about the climate change agenda is alive from the start. All of these assumptions that are being made. And I'm hoping that if the Trump administration is going to go to war over this one, that they go to war with the information that is smacking the other side square in the jaw. That's the way I'm looking at this. Certainly, yes. I really see the whole climate crisis as a hoax to basically herd all of us into the very New World Order dystopian. But you know as I was walking and trying to listen to Ed Barry and so forth, I couldn't

help but notice there's like a dozen chemtrails across the skies of Ashland right now. I don't know what it's like in Medford right now, but both the CO2 coalition and Alan Gernet's crowd, gang, if you will, neither of them address the whole thing about these contrails. And there is really substantial concerns about engineering. So that's like a third rail that no one talks about very much in terms of this whole climate crisis debate. I think part of it is that the statement that there are chemtrails. I don't think you can just look at the sky right there and declare that.

Not looking, it's not just by looking at it, but it's also a lot of people flown up and grabbed their test tubes and picked up all kinds of the heavy metals and so forth and so on. So I do, you know, I grew up in the 50s, you know, and 60s and so forth. I know what a contrail is. And it was about the 90s that all of a sudden you started seeing these huge trails after planes and so forth. And the way some of them, the skies where they're crisscrossed like a tic-tac-toe plane there, really that's not just planes flying around. It looks to me like an agenda. Okay. Thank you, Tom. 770-5633.

We'll take one more. One more. Hi, good morning. and who might you be this monitor david recall i know but uh... i just wanted to let you know that i shared his website on uh... president trump's website and cast

passed it on for him to use that is uh... evidence is arguments in the case you know well I'm going to get some, a Southern Oregon contact we have is going to get in touch with Dr. Ed Barry and maybe they can can ease this schism so that proper information gets to the president because the lawsuits as serious as a heart attack as you well know. Right and well I went ahead and sent his website on to President Trump and I know he's listening to me because I get responses back.

Okay, well as long as he's not talking to the filings in your head, okay? No, no, emails. All right, all right, thanks. Okay, this is the Bill Meyers Show. Occasionally, guests simply order bacon. Medford and Grants Pass. Hi, I'm Duane Barkley with American Rancher Garage and I'm on KMED. Interesting what's going on in the financial world.

Dollar has dropped about 10% just this year alone in the first quarter, a little bit beyond that. And Swiss franc has appreciated 15%, not because Swiss is all that great or Switzerland is all that great, but because of what is happening. And I know President Trump wants cheaper interest rates, which of course would weaken the dollar even further. Hmm. You might consider physical gold and silver to protect and hedge against a bit of that, then gold has certainly been performing well because of this, along with central bank buying and big money buying. And a lot of

regular folks have not been doing as much of that. Well, you might want to change that. Go to J. Austin & Company gold & Silver Buyers, Ashland. 1632 Ashland Street in Ashland. 6th & Gee in downtown Grants Pass. Call 482-3715. Whether you're buying or selling, they can help you protect some wealth with the power, the ancient power of physical gold, and to a lesser extent silver.

Silver joining the party right now, too. JAustinBrokers.com the recognized experts fortune reserve comm Let me grab one more call here Steve and Sunny Valley. Hello Steve conspiracy theory Thursday. You're thinking got about a minute So fire away, okay, okay for Tom and his chemtrails. I was a avionics tech for American Airlines for seven years and And he made a good point that there are a lot more contrails today, not chemtrails, contrails, than there were in the 50s,

because now we're flying a lot more jets and fewer turboprops, they fly higher, back where it's colder, and the air upset by the jet engines leaves a contrail, and they're crisscrossing because of high-level VORs. What is a high level VOR? What does that mean? Okay, those are the paths that the jets follow in the sky. So a jet flies following a VOR, say from San Francisco to Portland, a half hour later another one is following that same VOR, but the high altitude

winds have blown that contrail off in one direction or another. So it looks like they're crisscrossing, but actually the planes are almost on the same path. They're just contrails are up there because they're higher. There's more jets than there were in the 60s and flying is too expensive to include anything that doesn't pay. I know a mechanic who got fined $5,000 for accidentally leaving a dead blow hammer under the floorboards of a jet for five years. It flew around on that jet and they fined him $5,000 for fuel consumption over five years. Okay. Well, and the part that I kind of call nonsense on is the, well, they're putting geoengineering chemicals into the aviation fuel.

Yeah, it would actually tear up the turbines, but... The only thing they're putting in is called Prist. And what Prist does is it stops ice crystals from forming, because when the ice crystals form, then you get a bacteria that lives between the ice and the fuel and that clogs fuel filters all right I'm out of time right now here Steve but I appreciate it from a airline mechanic point of view on that okay gotta go all right but thank you all right good job wrapping it up differences of opinion we'll continue that tomorrow bill at Bill Meyers show.com

Southern Oregon's place to talk KMED and KMED. HD1, Eagle Point, Medford, a bi-coastal media station. It's nine o'clock at KMED.