Knowledge Fight - #263: Jordan Takes The Wheel

Episode Date: February 13, 2019

Today, Dan and Jordan switch roles on the show, to see how that feels. Jordan is very passionate about climate change, so for his episode he decided to find a particularly distasteful climate denier to go over. Also, Dan seems to have a lot of possibly inaccurate thoughts about music when he doesn't have to prepare for an episode.

Andy and Kansas, you're on the air. Thanks for holding. So Alex, I'm a first-time caller. I'm a huge fan. I love your work. I love you. Hey, everybody. Welcome back to Knowledge Fight. I'm Jordan. I'm damn. How does, how do we do the show again? It's a podcast where we like to. It's a podcast where we talk a little bit about Alex Jones. I know nothing about Alex Jones. Jordan. Yeah. Jordan. Yes. Yes. I got a question for you. Hi. Hi, Dan. I got a question. What's that? All things considered, do you think that the dirty South or the Midwest was a better place for hip hop in the late 90s or the 2000s? All things considered. All things considered. All things considered. Dirty South

or the Midwest? I mean, I'm going to be honest with you, Dan. The Midwest has not had anything going for hip hop for, you know, up until about 10 years ago. Tell that to Murphy Lee. So, so I'm going to go with the dirty South on this. Tell that to my man, Sidney Spud. Let me tell you something. When I was growing up in Missouri, I knew, I knew a ton. What about Kanye? What about Colin? I'm just fucking kidding. The Midwest had a lot. Well, Kanye started out writing for Jay-Z and that was in, that was in New York. He's also doing production. He didn't rep Chicago until like, I don't know, what, 2002, 2004? You might be right. That's when Jesus Walks went wild. Yeah, you might be right. So, so there's that. And then I mean, of course,

there's also common, there's so many people. Yeah. Yeah. I'm just saying that it wasn't, it wasn't until the early 2000s. But the St. Lunatics, Nally, Murphy Lee, all those people coming out of St. Louis were great. What about my man? St. Louis is the dirty South. What about my man? Let's be honest about St. Louis. I don't think tech nine is, no, not tech nine. All right. To the dirty South. You know who's not in the dirty South? Our new donors. Oh, that's great. I'd like to thank you, Dan. I'd like to give that a shout out to some policy wonks. First off, Sean, you're a policy wonk. I'm a policy wonk. Thanks, Sean. Thank you very much, Sean.

Karen, you are a policy wonk. I'm a policy wonk. This one's my favorite. We've got a tasty troll bait. You're a policy wonk. I'm a policy wonk. Like a tasty troll bait. Alrighty. And Michael B, you're a policy wonk. I'm a policy wonk. Coming out, coming in hard, coming in hot at the regular policy wonk level is also Allison. I'm a policy wonk. Thank you very much, Allison. So, Dan, we're doing this backwards. Yes, we are. Yeah. I don't know if everybody's, I think everybody's like, at this point, I think everybody is thinking like, okay, when are you guys going to stop fucking around and do the show? Yeah. I think that we did that about as well as we could have

given the circumstances. You think I would, after doing this podcast for two years, I would remember the things that you say every single time. Yeah, you would think, yeah, that's interesting to me how little you internalize or listen. It's actually kind of scary. I think almost everybody who listens to the show probably could rattle off exactly how our opening goes. I don't know. Apparently not the other guy who does the show. I don't know. It's one of those things where it's like, I've heard it so much. It's just kind of this assumed thing. Right, right, right. Where I'm familiar with my rhythm, but I have no idea what yours sounds like. You have no business knowing what it is. I don't. I'm not the host of the show. No, but you are today.

All right. So we talked about this a while, like, like the ideas of like, how would it work or what would it look like? Were you to step into the Dan chair metaphorically? Cause I'm still in the same fucking chair, but what would it look like if you were to take over an episode and you came up with an idea and ran with it and I'm very excited to see what you bring to the table. Cause quite frankly, I don't have to do shit. Yeah, I know. Isn't it good? It's great. It's a weird feeling. I'm not, I don't know. I don't know how I feel about it, but I don't know. We'll see. This could be a disaster. Could be, but it's a wacky Wednesday. So why the fuck not take risks, Dan? Yes. I don't know if you or any of our listeners know this, but

climate change is kind of a thing for me. It's fake news. It's kind of one of those things that I think about a lot. Carbon Texas. I think it's pretty important. All right. So today, I have brought to you something and you need to play the out of context draft. Is Mars getting cooler? There's one of those planets who's getting cooler. There weren't any STVs. I take that to me and he's asking, did Mars get some new shades? Is Mars, is Mars starting to be Spud's McKenzie? That's right. Pretty cool. That's right. We're talking about Pat Robertson, but we're not talking about Pat Robertson. Absolutely not. I just like how stupid he is. And it's spectacular. We are doing an interview that Mark Moreno did with Pat Robertson. Do you

know who Mark Moreno is? I'm familiar with that name. I don't know too much about him, but I know of him. Yeah. He is the, I mean, head editor and pretty much only writer and the only guy who really runs climate depot.com. Okay. He is a, I think, I think I might have run into him vaguely in some like old episodes of Alex. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I think so. I'm almost certain. I think so for sure. So this guy is for me different from our usual cast of characters, because this guy is a complete sleazeball. Like this is not, that's different. No, no, no, no. So, our different, our different con men are all trying to, they're all going it alone. They're all shooting out for themselves. They're all trying to run their own scams, right?

Yeah. This dude is gun for hire all the way. This guy does not believe a goddamn word he is saying. He has found his little niche. He gets shit tons of money for it. And he fucking sucks. It is brutal. Seems right in the real house. Yeah. I read his book. It's called the politically incorrect guide to climate change. And he genuinely should not get an author credit on the book that he wrote, because he writes this, here's an example of his book. And then this guy said long quote, and that proves what this guy said, long quote. And that's what this guy said, long quote. See? That's it. He's more of a compiler. He is an author. He is a quote minor of the worst variety. And he has given an interview with Pat Robertson. That's what this

episode is. This dude talking to Pat Robertson. Oh boy. You gotta hear this sleazeball, because I think by the end of this, you will know for a fact that he does not give a fuck. Are we on the 700 club? What's going on? I have no idea. I did not look into Pat Robertson's side of this interview at all. I don't give a fuck about what he has to say. I hate Mark Moreno. So that is how I'm going to lead you into this first clip where Mark Moreno says something brilliant. Miami is actually sinking. It's called subsidence, but there's no acceleration in the global sea level so that you cannot link that to man. Mankind is always battling the shores. Sea levels have been rising for 10,000 plus years since the end of the last ice age.

Dan? Jordan? Man has always been battling the shores. I like that turn of phrase. I don't like the context of it necessarily, but I like it. Maybe he should be an author. That's a pretty good use of words. Man has always been battling the shore, Dan. Right. Now, do you think what he said makes any sense? No. I mean, sure. I mean, as words strung together as sentences, yes, but I don't, I don't know if it proves what I assume is his thesis that man isn't doing anything that's causing climate change. I don't think it has anything to do with, like his clauses don't actually connect to each other. You know, like Miami is sinking and there's no acceleration of the global sea level, so you can't link it to man. That doesn't make sense. Is it sinking really? Is that what you

would call it? No. Okay. It is not. I wanted to check in on that. Yeah. Venice is sinking. Yeah. Miami is, what do you think Miami's doing? Being overwhelmed. Yeah. It's different because sinking, you have to go down for it to be sinking as opposed to water coming up. Yep. So that's a problem just off the bat. Oh, battling the shores. I can't get over it. You can't get over it? That's a good... You like it? Yeah. What do you see? Visual metaphor. I see like a Norse Viking stabbing a rock. Just like hitting a beach with a trident. Yeah. Something like that. He's not fighting the water. He's actually fighting the shore itself. Yeah. Absolutely. Yeah. Yeah. Sword fight with the beach. Too much sand. How do you think rocks got that small to make sand? Oh, man has been

battling the shore. All right. So we do believe in anthropogenic beach change. Yes. 100%. 100%. The thing is, he is wrong in content and in deed and word and everything. I don't even know what do you mean man has been battling the shore? Like are we like dams? I think what he means to say is that like we've been fighting against rising water for our entire time on earth. That's what he thinks. I think that that's what he's trying to articulate. I don't know if that's true. Well, Miami is not sinking. I will tell you this right now. Miami is actually being completely and utterly destroyed by climate change. So the reason is Miami is built almost entirely on limestone and that's where they get their fresh water from. It's called the Biscayne aquifer

and this naturally kind of filters the water and keeps water fresh. As the sea water rises, that gets covered by salt water. So salt water is seeping into the drinking water. The estimate of that's not good, right? No, it's not good. You can't drink salt water. The estimate from the NOAA says that a rise of about a foot of seawater will pretty much end drinking water in Miami. I mean, a foot. That's not unthinkable. No, that's not a ton. And in fact, prior to a NASA study in 2018, everybody thought that the regular rise of the sea level was going to be linear. There's going to be a steady gradual rate. In 2018, a NASA study by Steve Nerum, I think, Nerum started referencing different satellite data, cross-referencing it with all kinds of

other different measurement techniques to see exactly how fast the sea level has been rising since the 1990s. And it is not progressing at a linear rate. No. It is increasing by about 6% since 1990 every single year. So it's almost exponentially curved. Exactly. It is a geometric progression, not a linear one, which is why I am very, very unhappy with everybody because they're still operating under so much of that. In 100 years, by 2100, it will have risen by a foot. You hear that from people with weird funders. You hear that sort of rhetoric a lot. You're being alarmist, seems to come from people who have links to the fossil fuels and tobacco lobbying interests. We will see a few of those characters pop up. Can we get back to Miami for

a second? Sure. See, here's what makes it worse if Miami ruins that drinking water thing. A lot of survivalists... That people won't live? Well, that's a problem. But a lot of survivalists, what they do is they'll set up tarps on their house and catch rainwater. And from a very reputable source, I have heard that in Miami, you can't see a drip on the strip. It's a trip. It does not rain in Miami. But on the plus side, there's ladies half dressed and fully equipped, yelling about how they loved your last hit. I'm disappointed that you're not still going. You're so happy with yourself. Oh boy. Oh boy. Okay. Well, the thing is, based on their study, which, and I would say,

even according to Naram's own quote, that is a conservative estimate, that increase of about six percent each year. It is risen from what they thought the estimate would be about 2.5 millimeters per year. To now, it's looking like it's going to rise by about 3.4 millimeters per year as we continue along. That's a conservative estimate. That means that basically in about 25 years, if the conservative estimate is right, sea level will have risen by about half a foot. Not good. Not good. Not good. So that means that in less time than that, sea level will have risen by a foot and Miami, or less time than the 2100 date. Right. Miami will be unlivable. So no more women who are half dressed and fully equipped. Nope. Will Smith will not be able to

go to Miami. No one will be saying Ben Veneto, Ami Ami. Rich people will still be able to go to Miami. They will be able to buy and have their drinking water shipped in. That's, yeah. But everybody who lives there, Miami's going to go. Now that we know that Miami's going to go around. We got to talk about who is trying to fix it. We got to talk about the environmental movement that is trying to take this and solve this problem. Do you know who owns the environmental movement, Dan? Oh, George Soros. George Soros for sure. But who did he take it from? So Soros does own the modern environmental movement. You bet. Of course. He's sending those eco-terrorists all over the place trying to get people to stop buying gold. He hates it. Hates it. Hates it.

That's why he stole the modern environmental movement from the right, Dan. Mark Moreno has made it clear that the modern environmental movement was hijacked by the left. Let me ask you when that happened. Was it around the Civil Rights era? It was, Dan. Curious. Yeah. Curious. But do you know who started in the first place? Oh, let me guess. George Wallace. No, he did not. It was a lot of people credit the modern environmental movement having been started by a guy named Aldo Leopold. Okay. And he was dope as shit. I know that name. Yeah, he was this, he was like an 1880s dude. You know those dudes except for all of his siblings didn't die? Like all of his siblings survived. He was that guy who's like, I'm four years old, so it's

time for me to set out on my own in the forest, befriend all the animals there. He was top of his class in school, then was top of his class in the next school, and then he decided to go to Yale. Right? Why did he choose Yale? Let me guess. I don't know. Because the year earlier, they had started a forestry program. Oh, cool. So he went to Yale to become the thing that he was when he was four years old. The very new discipline of forestry. Of being him. Sure. And then he got a job working for the Forest Service. He's out there in the middle of the forest. He's tickling bears. He's like 22. Right. Back then, he wasn't. No. Back then, he wasn't. Do you know what he was doing? Shooting bears. Rude. Shooting bears. So rude. He's out in the forest

shooting bears. Celebrating his second amendment right to shooting bears. Shooting lions. Yeah. Shooting mountain lions. Sometimes mountain lions got to go. Sometimes they got to go. Yeah. Wolves? You're shooting wolves, man. That's almost man's best friend. That's true. Very similar. He correctly decided after spending all of his time among predators hunting them, he started being like, these fucking doos are actually pretty cool. I like these predators more than I like these asshole ranchers telling me to kill them. So he starts becoming a conservationist. Right. Man, he starts tickling bears. He's absolutely tickling bears. Then he's Dr. Doolittleing it. Right. He's going out in the forest. He's got his wolf buddy over here. He's

got his bear. There's a famous picture of him. They're all holding hands together. It's beautiful. And he is just hog wild with this. That is the guy who started the modern environmental movement. In the 1950s and 60s, everybody read. And he was on the right. No. Oh, okay. No, no, no. That's conceivable because like back before. Right. You know, the civil rights era, there were like conservative and liberal people in both parties. Right. There were wings of each party that so like the idea that someone who is maybe a little bit more liberal or progressive could have been a Republican back then. Oh, absolutely. That sort of thing. And, you know, so I wouldn't have been totally surprised. Right. But that's also one of those

things where it's like, do you think the Dixie crats were on the left or the right? I mean, spiritually, they're on the right as we understand it now. But I was, I'm just saying that why does this guy think not Leopold, why does the Moreno guy think that the environmental movement came from the right? If the environmental movement came from Leopold, where is the disconnect? There is a one. He's just lying. Oh, he's just saying it. It's sort of like how Alex will say some from time to time that Martin Luther King was a Republican. Yep. That sort of thing. Yep. He'll just do this whole like, no, all these guys, they were on the right. You're ruining it. Okay. You're fucking things up. So here we are at the beginning of the 50s and 60s. We're in

the modern environmental movement. Mark Moreno has done his fucking research. All right. He knows what the problems are, and he knows what the left thinks the solutions are. Other environmental scares, things like resource scarcity, we're going to run out of food, we're going to have famines, we're going to have overpopulation, there's too many people, the global cooling scare. And I show that those scares all have the same solutions they're proposing today. It was a different environmental scare, same solution. And the solutions are centralized planning, wealth redistribution, and sovereignty threatening international organizations. That smells like Alex. Yep. Yep. You know what though? Like maybe those are the solutions people

suggest because they work. That is exactly right. I don't know. Maybe they're very effective at dealing with a broad spectrum of problems. Now that can't be it. Nope. Nope. It's sovereignty threatening. My notes on that are literally just, yep. You got it. I like knowing that Pat Robertson is just sitting there listening to him. That's kind of a fun visual. What differentiates between the modern environmental movement and the archaic environmental movement? Well, if you, if he wanted to really be that guy, he could probably say that Teddy Roosevelt could have created the modern environmental movement. Did he create the national parks? Exactly. Yeah. Yeah. You could make that argument. You could make that argument. But again, that is not hijacking and that's not the

modern environmental movement. Right. Like one of his big things about that. It's sort of a proto environmental. Exactly. So it didn't, it wasn't a party kind of situation. It was Teddy Roosevelt just really like killing shit. He's like, we better have some more of that shit when I need it. People, animals. He loved it. He was all about it. But yeah, he's, he's just describing the actual solutions to the problem. Yeah. That's what he's doing. Yeah. And he's doing it in this way of like, I'm making it sound like this is a bad thing because all of these scares were, I don't know, does he think they were unfounded? I think that's what he's trying to convey. Yeah. Yeah, definitely. When it's like, well, no, it just didn't solve the issues before they killed

everybody or they get too out of control. Exactly. Because we had to and we used centralized power and sovereignty threatening measures. Pretty much. Yeah. Now, what we have done and what they were trying to do when they came to the Paris agreement. Remember when all those people were making bullshit up about how toxic waste is bad? Remember that bullshit? Those, those propagandists out there saying you shouldn't, you shouldn't bathe in toxic waste and like medical waste should be disposed of in a particular way with regulations and shouldn't, you know, endanger going into the water supply and a bunch of, bunch of dumb globalists trying to take away the second That's the whole thing. I want my sovereignty to shoot the shore. Yeah.

Take that. Take that. Yeah. So the Paris agreement, of course, is one of these sovereignty taking organizations. Oh, definitely. For sure. They want to steal everybody's sovereignty. Now, do you want to know exactly how expensive it is though? The Paris Accord itself? Uh-huh. Well, I mean, what is it? Like 100 pages, probably 10 cents a page. It's about that. I don't know. Depends on if they went to a FedEx shop. Those, those copies are, yeah. International rates. I don't know what it is in the pound in the euro. I don't know how expensive. I think the answer will surprise you. Okay. What that has been now analyzed and it's the most expensive treaty in world history. $100 trillion is the estimated cost. We're already

spending a billion dollars, $20 a day. Trillion? Incredible as Robertson. That's pretty much the only clip of Robertson you're going to hear. A hundred trillion? Yeah. I imagine he's fudging that number a little. A little bit? Maybe. How much? A lot. You think so? Maybe. I don't know. I mean, I assume that that's probably like just taking all sorts of weird things he could claim are the costs of the treaty. You know, that's just my instinct. But I think you probably know. It feels weird, doesn't it? It feels weird not to know what somebody's saying. It's very threatening. I find it unsettling that I just have my instincts to go on. Ah, see, there we go. Now we have a lot of Will Smith lyrics. I got plenty more, trust me.

That's all you need. Yeah. That's, you're going to go to Yale the moment they open the Will Smith program. I might go there and demand they start one. I think that's not the pioneer of it. Like this guy was with forestry. What's that? What would that be? The modern Wild Wild West movement? It'd be a millennium studies. I'm a millennial. Someone's made that joke. Oh, for sure. For sure. Uh, this hundred trillion number comes from one guy. Please tell me it's Mark Moreno. Nope. No other scientist. No other, not scientist. No other accountant. No other anything said anywhere near a hundred trillion dollars. What's Nate Silver got on this? Exactly. He has not weighed in on the hundred year long cost of the Paris agreement. He's saying it's going to cost a hundred trillion

dollars by 2100. Now, what does the, what he has described in Moreno's book as the Dana statistician Bjorn Lomburg, what does he have a PhD in? Forestry. Nope. Uh, millennial studies. I wish. I don't know. He would be a much nicer guy. Probably. I'm guessing because you asked me the question. My gut tells me that it's not relevant to this. Political science. Okay. That's vaguely relevant, but not, it's not what you're looking for, for this, like a countancy or something like that is what you want, but business. He did not disclose what numbers he was taking. That seems unethical. What amounts he was drawing from what countries? It's hard to peer review now. He released only a little bit of his method for coming up with this hundred trillion

dollars. I used a pad and pen. Uh, pretty much. That's my method. Nobody knows what he plugged into the machine, but his method was this. Um, I took the amount people are going to spend on it that I think they're going to spend on it. And I called it the cost. Oh, cool. That makes sense. Yeah. That checks out. Right. With no numbers. But that's also like saying the United States government is going to cost a hundred trillion dollars by 2100. Sure. Sure. It's deceptive, but I mean, the point behind it is probably valid. It'll cost a lot of money in order to like, you know, retrofit things and, you know, invest in new technologies and stuff like that, but a lot of it will pay dividends of its own. Exactly. And that's not accounted for. Well,

I mean, that's absolutely not accounted for. We don't know. Oh, we absolutely know. The one method he did release was literally that. Yeah. I am just counting that no deductions for, uh, gains and new industries. And it's like, and it's just like, it's just like saying that the government costs two trillion dollars a year when it's like, well, that money doesn't go away. Right. That money's not like, uh, it's given to the Paris agreement and they get to keep it. Right. This piece of paper is rich as shit. Right. It goes back into the people. So the net cost of it is actually going to wind up being not just less than a hundred trillion dollars, but it's going to be profitable. According to that money goes to businesses. Exactly. Like,

it goes to people who will then recirculate them ideally, ideally. Absolutely. That's another issue. Well, yeah. Yeah. I think my favorite quote from Bjorn Lomburg is from a, a, uh, he's, so first off in the early 2000s, he was like, climate change is real. We got to do something about it. And then in the mid 2000s, he decided climate change was not real. And that was because of a large amount of money that was given to him. Weird, weird how that'll change your perspective. This is going to be a theme, but here's my favorite quote from Bjorn Lomburg. He did this in an interview with CBC radio in 2016. He said, and I can't do a Danish accent. Oh, I would, I would encourage you not to. I was going to do Alex's Bernie Sanders,

but I think I'll just do this. Okay. Most people die from cold deaths. Not heat deaths. And so when temperatures increase, we're going to see about 400,000 more heat deaths because of global warming by mid century. You know, you hear a lot about those, but you're probably going to see 1.8 million fewer cold deaths. As it is now, old people die of heat stroke all the time. Right. It happens very commonly. But old people freeze to death too. And what you don't hear about is that they freeze to death more often. They'll never freeze to death when the world is warm. That's sunny side thing. I respect that. That guy, Bjorn's an optimist. He's like a glass is overflowing kind of guy.

Cool. Cool. I do respect that. I wish I had a kernel of that in my life. That willingness to look at like complete catastrophe and be like, less people going to freeze to death guys. Isn't that cool? Well, it's also not true. I would assume because the places that people freeze to death are generally not because of the elements and stuff like that. It's often because they can't afford their heating bills. Exactly. Because businesses are fucking melt. Yep. Generally, I've read a number of stories about stuff like that. And unfortunately, there are a number of like homeless people who will freeze on the streets and stuff like that.

And again, that's a systemic problem. That's not about how cold it is outside. It was negative 50 here. And if you had a place to be inside, it wasn't going to be the biggest deal in the world. And that was as cold as what the top amount ever is. Yeah. But if it was global warming, you wouldn't even have to be inside. That's true. All right, Bjorn. Bjorn, you're a lot of fun. He goes around and gives these interviews that are just him saying the dumbest shit. Right. Like that what he does not base the 400,000 number on anything. This is 100% something he pulled from thin air. He didn't he didn't like later on write a piece justifying the 400,000 number or the one at the 1.8 million fewer cold deaths. He didn't even figure out how many cold

deaths there are. I also don't think that those terms are very defined. No, warm and cold deaths. Less people burn than are frozen into ice cubes. Yes, air go global warming is good. Right. Oh, yeah. Now, here's the best part, though. Not only is Mark Moreno pointing out that the Paris Accord is far too expensive. Can't afford it. Can't afford 100 trillion, 100 trillion. Fiscal responsibility, bro. Can't do it. But here's what's even worse. What's that? It wouldn't even do anything. Oh, no. Yep. Not only would it, it's commit nations and to lose sovereignty and start being essentially having to bow to a UN international organization, but it would have even if you trusted the UN science and Al Gore believed everything they said,

it would have no impact on temperatures 100 years from now. So it's it wouldn't even do anything. Cool. All right. Well, in that case, fuck it. Yep. Nope. He proved it, right? Too expensive wouldn't do shit. Yep. I buy it. That's all he had to do. All right. Right. This has been great. Unfortunately, what this is referencing, what he's referencing here is a 2015 MIT study. And what they did was the MIT and the MIT put together the study of like, okay, let me start. The Paris Accord, the Paris Agreement is built on every five years, each country submits a new proposal, a new pledge. So the MIT study was if everybody just did what they did right now, if everybody

just did for the five year for forever, there would only be a 0.2 drop in a degree Celsius. So currently nothing, even if, even if that is the all. Exactly. Exactly. See a problem. Now, what the MIT study also showed was that everybody involved in this is planning on not doing that. The entire point of the Paris Agreement is everybody is doing what they can for the first five years. Right. And then accelerating that. The five years is like a toe dip and then you're getting in the pool gradually. Exactly. Because you can't just, I mean, you're going to have to eventually now, but like, it's very difficult to totally transition everything. Yeah. Like, on a dime. Yeah. And it would be jarring for a lot of countries, especially with less stable

economies. So you've got to dip that toe in. You can't cannonball that shit. Absolutely. Jack Knife. And in a way, he's right. Like in a way, that does make sense. If all, what that really proves is the opposite of his point though. What that really proves is that MIT was putting together a thing that's saying, guys, this is a amazing thing that we've done. This is a promise amongst all nations to fucking try and survive. And what we need to make sure that you're doing with this five year proposal is ramping things up, ramping things up. So the MIT put out the study to goose everybody into doing that. And assholes like Mark Moreno are taking those findings and saying, see, the Paris Agreement doesn't work. We don't need to do any of it at all. He's not saying,

here's what we need to do instead. Here's what should be done. He's just saying, see, we can't do it. Everybody quit. He doesn't believe any of this shit. It seems like it would be hard to believe it based on just like what the sources he's pulling from. Or again, it comes down to that like, if you've read this, you're lying. If you haven't read this, you're lazy. It's one of the two. And it seems like the prior is much more likely. Oh, yeah, he has read all of it. But there is one big specter that we need to worry about. And it's one that our boy Larry Nichols has warned us about in the past. Oh, no, you don't mean. This is no more than medieval witchcraft. People believe that the United Nations and the United States EPA can regulate the temperature

and control storminess. They used to believe that in the Middle Ages, those witches can control weather. Those witches are causing crop failure. Now they're blaming our SUVs and our cars. Witches. Witches. Always witches. All right. I think that's lame. I mean, like if you look into a lot of the history of witches and stuff like that, it was like just completely social oppression of women. Like it was a large piece of the story, like women who didn't adhere to the roles that society said that they had to. They're oppressing our SUVs, Dan. That is true. They are oppressing SUVs. That is where, I mean, that's where you kind of get the sense of like he knows he's talking to Pat Robertson. Oh, yeah. And that is like coming up with witches and stuff

like that is really like in that wheelhouse of like, you know, you're talking to a zealot, a religious zealot. He's going to love to hear this stuff. Oh, yeah. One who does not understand how big a trillion is. No, absolutely not. No. But good news is that nobody's really worried. You know, after you hear that information and all the information before, you can tell that nobody cares about climate change. It's too expensive. It's not going to make a difference. And it's just witches. The public hasn't bought this. According to Gallup polling, there's no change in concern, essentially from global warming from the 1980s to now. Phrasing of that is interesting. A study performed by WIRE, Wires Climate Change. They're an organization that studies all these

things. They've aggregated polls since the 1980s, which is when he's starting his bullshit, of course. And they showed a clear rise in awareness regarding climate change all the way up until 2007. Okay. What happened in 2007? Bjorn got a bunch of money. Yes, he did. I've heard that. What was it? Is that Paris Accords? No. Paris Accords is 2015. Okay. 2007. I don't know. A man named Barack Obama started running for president. Sure. And a large amount of right-wing propaganda was centered on tying him together with climate change. In 2007, everyone, up until that point, everyone was becoming more aware of climate change and everyone across both parties was increasing their concern about that. In 2007, however,

fears of climate change declined among the right only. Everyone, every other thing has gone completely up. There is a massive correlation between the propaganda blitz that was put together by, guess who? Bjorn? No. I don't know. These fucking rich motherfuckers through organizations like Donors Trust. Sure. That's coke related. Oh, yeah. This is from a fantastic blog called DeSmog blog, which doesn't have a great name, but it's pretty, pretty valuable as a resource for climate change funding. I've run into that site a number of times. Let's go through some of the things that they have funded, Dan. The Donors Trust? Uh-huh. Oh, boy. What do you think? I mean, I know a lot of things, stuff that we've talked about in the past on our show. Yeah, they get up

to a lot of bad business. From 2002 to 2017, they gave Americans for prosperity $30,962,331. Sure. I'm sure they gave a bunch of money to the Heritage Foundation. Oh, yeah. The Discovery Institute, the Mercatus Center, our big boys project Veritas. Lord Mockden, I'm sure, gets some. Oh, 100%. Freedom Works. I got about 4 million. These guys are in everything, and we're going to find out a little bit more about them later on. That makes sense though, because like the Donors Trust and the Donors Fund are like places where you hide the source of money and it's very like Coke-related. And then like Freedom Works and Americans for Prosperity are also Coke-linked think tank funding networks. So like it makes sense that they would just sort

of shuffle money around that way. Exactly. Yeah. They have done that consistently, and they've created all of these things purely to get that propaganda to avoid this exact kind of situation. And hide where the money comes from because it would delegitimize the messaging that they're trying to put in the world. Exactly. It's dirty. So Moreno's argument eventually comes down to just this. Yes, people have stopped worrying as much about climate change, mainly because the people who give me money, because guess who he gives him a lot of money? Donors Trust. Oh yeah, started lying to people. That is exactly what happened. So his argument is we've been incredibly effective at shifting the public opinion, and therefore you shouldn't care. Exactly.

You got it. That's not good. I made people not care, so you shouldn't care. I guess it is sort of like a demonstration that people are kind of gullible. I don't know if that helps with the climate argument. No, it's perfect. It is interesting. It really crushes it. But do you know it's even crazier than the fact that the Paris agreements would cost $100 trillion, and they won't even be effective. And nobody even really cares about climate change. I've heard all this. I've internalized it and I believe it. Well, this is going to blow your socks off. Okay. It's actually backwards. The world's going to get cooler. What? Yes. In fact, many scientists, including Russian scientists, solar scientists are predicting a coming cooling. All right. That doesn't just prove anything.

Seems irrelevant. No, it's going to get colder. Okay. Yeah. What's going on? It's just you heard him. Uh-huh. It's a coming climate. It seemed weird. It's an ice age is coming. You seem weird. I'm just saying. Okay. I'm just saying. Ice age is coming. Now on the other hand. Do you remember that movie? I say John Leguizamo did a voice. I do remember that. I worked at a movie theater when the first one came out and all the commercials were just that character chasing the acorn, the little rat guy. And we had a, well, our district manager was in town and he was given like a little meeting and he's like, you guys excited about ice age? Like whatever. He's like, it's fun. You see those trailers of squirrel running after a nut. That happened 20 years ago. It's

still sticking out of my brain. Like how dismissively he was trying to make us excited about ice age. Ah, squirrel runs around with a little nut. Hey, he's chasing that nut. How great is that? So from that, I'm excited that there's an ice age coming because animals will talk, people will be chasing down acorns. Oh yeah. And animals, interspecies will bond. There'll be friendships. Absolutely. Which is very exciting. Which is the whole point of Leopold's work. He wants people that he wants to bring people together with bears and wolves. Tickle those bears. Oh, absolutely. The ice age is not coming. Oh. No, I'm sorry. The ice age bullshit comes from a few different sources and let me give you an idea of their occupations. Dennis Leary. Pretty much. We have, predicting

a coming ice age. A bookie. An astrophysicist. Okay. All right. That sounds pretty legit. Neil deGrasse Tyson. No. A meteorologist. That's almost something. Doppler Dave out of Columbia, Missouri. Exactly. And a mathematics professor. It might as well be Tom Schiller. It's actually a local guy. Is it? For real. Yeah. The meteorologist is like one of those local weathermen. The most prominent guy who is predicting the ice age is, oh boy, this is going to be rough. Khabibulo Abdu-Sahmatov. He was the one who claimed that a mini ice age would begin in 2014. Mini ice age is like that trailer for the... Exactly. Yeah. It's a squirrel chasing a nut. Do you think a mini ice age started in 2014? I mean, it was really cold last week.

But no. I don't think so. I believe this year is just... 2018 was now the fourth hottest year ever recorded. Yeah. I mean, outside of those like two days that was terrible here, it's one of the most mild winters that I remember experiencing in Chicago. Oh, yeah. I don't know that doesn't prove anything like in terms of like the bigger picture, but it is something. Oh, yeah. The issue here is all of these guys. Oh, oh, I'm sorry. Hold on. I completely forgot to tell you this. Abdu-Sahmatov. Oh, man. You know what's crazy? What's that? He gets his money from donor stress. Oh boy. Oh, yeah. Noticing a real trend here. Uh-huh. But you know what? You don't need to worry. You don't need to worry. I'm not worried. Well, because nothing unusual

is happening. What? Me worrying? We escaped the ice age. There was no big deal. That's true. Yeah. Yeah. It's quite literally hundreds of factors that influence the climate. So right now, they're trying to analyze what's going on. By some estimates, we're at 100 year or more sunspot low activity and many people are predicting a coming cooling. Just the last two years, I've seen a significant drop in temperature since the height of the last ocean cycle. See? Yeah. Now, don't worry about it. Yeah. 100 year low of sunspot activity. Okay. Proved it. All right. Don't need to worry. I'm not worried. No, no, no. You shouldn't be worried. You're getting very defensive about how little I need to worry. You shouldn't be worried at all.

I'm thrilled. No, no, no. And let me tell you something. Nothing unusual is happening. Nothing out of the ordinary. Wouldn't the low, like the all time low of sunspot activity, shouldn't that in and of itself be abnormal? Nope. Nothing unusual. It's very normal for the sunspot activity to be 100 years low. Uh-huh. No. Everything is happening normally. Nothing unusual is happening. Whether it's hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, extreme weather is actually on a stable or declining trend on climate timescale. It comes out of the sun, doesn't it? I mean, it's- Oh, boy. Guys just sounds old. His voice is old. It comes out of the sun. Uh, the hurricanes come out of the sun. Uh-huh.

I don't know. I mean, I think that, uh, that's wrong, right? My data, the, in terms of, like, the severity of, uh, extreme weather that we've, we've seen over the last, I don't know, 10 years or so. I mean, it's been quite an escalation. Oh yeah. Uh, in not just that, but, uh, as the earth is warming, uh, in the past, uh, let's see, between 1958 and 2007, the amount of rain falling in the heaviest storms has risen by nearly 20% in the States. Uh, that's the, uh, or no, I'm sorry, that's from 2007 to, uh, 2018. That is 20% uh, or no, I'm sorry, 20% rise since then. That's three times as much as the rise between 1958 and 2007. So in 11 years, the amount of rain, uh, in the heaviest storms has basically tripled.

I don't understand what you have against water. I don't know. Water is delicious. I don't know. What am I going to say? Now, according to the national climate assessment, a team of more than 300 different experts in, uh, various fields relating to, uh, measuring extreme weather events. Um, the northeast, just the northeast, has seen a 74% increase in the amount of rain and snow falling in the heaviest storms everywhere. Yeah. I mean, you see that in like Boston and New York have had those like really terrible, uh, blizzards. Oh yeah. Yeah. Now, does Mark Moreno cite anything? Wait, hold on. Yeah. I just remember that that song, 10th Avenue Freeze Out by Bruce Springsteen,

that has a really great saxophone solo. 10th Avenue Freeze Out. That song's about a fucking snowstorm, air ghost, snowstorms have always been bad in New York. There's nothing to worry about. Absolutely. See what I'm saying? 100 year low in sunspot activity. That's how you know that hurricanes don't happen anymore. Look, if they're bad enough that the boss is going to write a song about it and how that's when he met the big man where it's Clemens, that means it's always been bad. It's always been bad. It's always been bad. This is all just, much to do about nothing. Everything is cool. No. Everything that he is doing now is shit that he has written about in his bullshit book. Right. Um, do you know who he cites when he cites,

when he says in the, in the book, this is true? Bruce Springsteen. Please say Bruce. No. Clarence Clemens. Please say Clarence. Uh-uh. His own website. Ah, yes. Yeah. That's the, that's the intellectual version of self-dealing. Yeah. No. He literally cites his own website for saying that extreme weather is stable. Well, man, I think Alex does like citing infowars all the fucking time. Exactly. Yeah. Do you understand why I picked this guy? Yeah, totally. There's a lot of connections. Oh, hell yeah. The same sort of, uh, uh, intellectual ethical standards and stuff. And yeah.

He's just rambling off things, saying them assertively and calling it reality. It's, it's painfully easy to trick someone like Pat Robertson. I don't think Pat Robertson does. I don't think he's being tricked. Yeah. I don't think Pat Robertson gives a fuck. Nope. No, no. He just needs to fill a show. Exactly. Yeah. Yeah. He's just old. Yeah. And wants that money. He wants a hundred trillion.

But here's the craziest part. Just like Bruce Springsteen proved, of course, that it's always been bad. Absolutely. Scientists know that it's always been like that. You know what else to the Bruce Springsteen taught us? What? That that blizzard that caused the 10th Avenue freeze out. Yes. That song isn't really about the blizzard.

What's it about? It's about me and the big man. So if that storm hadn't happened, him and Clarence Clemens wouldn't have gotten together. The big man wouldn't have joined the band. 1.8 million people are not going to freeze this year. Yes, but 2.8 million people are going to find a sex player and it's worth it. That's the unaccounted for cost. The benefit thing here. Exactly.

Yeah. I'll tell you, one of the biggest things that he has that I absolutely despise. An ego. Is exactly like Alex, where it is just he's doing so far. Here's what he's done. This isn't a problem. Right. It's all a lie. Right.

Even if it was a thing, which I'm not saying it is, we couldn't do anything. Don't even entertain the possibility that it's a thing. 00:49:18,640 --> 00:49:19,920 It wouldn't matter even if it was. Yeah, and the thing that people are trying to do about it, they're just trying to steal your sovereignty, bro. Right. Absolutely. Here's what's even worse.

They're making this whole thing up. Scientists are making it all up. No. Yep. We have a warm period from about 900 to 1300 AD. This was considered the climate optimum. That was the use. Word was optimum.

And we had the Renaissance. We had all this crops and vineyards growing. And England had booming production. And then in recent times, they said we have to get rid. UN scientists said we have to get rid of the medieval warm period because we didn't have coal plants and SUVs. And it was inconvenient to explain how something could be as warm or warmer than today. So they went back in the data and they erased the medieval warm period.

They erased the 1930s in the United States as the hottest decade. They went back and cooled the past. They could do that. Yep. See, earlier he said that witches thought they could control the weather. Right. Yeah, there we go. They just erased the past.

Yep. They erased the 1930s as the warmest decade in American history. Yeah. The medieval warm period. Mm-hmm. Did you hear about the medieval warm period? I don't think I have heard of it. I've heard those words used before.

Right. Now, what do you think is specific? Like in the medieval warm period, those three words, what do you think is an important word there? Evil. Exactly. Witches. Witches.

Yeah. Maybe that's why it was warming because all the witch activity back then. Well, they were burning all of them. Absolutely. Of course, they put all that witch into the air. All the potential. Everybody knows witches are the worst greenhouse gas. Totally.

And all the potential energy that's in your cells and stuff like that. It's released when you get burned, especially if you're a witch. Yeah, I mean, it makes total sense. I'm going to write a book. Green house witch gas. Now, the reason that it's important to take a look at the medieval warm period is because when you say medieval, you're describing not just 400 years from 900 to 13 AD. You're describing 400 years in a certain place.

Right. Europe. Exactly. He is basically saying, see, in 400 years, it was really warm for white people. That means the climate is wrong. That's the whole thing. Pages. I also, I don't understand why do these guys think that scientists get together

and they're like, we got to remove this warm period. Yeah. We got to take it away. Witch scientists. Who? No, witch scientists. Witch scientists. Damn it.

It always comes to you. You answer your own question. Yeah, that does seem like the sort of thing that no one would get away with. It seems like at least one scientist would be like, huh, you guys have changed this data and it would be the biggest deal in the world. Exactly. Past global changes or pages, as they call themselves, they support research that understands the environment, not just now or the way it's going on,

but they try and go back as far as possible. So they've taken ice core samples, tree ring samples, pollen, stalactites, more stuff to see what the overall climate at the world was at that time. And it's fine. It's exactly what we would have expected it to be. There's no medieval warm period for the earth. It's just for Europe. So when he says, in a certain sense, he does have it right.

Scientists went back and changed it to correct it. Well, in essence, give it context. Exactly. Yeah. It's the same rise in temperature that we would have expected to see because humans were doing shit. Even back then, anthropogenic global climate change was part of the deal. It proves a consistency to the data.

It proves that there isn't some sort of hidden, like this is part of the natural fluctuation of things. It fits in perfectly with the rest of the data that we see from previous climate tracking. Right, right. All they're doing is taking this small little piece of one small little part of all the research that has been done, and they're calling it a proof that global warming isn't real, or proof that climate change isn't real.

That is what they do. Oh, and the organization that has really been touting that medieval warm period, they received $532,000 from Donors Trust. Of course. 00:54:02,960 --> 00:54:04,640 They might want to erase that history. Are you seeing a pattern? Yeah, yeah.

Firmly established pattern. I don't know if I can make this any clearer. Yeah. I might hammer on this. I mean, it deserves to be hammered on. All this stuff, it traces back to very similar people who want that rhetoric in the world because it makes it harder for them to do the business that they do. That's where the money that comes into the Donors Fund comes from.

Right. Comes from people in fossil fuel industries. Absolutely. It is one of these things that I, you know, you kind of know. You already know that all of these guys are pretty much paid shills the whole time. You kind of guessed that. Yeah. I went through the citations in his book, and I tried to find anyone.

Anyone who did not receive money from Donors Trust or Americans for Prosperity or all of those things. Yeah. There were no sources cited that did not, that any source that he had that said climate change was not real or not an issue or should not be attacked or that it's actually sunspots or anything like that. All of them, all of them received money from these organizations. Yeah. It's like all people on the same team using each other's information to reinforce

their ship. Exactly. Absolutely. But you know what? No big deal. No big deal. No big deal. Something happened in 2007, 2008.

Really pissed everybody off. Can't think of what it was. I'm guessing that the cheeky way you're saying that is that is Obama. Oh yeah. Okay. A recent president who said global warming was the greatest threat facing civilization. And it's a tragedy that there wasn't enough pushback on President Obama for saying that. It's the greatest threat we face.

It's tragedy. It is tragic. Also. I think there's a ton of pushback where I'm sitting. It seemed like it was quite a bit. Yeah. To the extent that he was unable to really make any kind of, not any kind of, but meaningful progress.

I have one question about that clip. How old does Pat Robertson sound? Do you think Pat Robertson forgot Obama's name or literally cannot bring himself to say Obama's name? I think he'd be like, they just can't. No, he can't do it. It's ridiculous.

Absolutely fucking insane. And it's all, it's so much of this is directly from people hating Obama. What the? And around that time, like Al Gore had gotten out of politics and was working with that, that organization that was like trying to be like an incubator and a funder of a lot of like green technologies and stuff. And so that also probably led to, it didn't help. No.

With these, these folks, sort of a perfect storm. No, but if like, what happened at that time was the perfect like mixture of these right-wing think tanks, absolutely like piggybacking on people hating Obama and throwing in the climate change stuff with it. That's why it all happened around 2007. The whole reason that all of the climate awareness and all of this stuff dovetails with everybody hating Obama is because of a concerted effort to put the two together, to make sure that people who like people in Miami, people in Florida,

they're going to lose their homes, their lives, everything as the sea levels rise. Parts of Florida will no longer be there. Yeah. And those people are oftentimes right-wing. Yeah. And it's interesting too, because it's not as like, you know, a compelling narrative you might want to say is like, these people just hated Obama. And that's why they funded all this money.

But the reality is that Obama was pushing for an agenda that would hurt their business. So it's less like, you know, so much of the time on our show, it's like fear of a black president. That sort of thing motivates a lot of people. Right, right, right. But in this case, it's so clearly just like money, bottom line related. Right. Yeah, it's a bummer.

I mean, it's so simple too. Like it really, like a lot of that stuff really is super simple. Oh yeah. A lot of the science is fairly complicated. Like it's even for me, like one of the reasons that it's good for you to do an episode like this is I get a lot of the climate change science, but I don't get it. Right. I don't think that I could credibly have a conversation about it.

And I think a lot of people are that way. But the business side of it and this sort of stuff is very simple to understand. And it should give people reason to be like, and now hold the fuck on. Who are you saying these things? Does that in some way invalidate the message that you're bringing? And I think I think it does. Oh yeah. I think it and that's not to say that someone who accepts money from the Koch brothers and like

that or one of their foundations or funds, that doesn't mean that everything they say is wrong. It just means that when you hear someone saying the things that they're saying and they have the funding of someone who has a business interest in the message that they're putting out, it behooves you to find out if they're lying. Right. It should be like a call to action for everybody. You know, like, you know, if you see that connection, you've got to double check things. Absolutely.

Can't take it just a face value. Oh, it gets worse. Oh boy. But like we've said so many times before, this is all normal. Nothing's unusual. Nothing. Earth's climate changes all the time in history, Dan. It's no big deal.

Changing climate is in the history of the earth. Right now we're in probably the 10% coldest period in the earth's geologic history. In other words, 90% of the earth has been warmer than today. We have not had it where we could have ice at both poles like we do now. So geologically speaking, nothing unusual is going on. So how old is the earth, Dan? Uh, was it 6,000 years? Something like that?

I think, right? Roughly. The young earth theory is the correct theory. Do you know what's crazy? Even if that was right, the point still stands. The point still stands. It's actually 100 trillion years old. Yeah.

100 trillion? That's old. Almost as old as Pat Robertson's voice sounds. So if you're going to say in the entirety of the earth's history, 90% of it has been warmer. Right? So you're talking about five billion years. Yeah.

All right. 90% of that, what do we got? Four point something? 4.5 billion years. Right. Yeah, yeah. You're trying to just prove you can do math. Well, I had a rough go of it last time.

Drupke's post really got to you. Right. So now he's talking about 90% of the earth's history when it was completely and utterly uninhabitable. Then you're talking about, uh, him saying, oh, well, we didn't have ice at the earth's poles. We had one giant fucking continent. The earth was absolutely hotter back then.

Pangaea. Exactly. Now, changing climate is absolutely in earth's history. This is the first thing he said that is unequivocally true. Let's go through some of the times that the climate has changed. Let's. During earth's history, we have had a lot of life and we've had a lot of not life.

All right. Life always flourished when there's a balance between CO2, greenhouse gases. There was a ton of methane in the air during the Cretaceous period. That wasn't that big of a deal because during that time, there was also a shit ton more oxygen. So plants grew so much bigger. That's why we could support dinosaurs being as large as they were.

So life flourished. Then the idea of supporting dinosaurs getting big. Then you're going to get that big. You got to get it. You're all get a job. You dinosaur. Yeah, that makes sense though. And a lot of the things that lived back then had different

central nervous systems than we do. You know, a lot of the insects and stuff like that were able to thrive back then as opposed to a lot of primate life. Right. Now, what happens when you see rapid climate change, similar to what we're experiencing right now? When you go back through history and you see the history of climate change because again, the earth climate has changed a bunch of times.

What happens? Oh, I thought you were going to just answer the question. I didn't know you wanted me to answer. I'm guessing a lot of things die. 450 million years ago during the middle Cambrian period, a mass extinction occurred. Guess why? Meteor sent here by God.

Massive climate change. Yep. Due to an increased amount of, yeah. Uh, during the Permian era, around 250 years ago, a mass extinction occurred. Guess why? God Meteor. Yep. In the Triassic, around 200 million years ago, a mass extinction occurred.

Guess why? Uh, lost a battle with ashore. All of them were absolutely losing a battle with ashore. A rapid jump in global temperatures, rising sea levels and ocean acidification. Yeah, man, I went to the Chicago Museum, the Field Museum, not too long ago, and went for, they had a big display or big, big installation about the various extinctions over time. That was something that was very clearly a piece of the, uh, the information

that was on display in the, uh, in the museum. And then if you go through the entire thing, you get to the end and then it's like, Hey, guess what? We're in one right now. Are humans going to be one of these species? They go, we're the only ones who are cognizant of the fact that this is going on and historically hasn't yet. We don't do anything.

Yep. It's weird. It's weird. Everybody, everybody pretty much knows. Like it's awful. It is awful. Good news is though, Antarctica is growing, so we don't need to worry about it. Well, it's because there's plants to support it.

No big deal. Yeah. Everybody knows that it's growing so much. Guess what's happening? Antarctica, the South Pole, NASA study shows it's actually growing the ice, the land-based glacier ice has been expanding and it's contributing to a sea level lower. Before I respond to that, is that true? Antarctica is actually growing in land mass.

It is not growing in the sense that glaciers are being rebuilt and the like. Okay. Walk me through that. So, the seas are not lowering. No study shows that. It seems, yeah, that's my sense of it. Not even fake studies. Not even the studies that are funded by these people to prove that global, that climate

change isn't real show that the seas are lower. Nothing. He's just making that up. He's just making that up. Cool. Now, Antarctic sea ice is growing. There are a lot of explanations for that, but mainly it is surrounded by a polar current that separates it from the rest of the way that the oceans are functioning.

There's also more snow on Antarctica, which if you have a bunch of snow packed on top of ice, it's going to keep it colder for longer, so it's not going to fall apart. Now, this argument, however, is stupid because since the late, well, actually since the 70s, the Antarctic has gained about 7,300 square miles yearly, which is pretty cool, right? I guess. I don't want to answer. It could be a really bad thing, right? In that same time, no, no, no, that is a good thing.

Okay. In that same time period, the Arctic, however, has lost about 2,100 square miles per year. A lot of it's moving south. Yeah, not enough. Retirees going to Florida. It's a snowbird. Yeah. Absolutely.

It is fucking stupid to make that argument, not just because the sea levels aren't lowering, but because even if Antarctica was growing enough, the Arctic is losing 10 million, so much more ice per year than the Antarctic could ever grow. It is a lie on both fronts. Now, would it be a big deal if there was a one-to-one, like the Arctic just completely melts off and all of it, the South Pole gets all of it? Gets all of it. Gets all of that ice.

I don't think that's how that works. Just spores the ice. How does it score the ice? I don't know, but like. Does it steal it? Would that, would that be okay? I'm asking your permission to do this. Would it be okay?

Yeah, I'm asking. Do you want to do it? I'm asking specifically, yeah, I have a super villain plan. Do you want to get some dump trucks together? 01:07:24,800 --> 01:07:27,840 Get all the ice that the Arctic is losing and then move it down south? We're probably going to need like cargo planes, but yes, absolutely. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Maybe some ships. Like I got some Somali pirates. Well, you got to give it up to him. If they're saving the ice, man, you got to give it up to him. I don't know. Yeah, he's just lying. Okay. And that's.

I'm used to that by now. I know, but it's, it never ceases to amaze me the way this guy lies, because he is a fucking sleazeball. I'm guessing unlike the situation between Rihanna and Eminem, you do not love the way he lies. I don't love the way he lies. No, I do like the situation between Rihanna and Eminem. Okay.

I think they have a strong relationship. Absolutely. Yeah, that's a, that's a lot of people say a relationship should be built on enjoying the way somebody lies. I mean, the two of them, they, they helped each other make peace with the monster that lives under their beds. That's true. They've done a number of songs together.

I just realized. Anyway, I don't know why everything is music references for me today. I don't know. That's fun. Yeah. Turns out what I don't have to prepare all I know is songs. It is because this is something that he absolutely knows is not true. Right.

It's not based on anything. He's like the scientists that he imagines erasing the history. That's kind of what he's doing, but with facts. Like he can't know that. He can't know that the sea water levels are not lowering. Right. He can't know that and still make the arguments that he makes. Therefore, he has to not know that.

Exactly. Yeah. That's called lying. He can't know how much ice the Antarctic is gaining without also knowing how much ice the Arctic is losing. Right. Because those can only exist in comparison with each other. Otherwise, you're just saying, well, I guess the Antarctic is getting bigger.

Like and you, nobody, nobody has put together a study that is just about that without pointing out how much ice we're losing. Right. Because it's important context. Right. Yeah. The only people who point out that the Antarctic is growing. I think I know what you're about to say.

Well, do you know what I'm about to say? I have a, I have a premonition. They are not using their own information. What they're doing is they're taking studies that other people have done. Who are those people? Real, legitimate scientists. Okay. Who are researchers.

No. Yeah. And they're taking the half of it. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Every study that they put out that says, look, see, we can prove the Antarctic is growing is based off of the same data from scientists who say, who have been proving the Antarctic is growing and the Arctic is dying. And they're trying to figure out why there's the difference between them.

There are a lot of different explanations, but ultimately what these people are doing is fake research. Yeah, selective information mining. Absolutely. But you know what this really comes back to? What's that? Comes back to Gore. Because Al Gore also featured him saying that we need ubiquitous fertility management.

In other words, we need to prevent the number of Africans because he says Africa is projected to have a huge population increase. Yep. I'm not sure what he's saying. I'm not sure what he's saying that Al Gore is saying. I'm not sure anything that's going on at this point. What he's saying about Al Gore is that Al Gore says that in order to fight climate change, we need to give ubiquitous fertility management.

We need to control the population of Africa. Or provide them with birth control options. Well, do you want to hear the actual quote? Yeah. That Al Gore said? Yeah. The real quote is depressing. I will control Africa.

It's kind of. I will get the jewels. It's actually very similar to that. He's good friends with Bob Chapman. The real quote from Al Gore, from this interview that he's talking about. Depressing the rate of child mortality, educating girls, empowering women, and making fertility management ubiquitously available so women can choose how many children and the spacing of children.

Yeah. I mean, that's how it always goes. Yeah. I mean, whenever these people are lying about like they just want to control the population and all that. So it's always you dig into it and you always find that it's like everything they're talking about is providing the option, the opportunity, the availability for people. And so this is a this is a very tired argument.

Oh, yeah. Of these, these, these right wing dicks. Oh, yeah. It's a bummer. It's a bummer because it really would be revolutionary aid to people in developing countries like the ability to not be like just have random family management. Yeah. That sort of thing would be super helpful.

Absolutely. And that's why people on the right aren't interested in that kind of aid. 01:12:34,240 --> 01:12:38,560 Because then the developing countries would develop further and that become a problem. Yep. They'd have their own industries that don't rely on the pillaging of American and European companies. Right.

This guy. Colonialist powers. This guy is basically saying that Al Gore wants to control the population of Africa through eugenics. Right. And Al Gore is actually saying I think we should free people. Yeah. That's how it always goes.

Yeah. Yep. People suck. Yeah. Al Gore is involved. You know who else is involved? I don't know. Everybody.

But it goes all the way to the top. All the way to the top. We've got the scientists getting rid of all this data. We've got Al Gore arguing for eugenics. There's nothing to worry about. Don't tell me Will Smith is involved. $100 trillion. This guy is a millennial though.

I'll tell you that right now. And sadly and unfortunately Pope Francis has lined himself with advisors that have a similar mindset. He's done very anti-Catholic doctrine with his advisors. He's a Jesuit, right? I mean. Anti-Catholic doctrine. Okay.

So. Wait, the head of the Catholic Church is anti-Catholic? It goes all the way to the top. Oh my God. And do you know why? Do you know why? Because Pope Francis said we should worry about climate change. Yeah.

Yeah. We're going to have to get into Vatican III for you soon based on how bad this is turning for the conservative folk. There's going to be another sism. Yep. And it's all because of climate change. Right. All of this stuff is, I just, I love it whenever anybody throws in the Pope.

Like this entire interview has only, you know, like he's just making false bullshit and just saying it out loud. And then all of a sudden he's just like, and you know what? Pope does it too. He knows that Pat Robertson's an evangelical and has a healthy distrust. That's true. On healthy distrust of the papists and shit like that. I didn't even think of that.

That's a good point. 01:14:34,400 --> 01:14:38,240 He has a real skepticism of Catholicism. So it makes sense that he would try and throw that enemy in. Yeah. I didn't, I didn't even consider that. Yeah. Of course, he's just talking to his audience.

That's, that's fair. Good for him. Yeah. Good for him for really playing Pat Robertson like an idiot. Yeah. This guy would do well at a stand up open mic. Yeah. Oh yeah.

He's got Al Gore. Right. He's got the Pope and he's got all these scientists who are changing data. Have you ever heard that 97% of scientists agree? I have heard that. That climate change. But I've, I've generally heard that from people like him who are attacking that. From what I understand that number, there's nuance to it.

That's not as simple as the 97% number. But I'm going to bet that you're going to tell me what the truth is. Well, there are some shocking things that Mark is about to tell us. Oh boy. And Al Gore claimed back in the early 90s that there were no science, that all scientists agree. Now this 97%, I point out in the book in one of the studies, wasn't even 97 scientists.

They actually had 77 scientists anonymous. We don't know who they are and they claimed a 97% consensus. They didn't even get 97 scientists, Dan. That's fun. The 97, because I've always wanted to look into the 97% thing. Because you listen to that, even if you are on the left and you are like, not a climate change bullshit fuckface, you know? You're, you look at that and you hear 97%.

You're like, that doesn't, I mean, I guess. Who are those 3%? It's, yeah. And it's also a symbol. It's just a symbol of like, look, this is overwhelming consensus. The 97% number isn't as important as the symbol that it represents. Yeah.

So the 97% number is actually based around 2 studies. Naomi Oreskes put together a 2004 study that produced the first 97% result. Hell yeah. What she did was she analyzed around 1000 studies that mention climate change. Of the studies that found a result and then supplied an opinion. So they went through their information. They found this change or this thing. They confirmed or denied this thing and then supplied an opinion as to why it was going on.

Of those studies, 97% agreed that anthropogenic climate change is the case, is real. What she did though, she did a like Nexus search of, not Nexus, but you know. Yeah, yeah, yeah. The simple search there of papers looking at keywords, peer reviewed papers. She wound up throwing away half of those papers because they didn't. Fit the criteria. Exactly. They didn't really matter.

And then she disqualified the ones that came up with a like. Inconclusive results. Exactly. And then didn't provide an opinion. Mm-hmm. You know, we don't know and we're not sure. Right. That's not useful for her, what it would be, overview.

Exactly. Exactly. So at the end of the day, she got 97% of those papers. All of them agreed that anthropogenic climate change was the truth of it. The driver of, yeah. So it's not exactly like that's 97% of all scientists. In 2013, John Cook and the people that were working with him at the time, tried to repeat that study and they found almost exactly the same result.

Using different studies or okay. Using different studies and they went through the, what is it, the abstract. So they didn't even bother with like finding a result or anything like that. Just what did these guys summarize their findings as? And 97% of them wound up being anthropogenic climate change. This is, the reality of the 97% number is closer to this. If you were to survey climatologists, people who only study the climate, not just climate change, but just like, hey, all of that stuff.

The real number would be, if not 100%, 99.9%. Right. If you study, if you go through all non-climatologists, everybody who is considered a scientist and doing research that is related to climate change, you get closer to like 92 to 95%. But again, of all of those studies, the only people that will come out on record, the only people that will come out publicly as, and like advertise their research, guess who funds their studies?

I have no idea. Yeah. Yeah, you do. No idea. Yeah, you do. No idea. Yeah. So the 97% claim is both true and, I don't know, almost less impactful.

Because you would rather hear them say, 100% of climatologists, the people whose entire lives are dedicated to studying the climate, agree that climate change is happening. Yeah. But I bet that some of that 3% isn't even like denying climate change as anthropogenic. Right. Like I imagine some of it is just ambivalent, neutral results in their commentary or whatever. Like we weren't able to find any evidence of this, but it, you know,

it doesn't disqualify the possibility. Like that sort of thing. Well, that's the thing. In the Naomi Oreska studies from 2004, when she was going through the papers that qualified, she did include the ones that supplied an opinion. And the opinion genuinely was this is not attributable to anthropogenic climate change. But that doesn't mean that anthropogenic climate change isn't a primary driver of climate change. Exactly.

So yeah, I mean, that doesn't, like that 3% is probably even like, that's an illusion in and of itself. Exactly. Yeah. This whole thing is, it's just manufactured in a way that is so fucking disgusting. It really is. Yeah, it's just tasteful.

Because the argument that you would come back to, right, is I say, oh, the only scientists who come out on record is saying that it's not anthropogenic climate change. They're all paid by, right. And then the right wing would come back and say, well, You're a conspiracy theorist. No. You hate business and sovereignty.

Well, of course they would say that. Right. But they would also say like, oh yeah, well, these scientists are paid by George Soros or whatever it is like that. The biggest difference is that a climatologist would still be studying the climate. If climate change wasn't happening. That's true. That's their job.

The climate deniers legitimately would not have a job if there was not climate change. The climatologists would still study the climate. Yeah. There's a parasitic relationship. Exactly. It's a good hustle. Yeah. They probably make a lot more than us.

They absolutely do. Jordan, new idea. Start denying climate change. I don't think, I think it might be a little too late in the episode for me to get there. Yeah. Yeah. I realize that now. Yeah.

This is probably going to look bad if we do make that pivot. Try and court some donor fund money. But. Well, I've significantly proven my points and now I shall deny climate change. Much like. Now that I've got it out of my system. Now that I got Bjorn Lomburg money coming out of here. Bjorn.

Yeah. Now, what do they use the 97% claim to do? I mean, what do you, what do you, who, who, just, what, what does who use it for? I've asked yourself that question. I just did. I asked you that question. Everybody. Okay.

Everybody. They use it to do something. And a UN scientist said the 97% claim was pulled out of thin air. They're used that to bully people. In other words, you don't know about, you don't know enough about science. You can't challenge it. It's like. Bullies.

There's such bullies. Bullies. There's such bullies. I could not find a UN scientist who said it was pulled out of thin air. Lord Moncton. Okay. Well, I suppose that might actually be the. Fake Lord Moncton.

He is cited in his book. He is cited in Mark Moreno's book at least 15 times. Yeah. Oh yeah. Of course he is. Crazy old Cooke Lord Moncton. Oh yeah. It's just.

That's scamp. This, this infuriates me because his book opens with the line. I am not a scientist. That's a good start. That's a great start, right? Yeah. Climate, the politically incorrect guy. I am a hatchet man.

Yeah, exactly. I am a hack. And they use it to bully people. Well, I mean, there's that. And then also in that clip, you know, the idea, the unnamed UN scientist is also probably pandering to Pat Robertson because he's an anti-UN guy who believes it has to do with like the coming revelation. So the anti-Christ kind of nonsense.

So I think that is also him playing the room a little. I would be interested to ask him who he's talking about because if you can't find an example of who he might be talking about. I mean, you do make a good point. It probably is Lord Moncton. Because he does show up at the UN and cause trouble from time to time. Right, right, right, right. He does get kicked out of conferences.

Right. But it is. And he was invited to one not too long ago. But it is that like an unnamed climate scientist. Generally, I find when you don't name something, it's because you don't want people to be able to look into it. Yep. That's generally speaking, when you're making a persuasive kind of speech,

you don't use specifics. It's because you don't have the specifics. Uh-huh. That's what I've learned in the last two years. Oh yeah. Yeah. That's, it is, it is ridiculous to me that this guy, because this guy has not just done Pat Robinson's show.

This guy has been on actual TV. I honestly also think he's been on Infowars. You think so? Yeah. The more I hear his voice, the more I'm sort of like, I think I know this guy. I just hate it. He's such a used car salesman. Yeah.

I despise his voice. It seems to that like, and you know, we're not listening to the whole interview, but these, these glimpses that you provided definitely, it leads me to believe that he's, he's not engaging with the full argument he's even trying to make. There's a lot of like, look over here, look over here. All over the place. Yeah. Yeah.

And this is almost the full interview to be, to be honest, we've, all I've done is I've found out. Pat Robinson isn't known for his in-depth. Right. Exactly. It's not like his questions are probing. He's just throwing up softballs, you know, like. Then muttering.

Is, is Mars getting colder? No, cool. Exactly. Yeah. That's right. Mars is so cool. And so all I'm really cutting out of this interview is like him going, and the scientists, like that's, that's really what I'm cutting out.

Yeah. Yeah. There's a few chunks where it's like, I don't need to find you, you pull your bullshit. You know that's not true. And even while he's saying completely not true stuff, the stuff that I cut out was him like almost winking to the audience, like with a giant neon wink sign of like, you and I both know this shit isn't true, but we're all here together, like that kind of stuff. All I wanted to do is grab the stuff that it sounds like he's really trying to sell you on.

Like all of the stuff that I've grabbed so far, he really wants you to believe it, you know? Like what do you get from his tone of voice and assholery? All I remember right now actually is just the fighting the shore, the visual of that. That's really all that I'm going to walk away from this with. Oh my God. It seems like I am taking on your role. Not listening at all. You son of a bitch.

But I value it for that, you know, that's a, that's a, I'll probably dream of that later. But the real villains. Oh boy. The real villains of this whole thing are now, no, no, no, weather comes from the sun. So we like that. According to Pat Robertson, it all comes from the sun is out of pocket. So we should be mad at it.

What did you mean? An out of pocket expense? It's not covered by a line. Oh, okay. I got you. Yeah. Well, it's a 100 year low sunspot activity. I think we've been doing a great job now.

Kick it up a little bit. All right. All right. But just like the scientists who snuck in and removed the 1930s. Those were villains. Those were villains. There's an even smaller core of scientists who are even worse. Ganondorf.

And I'm going to tell you their biggest crime right now or actually Marcus. And Tess, well, it's actually, I point out a core of activist UN scientists, people like Michael Oppenheimer, who took money from Barbara Streisand, quarter million dollars. Whoa. Yep. Barbara Streisand. Barbara Streisand the whole time.

Holy shit. Uh-huh. Oh, yeah. I didn't know it went this deep. Oh, it goes all the way to the Pope. To Babs? And Barbara Streisand. Oh, God, not Barbara.

Do you know what? Do you know it's my favorite part of this quote? This quote comes from one place. Or the Barbara Streisand thing. Was it from Aaron Russo? Comes from one place. Senator James Inhofe. Oh, Jim Inhofe.

That motherfucker. Yeah. Or Inhofe. Yeah. 01:28:51,120 --> 01:28:51,680 Yeah. Yeah.

01:28:51,760 --> 01:28:52,320 Yeah. He's also one of Alex's sources about, uh, uh, martial law being threatened. Uh-huh. It's just like that. 01:28:56,960 --> 01:28:57,600 Oh, yeah. That guy's a dick. He's an absolute dick.

Yeah. Do you want to know who wrote his speeches? Aaron Russo. Nope. Oh. Do you want to know who wrote his speeches whenever he said that Barbara Streisand was behind a core of climate activists? Fuck it.

It's Mark Moreno. It is Mark Moreno. You son of a bitch. I thought there's no way that's who it is, but it's gotta be. It's totally him. Yup. It is 100% him. Mark Moreno.

This sneaky asshole. Yup. I wrote the speech to this other guy to deliver, and then I cited it. Yup. That's no one knows. And when Barbara Streisand was asked about it, she was like, first I heard of this shit. That's a crazy magic trick of propaganda.

01:29:37,280 --> 01:29:38,800 He just hates Yental. Wow. Wow. Wow. That's pretty cool. 01:29:45,200 --> 01:29:49,440 I mean, like in terms of when I look at, like Alex doesn't have the ability to do something like that.

Uh-uh. So seeing someone who got a fucking senator to say something so he could then use it for his own. Yup. Like that's awesome. 15 years later. 15 years later. Awesome.

No one else has said Barbara Streisand. I looked it up for forever. I think she's a super left leaning celebrity. For sure. She's a, she comes up as a target. Yeah. For sure. But she has not given a quarter million dollars to literally anyone.

Not Oppenheimer? Nope. Uh-uh. Any relation to the nuke guy? I am probably the destroyer. I wouldn't be surprised, but I don't know. Oh, but we got to talk about the heroes, Dan. Do we?

We got to talk about the heroes like John Wayne. John Wayne and a quiet man. Single men fighting against a system that is designed to destroy them. So we have all these activist scientists being paid by Barbara Streisand with that Yental 2 money. Right. But we have some heroes. Also, by the way, a quarter of a million dollars isn't going to do shit.

We're really burying the lead on that. That is, that's not that much money in terms of actually going through with like a high-level study. Let's go. Let's. The amount of funding that these fucking places need to operate like actual labs and science, like there's endowments and like there's so much anyway. Let's just go back.

Donors trust gave Americans for prosperity 30,962,331 dollars. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Um, so we have these hero scientists and that's just stuff you can trace. Yeah. Like there's even more going around that's, that's not on the books or it is on the books, but it's like covered by free speech kind of ideas.

Pretty much. Yeah. Pretty much. Money is speech. Dan talked a lot about a donor's trust. It's true we have talked a lot about how these guys give these money, but they're giving it to the heroes, Dan. Okay.

And there are a few scientists who are willing to buck the trend. Really thrilled to hear that. And one of the scientists, a Princeton physicist I point out in the book, he says we're currently in a carbon dioxide famine on earth. Sounds like Alex. Famine. Yeah. We're a carbon dioxide deprived.

Oh. I think actually now that I hear him like do this again, like this unnamed Princeton scientist, I think it's also him just realizing that Robertson doesn't give a fuck. Why should I say the name? He doesn't care. Right. It's not going to mean anything to him or his audience.

Nope. So maybe that is a real scientist. This guy is a real scientist and I looked him down or I looked him up. I found him. Looked him up and down. I looked him up and down and I found him wanting. This dude is a fucking monster. The Princeton physicist he's talking about is a doctor.

Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Yep. Yep. Webster Tarpley. No. Wait, he went to Yale. Yeah. Never mind.

He got a forestry degree, I believe. That's right. Yeah. He started forestry. This guy is Dr. William Happer. Actually, he got a degree in Robert Forestry studies. Speaking of old movies. Do you know what's crazy?

He found Forester. Yeah. Bolt the door. If you're coming in. Punch the keys. Damn it. That's, I always, anytime I'm typing, I'm always like, You're the man now, dog.

You're the man now, dog. That trailer played a million times in the lobby of the theater I worked in. I'll never, I'll be 70 years old. I'll still be able to just rattle off. You're the man now. You're the man now, dog. Just what a fucking terrible movie that I thought was good. That movie, god damn.

Yeah. Well, our boy, the Princeton physicist, is Dr. William Happer. Okay. He is, by all accounts, a really good physicist. All right. Yeah. I'll buy it. That's cool.

Princeton is not like, incredible. No, he's a really good physicist. He was also the director of the George C. Marshall Institute until 2015. You know about them, right? Nope. The George C. Marshall Institute was about two things. Strategic defense. And beerpaw.

And science policy. Pretty much. It's pretty much. But in 2015, the strategic defense part of the George C. Marshall Institute was like, we got to get away from Dr. William Happer. Do you know why? Because he's a fucking crazy climate denial monster. And they were like, we're not getting, we're not getting shit because of you,

because you're so fucking crazy. So he split the George C. Marshall Institute and he took over the climate science part and created the CO2 coalition. That, as we go along in, let's see, when the George C. Marshall Institute closed down in 2015, it had, it had to because it was only taking in $300,000 in donations. And expenses were at about $500,000. That's untenable. Yeah.

Now, this year, or actually last year, according to the CO2 coalition's nonprofit exemption application, they will receive a total of $1.5 million in gifts. It's a bit of a jump. Yeah. And it only spent about $1.1 million. That's also a jump. Uh-huh. Now.

Don't do it. In 2015, Happer was the target of a sting operation, Dan. Oh no, was it O'Keeffe? Uh, no, it was even worse. It was a green piece sting operation. Oh, nice. Here's the short version. These activists posed as your Koch brothers or the like.

And they went to him and they said, we're gonna, we need a study that proves what we want it to prove. And he said, I can do that for you. You got it. I can do that for you. And they're like, how much do you, how much do we need to pay you? And he was like, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. We got to avoid the look of impropriety.

However, if you were to make a donation to the CO2 coalition, well, then it's all on the up and up. Right, right. This is the absolute hammer. All of these people are paid first and then they do their studies. Right. That sting operation has been played out over and over and over again. So when I say like donor's trust is funding these studies, they're not funding them before the research happens.

And they're funding it with the explicit understanding that the study will find the conclusion that is desired. Exactly. Which is why you pay up front. This is why you pay up front. And when you're saying that this sting has happened over and over again, I believe that it's probably like happened a bunch of times with people doing sting operations. Yeah.

But then the exact same thing, but without it being a sting operation happens over and over and over and over and over again. Oh yeah. It's how the bread gets made, as it were. Now, that was done in 2015. How do you think a CO2 coalition is doing now? I bet they got a... Well, actually I would bet, it's tough to predict because the world is so stupid.

Like you would want to say he's in prison and that the thing is shut down, but because we live in a dark, dark timeline, I would say he's probably super rich and they're making way more money. Oh yeah. 2018 has him getting close to a million dollars this year or that year. All right. I'm sorry. The 1.5 million dollars that I was referencing was between 2016 and 2017. So that was two years.

Right. This year he has grown even more. Oh, okay. Yeah. Almost a doubling. Well, 33% or so. Exactly. Don't judge my math.

His quote, which I find very funny, in an interview he said, Well, I don't think that the laws of nature, physics and chemistry have changed in 80 million years. 80 million years ago, the earth was a very prosperous place and there's no reason to think it will suddenly become bad now. Prosperous is a weird word. I mean, I agree with him. I mean, in terms of the like laws of science and physics haven't changed.

We didn't, you know, those are just immutable. All of that is true. But his conclusion is so vague as to be meaningless. I still like him more than Bjorn. Yeah. Bjorn is a piece of shit. Nothing is going to touch Mark Moreno's tricking Jim Inhofe. I know.

That is like. Isn't that solid? That's a revelation. That is solid. God, it's like a triple Lindy. Very impressive. Oh, yeah. Let's see.

Who else? Oh, just to hammer this point home. Happer as publicly praised. Let's see. James O'Keeffe multiple times. Seems like he wouldn't want to praise people who do the things that got him into trouble. Right. Mark Moreno publicly praised James O'Keeffe.

Of course. Many, many times. Of course. So these sting operations, yeah, they work. They're great. But we have got a very strong female lead coming up. And surprise, Mark Moreno is not stoked about that. I interviewed the UN climate chief.

She said, Christina Figueres, we seek a centralized transformation that will make life on planet earth very different. That's the UN climate chief. I don't see anything bad about that sentence. Nope. He's saying it like it's some sort of really evil sentiment. And I just hear that. I hear like, yeah, yeah.

I think we do need to fundamentally change a whole bunch of the decisions that we were making. We didn't realize we're bad. Uh-huh. Oh, yeah. Christina Figueres is fucking dope. She has had a badass career at no point in time has she done like she is one of those characters, but more especially the current UN climate chief is Patricia Espinosa.

And she has also had a cool ass career. One thing that you can go back through with the UN climate chiefs is that they have ultimately I believe it's climate chief. Ah, I apologize. You're actually attorney's general. Right. As they are given very, very little power. They have no ability to really affect anything.

All of them though have come to this position through being fucking amazing at their jobs. Like these are people who are career diplomats and career scientists who all have given a fuck the whole time. Like for instance, with the current climate change, climate chief, Patricia Espinosa, she has been a career diplomat for Mexico basically since she was like 25. She's worked nonstop for women around the world. Everywhere she goes, she has had a positive effect. And it is Patricia Espinosa, who a lot of people give credit to getting the Paris Accord

done before she was the UN's climate chief. She would go through every place that she could. She has an unimpeachable record. Her fucking sales pitch to all of these people was incredible enough that people give her a top honor in terms of getting the Paris Agreement signed. That is who this guy is saying is very bad because she said things will make life on earth different. Yeah.

That's it. A different doesn't mean worse. Nope. No, it does not. Well, let me tell you something. Guess who this guy here? Oh, worships. And it's not just Senator, Senator James Inhofe.

I don't know if he even worships that guy. It seems like he just used him. Yeah, I would say that's probably right. Baz Skaggs. Once he stopped being Inhofe's aide and speechwriter and shit, he almost immediately started climatedepot.com. And that was entirely because his connection to Inhofe led him to his connection to donor's trust.

Right. All of that stuff. That networking, that beltway networking. Oh, yeah. And he is, we cannot get to DC. We gotta go to DC. We would be eaten alive. Yeah, probably.

You know who else was eaten alive by DC? Who's that? We'll find out. Scott Pruitt, Donald Trump's EPA chief has done what no other Republican EPA, he's stood up to the climate change establishment. Okay. Yeah. Scott Pruitt.

He's a man among men. Scott Pruitt is a piece of shit. I didn't realize this interview was that current. Uh-huh. This is from 2018. This was like maybe five years ago or something. That's crazy. This was last year.

This was when Pruitt was still the EPA head. Right. So it does put it in that time frame. Yeah. Who of course was eaten alive because he's a giant piece of shit. Yeah. There are some fun things that I found out about Scott Pruitt. Everybody, if you don't know the evil that Scott Pruitt has done, not just,

not just his like scandals in the cheating and stealing and misusing public funds and fucking everybody over for no reason, Scott Pruitt has destroyed the EPA from the inside and it is only going to get worse. Uh, but if you are, you know, everybody already knows the scandals and shit. So I wanted to look more into Scott Pruitt and uh, he and I shared some of the stories or something, uh, that is deeply close to my heart, uh, which is the love of Jameson and ginger baseball, a love of baseball. Scott Pruitt had a moment that I liken to Hitler getting denied from, uh, uh, art school.

Mm hmm. Like he was, he was asked to try out for the Cincinnati Reds. He was a second baseman and if he had made it, we would not have had to deal with Scott Pruitt at all. Well, we might have just on our fantasy teams have to deal with his, uh, pretty much shitty wheels. Pretty much. Yeah.

Uh, he played baseball for Georgetown, uh, and his, uh, teammates gave him the nickname the possum. That's not a bad name. No, it's not. Well, just like a baseball player. Linguistically, it's not a bad name, but it does seem to imply traits that aren't conducive to baseball. Also second base is like, you can't just slouch on that base.

You know, there's a, there's a lot of plays that happen that involve second base. Second base is where you hide the coach's kid. Well, it's not like, like right field. No, that's where you bury somebody. No, that is not. No, right field is where you bury a, uh, uh, well, you can put somebody in left field. That's not that good, but you, you bury somebody in right field, uh, you know, only because they're an amazing hitter.

Whereas the second baseman is the coach's kid. The second baseman is the kid who like, he's all scrappy. He works real hard. He's got all those intangibles, but he hits 240. Those are absolutely not traits that I associate with the coach's son being scrappy and trying really hard. That's, uh, well, that's in baseball. That's, that's what, uh, whatever.

You don't want to put him in the hot corner. You don't want to put him on first. Uh, uh, no, you definitely don't. First is where you get interesting. There's a, you know, the more we think about it, there are very few unessential positions in baseball. This has been my Ted talk about baseball. All I know about baseball is from watching a little bit of it, playing fantasy baseball

with my buddies, knowing nothing about baseball for like two years and then winning the league. Winning the league, of course. And, uh, Torrey Hunter is great quote. Baseball is a hard game. First you got to hit a ball, then you got to get it passed like nine dudes. Torrey Hunter was cool. Which I think is a great, uh, encapsulation of the sport. I like that.

Uh, yeah. Scott Pruitt is a giant piece of shit. Did you find any of his like stats? Uh, no, apparently, because it did come up to me. Remember when we were talking about Ron Paul, uh, playing congressional baseball? And he hit the only home run. Well, no, that we found out that that's not true. Other people have been home run since then, but he's the first one.

Okay. Um, but also like, I thought like, there's no way anyone's going to have records of this. There's records of that. Oh yeah. And Ron Paul was apparently pretty good. Alex wasn't talking to all that much shit. Oh yeah. So I wonder what Scott Pruitt was like, like, do you have any steals?

Well, you got to try out from Cincinnati. Couldn't have been that bad. The Cincinnati, no, no, no. He was actually, uh, everybody, everybody said he was a, well, yeah. He was a, he was a pretty good baseball player. Um, could have made the show. He, you know, he was, uh, he was, look, if you hit like 300 in college, it doesn't translate to the, to the matrix.

Certainly not. Now you got to hit like 450 to, to really get, uh, out of there. But, um, Scott Pruitt grew up in, uh, Broken Arrow, Oklahoma, which is a rich ass suburb outside of Tulsa. That's where John Travolta grew up. Now it is. He was in that movie Broken Arrow. Wasn't he?

Shit. Maybe fuck. I don't think so. I don't know who was in that movie. No, no, no. John Travolta was in Broken Arrow. Oh, okay. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. You're right. My reference was very unconfident. Now I'm nervous because I might be wrong. Now I'm Mandela affecting you. Oh no.

Bernstein Arrow. Action. Well, actually it was, it was Nicholas Cage in Broken Arrow, but this was after faceoff. So they had already switched. Oh, that's right. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. Easy to make that mistake. Um, the reason that it's fitting that Scott Pruitt grew up in Broken Arrow, is because Broken Arrow got its name, uh, because that is one of the places that Andrew Jackson hounded Native Americans to during the Trail of Tears. Yup. And Broken Arrow was then once again stolen from the Native Americans by energy and oil interests in Oklahoma.

And Scott Pruitt is doing, or did everything possible to continue that legacy. Was it a situation where his family was in those businesses and that's why he was growing up there? Uh-huh. Okay. Oh yeah. You kind of get that sense. Oh yeah. Scott Pruitt, and this is the thing that I am, like, of course this is true.

Scott Pruitt is a member of First Baptist of Broken Arrow, which is a fucking mega church. Right. It is a disgusting fucking monstrous place. Uh, to give you an example, one of their pastors is, uh, Adam Maske and he is like the cool pastor. He's got tattoos on his arms. He's the one who's outreaching and he's like, look, I've been in the shit, man. I've been doing this. That's a 17 year old girlfriend.

Yeah, exactly. He recently wrote, this is recently, this is like two days ago. Whoa. Yeah. Very recent. And this is on a blog post, so you know we got all caps going on all over the place. Hell yeah. I'll try and, I'll try and read this in the all caps that he wants it to be.

Okay. Pride arises out of doubt that God truly makes a better God over our lives than we do. But can you start that over? Sure. I wasn't distracted by the yelling. I was just distracted by the structure of that sentence. Exactly. I need it one more time.

All right. Pride arises out of doubt that God truly makes a better God over our lives than we do. Okay. I track it now. Do you get it? Yeah. 01:50:19,680 --> 01:50:19,680

01:50:19,680 --> 01:50:19,680 01:50:19,680 --> 01:50:19,680 01:50:19,680 --> 01:50:19,680 01:50:19,680 --> 01:50:19,680 01:50:19,680 --> 01:50:19,680 01:50:19,680 --> 01:50:19,680 01:50:19,680 --> 01:50:19,680 01:50:19,680 --> 01:50:19,680

01:50:19,680 --> 01:50:19,680 01:50:19,680 --> 01:50:20,180 Yeah. 01:50:20,180 --> 01:50:20,180 01:50:20,180 --> 01:50:20,180 01:50:20,180 --> 01:50:20,680 Yeah. 01:50:20,680 --> 01:50:20,680

01:50:20,680 --> 01:50:21,180 Yeah. Uh, adultery! Sex outside of marriage! Wait, wait. The sex outside of marriage is all caps too? Cause I, oh yeah. Cause I was thinking that at this point he's just gonna capitalize all of the seven deadly sins. No, no, no.

We're not doing. Pride and uh, well I guess adultery isn't one of the sins, but you could say that's the most. Oh, we're doing all caps and this is, this is what this is about. Okay. Uh, adultery, sex outside of marriage, homosexuality, all lusts stem from the doubt that God's plan design for physical intimacy is to be between one man and one woman in the confines of marriage. So they're great. Don't fuck.

Yep. I mean that, that doesn't like, I know that, that uh, is, is not great and you never like to hear it, but that doesn't stray too far outside of like the sort of things you hear in a lot of churches. So like. Right. No, no, no. That just seems like a, you know. No, I just like adding that on there because you know what Scott Pruitt's done.

Oh, and one thing about Scott Pruitt is that during his run for attorney general, he took a lot of money from. Don't do it to him. Please hammer. Don't hurt him. Don't stress. Of course. Yeah.

So every single fucking one of these people is being paid deliberately, deliberately to destroy any and all opposition to. Probably there's someone who isn't, but we don't know who that person is. No, that's what I'm saying. That's why when I'm, when I'm looking at that study about the 97%, you know, and they say, you know, it's almost 100% of climatologists, which, you know, if there's a thousand climatologists, one of them is going to take donor's trust money.

Sure. You know, like, of course you're going to make a study that says not, but even when you factor in like meteorologists who are some of the worst offenders of like, weather's different. You're fucking calm it down. Stay in your lane. Calm it down. Yeah.

But even, even amongst all of those, nobody is going on record. Do you know what I mean? Like the people who are going out and talking and making their stuff public, they are paid. If the people who are, you know, when you go through that 97% study, their claims weren't that climate change is not anthropogenic. Their claims are in those studies. This is not attributed to anthropogenic climate change. So even those people.

It's not a denial. It's in it. This isn't provable. Or maybe even like slightly relevant after we've gone through the actual study. Exactly. We might just be looking at a variable that isn't a piece of this, but that doesn't disprove the anthropogenic aspect. Exactly.

Yeah. I know a lot of the information in this episode is of course repetitive. I'm sorry. No. I know. It's repetitive with a purpose though. Like it's not like you're just saying the same thing over and over again. It's about different people throughout the story that, you know, you repeat because it's

like driving home the point. All of these people are ill actors. They're bad actors. Yep. When you, when you act from a position of bad faith and bad acting, you can't do anything good. And that's what these people are. So repeating stuff is just reinforcing that. It's the argument that people make so often of like, oh, 97% doesn't mean anything.

You think 97% of scientists agree that we had a heliocentric universe? What about Galileo and all of that stuff? What about the great man theory of science where it's one dude bucking the entire trend? When you go back and you look through all of those different things, you'll find that the reason those one men were, those one guys, those, those great men were bucking trends is because the trends themselves were based on entrenched power. Yeah. And entrenched power controlled 97% of science at the time.

Whether it be through the church or the, you know, corrupt state or whatever. Right. Yeah. And they were doing exactly, you know, if you want to talk about the flowering of the Renaissance, those were commissioned pieces, you know. So much of that was, I am telling you, I want this to be true. You make it true. You make it be proved that this is true.

And those great men people were the ones who were like, no, go fuck yourself. That kind of thing. As science evolved throughout this time period, it's gotten away from that universal control by powerful interests. And now a scientific consensus means infinitely more than it did 50 years ago than it did 100 years ago. Yeah. So when people give you that like, well, Galileo was all out on the bun and on his own and all that

That's because Galileo was acting in the spirit that the scientific consensus is acting now. Yeah. And the ratios have changed. And that's not, that's not even taking into account the mythologizing that goes on of those, uh, those great men of history and stuff like that. The stuff that's not strictly speaking true. Right. The only, the only great scientist that I can think of that acted almost utterly singularly

without a input from, without like constant input from other scientists without a constant exchange of information. That's obviously general stubble button. Pretty much. No, it was Isaac Newton when he wrote Principia Mathematica. That was the only time in scientific history I can think of where it was like, this dude just fucking did that shit by himself. What an asshole.

Yeah. So my point is I think pretty clear, right? I think so. Did I make it? Yeah, I think so. It's interesting to me, like now we've come to the end of this. There's a lot of stuff that I'm shocked he didn't bring up, you know, like the climate gate stuff and those emails that were misinterpreted and things like that to hide the decline nonsense.

Right. Like I expected to hear some of that because I mean, he's hitting a lot of the normal bases and you'd expect to hear that. And it's interesting that's absent in here. I don't think it's a failing in any way of his or ours. But you know, there's a lot of things that I expected to come up that didn't. But yeah, I think your point is very, very well made that this guy, Mark Moran, is an asshole. He's a complete piece of shit.

And seems to be playing fast and loose. He did give me that great visual metaphor. But man has always been battling the shores. But that to me is that that's the example of like an accidental good, you know, he's acting in bad faith, but it accidentally the fruit of that vine. Yeah. One of the one of the apples wasn't poisoned. But I guess, I guess we have a website.

We do. It's knowledgefight.com. I think we have a Twitter. That's right. At knowledge underscore fight. I think we are on Facebook. That's correct. You can join our group, go home and tell your mother you're brilliant.

What if you went to iTunes? Would you be able to find us? If you subscribe, all that stuff. Please do. This has been fun, man. It's very foreign to me. The this changing roles and I'm glad we did it. But I'm also glad the next episode will switch back.

Yeah, same here. This needed to happen and it does not need to happen again. Oh, but I'll tell you one guy who though he has metaphorically poisoned an apple, which would kill a guy, he has not literally done that. That's Mark Moreno. But I'll tell you one guy who technically probably killed a guy, though not necessarily with a poison apple. That's Alex Jones.

Andy and Kansas, you're on the air. Thanks for holding. Hello, Alex. I'm a first-time caller. I'm a huge fan. I love your work. I love you.