PBD Podcast - The Truth About Greenpeace w/ Dr. Patrick Moore | PBD Podcast | Ep. 171

Episode Date: July 14, 2022

In this episode, Patrick Bet-David is joined by Dr. Patrick Moore and Adam Sosnick to discuss Climate Change and how we can fix it. TOPICS 0:00 - Start  21:54 - Is the earth headed for another ice age?  32:15 - What is the maximum number of people the globe can handle?  38:50 - What would happen if the population were to double in size?  51:18 - Do our presidents and world leaders care about the future? Or just their time in office?  58:02 - The importance of sustainable energy  1:06:35 - Do 'climate skeptics' need better marketing?  1:21:38 - Reaction to the Texas telling citizens to stop using power  1:32:52 - Why is Trump going after Elon Musk?  1:41:09 - Vinny visits Nancy Pelosi's office  1:48:19 - What is going on in Sri Lanka? Get Dr. Moore's book "Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom": https://amzn.to/3yF4H8L Follow Dr. Patrick Moore on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3AK778V For more go to Dr. Moore's website: https://bit.ly/3o44CXe Text: PODCAST to 310.340.1132 to get added to the distribution list Patrick Bet-David is the founder and CEO of Valuetainment Media. He is the author of the #1 Wall Street Journal bestseller Your Next Five Moves (Simon & Schuster) and a father of 2 boys and 2 girls. He currently resides in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.   To reach the Valuetainment team you can email: [e-mail] --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/pbdpodcast/support

Are you out of your mind? Here's the debate. You're upset. They're saying we believe you. This is it. I thought that. Oh, my. BEEP.

BEEP. BEEP. BEEP. BEEP. BEEP. OK, today is what? Episode number 171 with Dr. Patrick Moore. If you don't know who Dr. Patrick Moore is,

Canadian industry consultant, former activist and past president of Greenpeace Canada, and he left, and he has a lot to say about climate change. He has a lot to say about anything related to climate change. And I told him before we went live, I said, look, we have one basic outcome on today's Zoom, today's podcast, it was basic, right? Now like we're not that ambitious.

Small little thing we're gonna speak of. Our goal is by the time we're done to solve every issue in regards to climate change because it is a bit concerned. So Dr. Patrick Moore, thanks for being on the podcast. Thank you for having me, Patrick. Very nice to be here. Yes, Patrick and Patrick, we're gonna figure this out, guys. Yeah, like what I said, he looks like a Patrick, I don't be here. Yes, it's a big deal. Patrick and Patrick, we're going to figure this out, guys.

Yeah, like what I said, he looks like a Patrick. I don't look like a Patrick. There's a big difference. A Sir Patrick, if you will. So, you know, if you don't mind for the audience that doesn't know your full background and what you did to come about the current philosophy that you have in regards to climate change,

would you mind taking a minute or two and giving your background to the audience? I grew up on a floating logging camp on the Northwest tip of Vancouver Island in the rain forest by the Pacific Ocean. I didn't realize how lucky I was surrounded by forests and tide flats and ocean rivers, trees everywhere. I didn't realize how lucky I was until I was sent off to boarding school in Vancouver at age 14, a very good school where I learned cityways and also discovered life science.

And that made me realize that I had always been innately in love with nature and with life. And I excelled in that, went more to the life science side, biology, forestry, genetics, human evolution, all these subjects. And I've studied them ever since. It's all I've ever done. While I was at UBC, University of British Columbia, doing an honors combined bachelor science in biology and forestry, I discovered ecology. That word had not yet been printed in the popular press. It was an obscure science word. Of course, environment

was becoming discussed a lot in the late 60s when I joined my PhD program in ecology. And after about two years, I learned about a small group that had started to form in Vancouver called the Don't Make a Wave Committee, planning a protest voyage across the Pacific to the Aleutian Islands to protest US Hydrogen Bomb testing. We took on the world's most powerful organization, the US Atomic Energy Commission.

We're followed by the CIA all the way across the ocean and arrested by the Coast Guard. So we got on Walter Cromkite's evening news. And that was the beginning of what Greenpeace became famous for in those early years was going to the scene of the crime, going out into the ocean and getting in front of the Harpoons, which I did for four years in a row in the summers. And it just was amazing journey. So I spent 15 years in the top committee of Greenpeace, first as a director of the founding group, Greenpeace

Foundation. And then as an international director for the last six years, I was there, campaigning all around the world. We took on the campaign to stop the slaughter of a quarter of a million baby seals still nursing on the ice flows off Canada. That was more of a humanitarian issue or a humane issue about wildlife.

We wouldn't do that with deer. We wouldn't kill the babies when they're still nursing with their mother. So, after that, though, we really got serious about toxics. And, whereas, I was the only international director with any formal science education. You don't have to be a marine biologist who won't want to save the whales. You don't have to be a nuclear physicist to want to stop nuclear war. But when it comes to chemicals, diseases, and toxic and health, and all of that,

you do need some science. And two things happened as Greenpeace grew. First, it grew into more of a business than a campaigning organization. Because now we had 2,000 employees and we had to raise enough money to pay them their salaries. So your priorities start to shift a bit. Secondly, Greenpeace decided to describe humans as the enemies of the earth, whereas we had started off with a strong humanitarian

vision as well as environmental. The peace in greenpeace is to stop humans from destroying themselves with nuclear war, so we had to care about people. But in the end, the environmental movement decided to characterize humans as the enemies of nature. In other words, we're the only evil species. All the other ones are good. And that's way too much like original sin for me. I'm not a fire and brimstone kind of guy. I believe that humans are part of nature. Well, because

they are, that's why I believe they're part of nature. And there's way more good people than there are bad people. I suppose there's bad animals too, like rogue elephants. I know for a fact there's bad animals. I mean, that's just, I've had experience with some of them. But we go back to so, Greenpeace, and as a kid, were you the kid that was about saving the planet and hugging, were you a tree hugger, were you the guy that would walk up and see a tree and you'd hug a tree,

and you're like, I can't believe they're, will you the guy that would walk up and see a tree and you'd hug a tree, and you're like, I can't believe they're doing this to the planet, these rich people, they're doing such bad things that made you want to go join Greenpeace. Like, was that kind of, if I was to, you know, follow you back and we had content on you at 14, 15, 16 years old, was that you? No.

My father was the logger, and so was I. So were all the people around me and fisher people, too. So we knew that you had to take from nature in order to survive. And there's simply no question of that. And that's why these campaigns today to stop using energy are so stupid because there's 8 billion people. And so I have a balance about this. It's not a one-sided situation. Of course,

we have to protect the planet. That's what feeds us. But we also have to keep ourselves alive. And people don't understand how short a time it takes for you not to have any food before you disappear from this life. Because nobody's experienced it much in recent years. But we're now facing a situation where a huge number of very powerful organizations and elites at an international and at national levels are calling for policies that are basically a suicide pact, basically a death wish of some sort. And it's true, they might not want to say it out loud, but there's a lot of people who

think there's too many people. And I think that's ridiculous myself. We're quite well off now than we were before. Just 20 years ago, we're better off now with the technology and the knowledge of science we have. Dr. Moore, you're saying these organizations or these corporations, who are you referring to? You're talking about the world economic forum.

Who are you referring to? Well, let's start there, yes. Okay. So you probably have some choice words for Klaus Schwab, I assume? Yeah, the guy who said we'll own nothing and be happy. Yeah. And can you put up this picture so people know

what he looks like? It's a sweetheart. Go ahead. Yeah. It's a sad situation that we have come to. I didn't realize it could possibly ever get this serious as I've gone through like 45, 50 years of evolution with this train of thought. And when climate change first came up as an issue,

I realized that we were being duped and it was all about money. 80% of all the science research in the United States is in universities. They have basically become money-milling machines getting government grants to tell the politicians what they want. What the politicians what they want.

What the politicians want is stories that make people afraid. So you're driving down the freeway in your SUV, you're afraid you're killing your grandchildren. That makes you feel guilty. That makes you open your wallet and send a big check to green piece. The politician then exaggerates that in the public. The media exaggerates it, the activists exaggerate it. And the scientists are the silent part of it in a way because nobody sees the money going from the politicians

to the scientists, it goes through bureaucrats at state, city, national, international levels. And that money is meant to create narratives that will scare people and that makes them easier to control. It's as simple as that. And of course the media machine on a global basis now is one of the most influential and powerful things in everyone's lives. And some people choose to listen to the lies that are coming from the mainstream media instead of actually interpreting it for themselves from what they see. Like how can there be 25% of the population in the United States that thinks Biden's doing

a good job? How does that happen? Why is there two? Never mind. 25% of the whole population. The most popular president of all time. How could you say that? That's right, I forgot that.

Yeah, I shouldn't ever get that again. But, okay, so, but I wanna go back to what he's asking. So, you know, I gotta, so while you're asking the question and you're saying what you're saying, I said, my mind immediately went to a correlation between population increasing in the world and, you know, temperature, climate change, all that stuff. And then I wanna know, what is the capacity

of the most people that can live in the world? So this article came out. Can you zoom in a little bit? This is an article from four years, three days ago and I just kinda wanna get your feedback. And I literally just looked at this one he was speaking. How many people can Earth support? Because I just read an article last week that says,

it's projected that we're gonna hit 10 billion by 2050. I don't know if you saw that or not, by 2050, we're gonna hit 10 billion. Okay, 10 billion is what? Roughly two billion more than what we have today. Give it take, 7.87.9. We go to 9.89.9, 2 billion more 10 billion. Okay, are we really gonna see the difference in traffic?

Are we really gonna see the difference? What does that really mean to us and where we live? So pull up a little bit, keep going up. So when you read this, it says around three, and by the way, I want you to correct if anything here, I'm reading that the guy got wrong. So there are nearly 8 billion people living on Earth today, but our planet wasn't always so crowded.

We're on 300,000 years ago when homo sapiens likely first appeared, our total population was small around 100 to 10,000 people. Okay. There were so few people at the start that it took approximately 35,000 years for the human population to double in size. That's a long time.

According to Joel E. Cohen, head of laboratory and population at the Rockefeller University and Columbia University in New York City. After the invention of agricultural, agriculture between 15,000 and 10,000 years ago, when there were between 1 million and 10 million individuals on Earth, it took 1,500 years for the human population to double. By the 16th century, the time needed the population, for the population to double, dropped to 300 years. After the turn of the

century, it took more than 130 years. Go a little in the 19th century. From 1930 to 1974, the earth's population doubled again in just 44 years. But is the human population expected to continue growing at this rate? And is there an upper limit to how many humans our planet can support? In 1679, Anthony, then Lewin Hoke, a scientist and inventor of Microsoft, microscope predicted that Earth could support 13.4 billion people, according to Cohen, he calculated that Holland occupied one part in 13,000, four hundred of Earth's habitable land.

And so, multiplied Holland's population of 1 million people by 13,400 over 40 years of research has collectics. Okay, so this is telling us we can handle 13.4 billion, but the reality of it is there is a capacity and there was a very legendary song that came out, you know, 25 years ago, that would say, you know, me and you are mammals. Let's do it like they do on Discovery Channel. What is it, how does it sound cool? I think I was a song by the President of the United States

of America. But what is the name of the, how does it go? Mammals we can do, like, I'm not interested in that. You've got to get the lyrics. Yeah. Let's do it like we, they do on Discovery Channel, right? Me and you.

Massive hit, I don't know if you're familiar. Anyway, it's a very bad touch. But what's the lyrics? Can I read the lyrics? Because it's very serious conversation. So you and me, baby, ain't nothing but mammal. So let's do it like they do on Discovery Channel. This is a fact.

Dauka. And a fact about the Bloodhound gang. I apologize. This is not going away. So if we're going to keep having sex and most people don't like condoms, okay, and there's only so much you can take nowadays to prevent from pregnancies unless if you want to be a dictator and say in one child put like China did for many, many years, we're going to keep continuing to grow.

So if we keep continuing to grow, is it something that we just sit there and say, let our great, great, great, great, great, however many greats that we have to say, let them deal with this. We don't need to do nothing about it today. Or do we sit there and say, you know what? I know I'm never going to meet that kid who's 20 generations away from me. But how about I figure out a way to make something a little bit better? So his life is going to be better and he's going to get an opportunity to do whatever he's going to at that time.

Should we look at it from that perspective? Well, it wouldn't make much sense if he never got to be there in the first place. Would it? How are you going to help him then? You know, that's one important question. Which means what? Which means if you stopped him from being born by some law. That's a completely different conversation.

Yeah, you went, you went elsewhere, which is great. We can get back to that. But the only way to find out how many people the planet can support is to see how many people the planet can support. I'm not saying I'm in favor of that. But the good news is, is that the wealthier people get if you're a children they have.

And it is projected that the population will level off, perhaps by as soon as 2050. Africa is a bit of an exception. It's projected to continue to grow in population because and you look how big Africa is to start with. It has a pretty low population for its geographical size and potential for agriculture at this point. Did you just, I don't want to cut you off, did you just say the wealthier people get the less children they tend to have? Yes, really.

Well, it's true in all the... Well, you really surprised or? I didn't know, yeah, I actually am surprised because I mean, you're having more children these days than wealthier, you get. Well, no, I would have 30, but I didn't know that. There's exceptions. Process that though, process that, process that process that like because kids call so much money

You're saying no no no just think about like look around who has the most babies Mormons huh Mormons religious people okay, so but Orthodox Jews but look communities look ethnicities look families look like you know Who has the most kids, you know, certain communities you can go into and say, oh my gosh, they have nine kids. I grew up in a family with this many kids, so that is true. The more money you make, the less kids most people want to have. Interesting. That seems a little counterintuitive because it costs about a quarter million dollars.

I would have 20 kids. From zero to 18. Statistically, that's... That most of the wealthier countries had a negative population growth just given their own Internal populations Most of those countries populations are only growing because of immigration That's when you say wealthier countries. I mean who are the wealthiest countries in Europe? United States China

China's if you look at the per capita wealth of China, it's nowhere near the wealthier countries. Per capita, there are rich people, there's lots of billionaires, that's because there's so many people there. It's just a fact that the wealthier people get. I just pulled up the 20 countries with the highest population growth in 2021, and it validates what you're saying.

Wow, very interesting. I think it's like 20 out of 20 countries, if you can look this up. Third world what you're saying. Wow, very interesting. I think it's like 20 out of 20 countries are all, if you can look this up. Third world countries are saying? No, it's Africa, specifically Iran Africa. That's what he's talking about. Please continue. So I don't think, you know, there's been a lot of discussion

about this all through recent history, about whether or not there should be some effort to curb the growth of human population. That requires draconian rules, such as the one child policy, which China has now eliminated. They've realized that was not a good idea because people were purposefully killing girl children

in order that they could have a boy. So. And Pat cites all the time that India's population is growing exponentially. I have reached a comparison. Average age is 20. Average age in India is 26.4, 27 years old. Exactly.

They're at 38. We're at 36. But the China is... Another one of the most interesting things though. I mean, I see there's really two main sides to this whole story of climate change. And that is the climate change issue itself, the climate of the earth, and the energy issue.

Those are two sides of the same coin, because it's energy that's being blamed for the climate emergency, which is a total hoax. There is no climate emergency is where you start with that one, and I could go on for a long time about that. But you've got a teenage girl from Sweden coming out in front of the United Nations as if she's some kind of expert on what's going to happen in the next hundred years with the climate of the Earth, which is about one of the most complicated systems there is in the universe.

I mean, there are so many factors involved. And even the intergovernmental panel on climate change, which is the supreme international body on the subject, has twice stated in its full reports that because of the climate is multifactorial, in other words, there are many factors involved. Non-linear. In other words, these aren't in straight lines. These factors have all kinds of different formulas that you can't just predict a straight line out of any of them.

And most importantly, the climate is chaotic. And chaotic is a mathematical word. It means you can't see through it. It means it's unpredictable, like the turbulence in front of a boat. That is chaos, because you can't predict the shape that those bubbles are going to go in. It's chaotic. And so they say, therefore, future climate states cannot be predicted. They say that,

and yet they go ahead and predict them with computer models, which is like pretending you have a crystal ball. The crystal ball is a mythical object. You cannot predict the future with a crystal ball because it doesn't actually exist. But these computers do exist. But everybody knows garbage in, garbage out. So as if you put your own assumptions into a computer model, it will come out with the answer you wish to have every single time. If you put the same numbers into a computer model a million times,

a million times you'll get exactly the same result. It's just a machine. It is not an intelligent being even. An intelligent beings have realized that because the climate is chaotic, it's impossible to predict it. We can go back in time, and we can go back half a billion years in time, with sediment cores from the bottom of the ocean, where you can see elements and isotopes, which can tell you what the temperature was a hundred million years ago, and tell you what the atmospheric concentration of CO2 was two hundred million years ago and tell you at the atmospheric concentration of CO2 was 200 million years ago.

We have that to look at so we can look at the history of the earth with many factors and see how it's been behaving. And we know it's been behaving in a way that does not link carbon dioxide to temperature. They are actually slightly negatively correlated in the long historical record. In other words, it is not a cause-effect relationship. There is some cause-effect relationship between temperature and CO2, and that has occurred during the last two and a half million years, which is the place to see an ice age. This is the irony of this whole situation. The world is colder now, during this last two and a half billion years, than it had been for the previous 250 million. There was no ice on either pole for 250 million years.

The previous ice age was called a caroo. It lasted from 350 to 250 million years ago. In other words, it lasted to 250 million years ago. In other words, it lasted for 100 million years. That doesn't make any sense to me. So let me challenge you on that. Okay, so you said that that ice age happened when and it lasted for 150 how many years? 100 million.

100 million years. And it was a. It was called a caroo. K-R-K-R-Double-O. How long ago was that? It began 350 million years ago and ended 250 million years ago. It's called a caroo, K-A-R-Double-O. How long ago was that? It began 350 million years ago and ended 250 million years ago and it's in Wikipedia and everywhere else in here.

No, no, I'm not questioning that. That didn't exist. But what doesn't make any sense is when that did happen, how many people were living on the planet 350 million years ago? Modern life was well established at that time. Forests were established. Animals were established. Insects were established. All the sea life was well established at that time. Forests were established, animals were established, insects were established, all the sea life was already established. How about human, like how about us?

It doesn't matter, we're a mammal. But wait a minute, I'm asking you a question. It does matter. It's context. No, let me tell you why it doesn't, because yourself, myself, and all of us in this room, and everybody in this world, and all the animals and plants all came from them.

No, that's not what I'm asking. No, you wouldn't be here if it wasn't possible. Of course, listen, you're on a podcast that you're going to get challenged if you're uncomfortable with it. I'm going to keep challenging you. So you can challenge me. I'm comfortable with this. I'm ready. So go on back to it. Do you think if I talk on my phone for 12 hours straight every day for two years, think that radiation is gonna hurt me a little bit? No, you don't think it's gonna hurt me at all. No. Okay, do you think the whole thing with radiations being near plants, nuclear plants or the wiring?

You know how five G you're talking about? No, not five G, I'm not going to conspiracy it down. I'm just going straight up like if you live close to Plants that have a lot of Radiation you think that's bad for you and I know at all zero Okay, no because they don't have a lot of radiation. They're shielded and they have less radiation than Standing near a granite wall in many cases. Okay. The granite has radiation in it. Do you think a guy who works near choppers and planes, there is side effects that's gonna hurt us hearing

over a time of 10, 20 years? Only if he gets hit by the propeller. There's gonna be hearing. I wasn't the army myself, and they would say, where are these things? Because if you okay, but sometimes eventually,

there's some side effects to it, right? Okay. There's no way I can compare how peaceful a building was with nobody working and living in it versus how peaceful a building is with 200 people living in that building. There's gonna be more things breaking with 200 people living in a building

than when that building was built up and nobody's living in it. There's gonna be things that's gonna happen happen, there's going to be deterioration because we're going to naturally do that. When I bought my house, my house was brand spanking, new clean, white walls, all this stuff. Come take a look at some of the white walls, see what my four kids have done, okay? The other one I'm like, what is this all about? Babe, I don't even know how they broke that.

Okay, we got to get a fix, right? Okay. So, I'm not sitting here saying, climate change is real, but I'm saying if I'm going to match data to data, you can't say data to data and there's no human, you know, mankind living here versus there's mankind living today. I don't know, this is not my world. I'm not a doctor. I'm not a scientist.

I'm not a PhD. I'm a person that questions things. To wonder, there has to be some kind of correlation here with what we're doing to hurt this, if we are in any possible way. So when you say that and you say, I say, jeal this stuff, I'm like, what come, but we were not around.

So we came around, things have changed ever since mankind started producing things. You could look at Dubai, what Dubai looked like 40 years ago. You ever seen a picture of what Dubai looks like today? And any of the same place place to complete a different place. So we have some kind of an impact on it. My question becomes as the following. What's the capacity in this building?

How many people can we? 100 people. 150 people. But how about if we really are super cheap and we want to max this place out? 200 people. 200 people. Can we have we wanna max this place out? 200 people. 200 people. Can we have 500 people working in this building?

Hell no. Is it no or hell no? It is hell no. It is hell no, I agree with you. They're having a nice building, just for the record. It's not what I'm saying, it has nothing to do with nice, but we have a nice, you know,

planet that we're living in. What's our capacity and what kind of a negative impact are we making into it? If any, that's my curiosity. Yeah. What's our capacity and what kind of a negative impact are we making into it if any? That's my curiosity. Yeah. Cities occupy about 2.5% of the land on the earth and the land is only 25% of the earth.

The other 75% is the ocean where very few people are living. So we have actually the people who live in the cities think the whole world is a city, I think. I think they never go outside to see what's out. They're a fly over it to see what's underneath how many farms and forests there are across the United States of America. I've flown over every country in the world practically. Let me give you one example.

Europe, the whole of Europe, like the EU, 200 years ago, was down to less than 10% forest. They had been using wood, but this is before fossil fuels were used extensively, so they were using wood for all their energy, for heating all their buildings, for making steel and copper and glass and steam engines. So they had started to deplete the forests, and the forests weren't growing back naturally as fast as they were being cut for industry and heating. And so, silviculture was born, the science of growing forests. And whereas agriculture started about 10,000 years ago growing food, it was not necessary to learn how to grow trees because there were so many of them, and so few people, that up until then no one had learned how to farm trees.

So silviculture began in Central Europe, in the eastern part, and today Europe has 43% forest cover, more than four times, nearly five times what it had 200 years ago. And that is the result of humans farming trees. And the trees are native trees. In some countries, they farm trees that come from other countries, what they call them exotic trees, like in South America, for example. There are really no native trees that are good for forestry because they grow too slowly. New Zealand is the same. A lot of the southern hemisphere has forests that grow very slowly, but they can import pines from California in New Zealand, Monterey Pine,

and develop a huge forest industry in exporting wood to Japan and China by the score, and at the same time creating a forest where there wasn't one before, because it had been turned into a grassland with sheep on it. And that's why New Zealand has so many sheep because it wasn't worth growing trees back on the land after you fell the trees for wood, so they brought in sheep. Now they're putting those same pastures back to forest in many cases. China and India have produced more new forest cover

in the last 50 years than all the rest of the world put together. And in fact, China and India are between the two of them emitting more than 50% of all the carbon dioxide in the world today. Therefore, they are contributing to the most, to the fertilization of the air with CO2 to grow more food crops and for us. That's why there's record harbours every year. About 70% of the increase in our food crops are because of additional carbon dioxide. And so now I want to talk a little bit about the science side of the climate stuff because a piece of wood is made from air. Only about 1% of it comes from the rocks. The rest of it comes from carbon, hydrogen, oxygen,

and nitrogen, all of which are invisible gases in the atmosphere. So life, its foundation of life, is taking its material from the atmosphere, not from the ground. People think trees are eating the soil. Trees make the soil. If it wasn't for the trees, it would just be bare rocks.

So the trees are actually producing the soil by taking gases from the atmosphere. The nitrogen has to come through nitrogen fixing bacteria in the soil, but it originates from the atmosphere. Are you saying that deforestation is not a major concern? Like, for instance, a lot of friends who in Miami here who are from Brazil, and if anytime you hear about Brazil, Bolsonaro, the president of Brazil, he gets a lot of flack for the deforestation of what they're doing to Brazil. You see, you know, in the Amazon, trees getting burnt down, you know, making way for more cities and more people. Are you saying that that's not a major issue?

The Amazon is called a human desert because there's so few people there. Hardly any Brazilians ever get to go to the Amazon. And so they're easily duped with propaganda about what's happening there. I've flown over it twice. Five hours it takes to fly over the Amazon. It's practically as big as half of North America, half the lower 48 states. It's a huge area. Less than 10% of it has been converted to farmland. The rest of it is still forested. That is a fact. And so I've actually toured the whole of Brazil. I went there from British Columbia

because British Columbia, or I'm from, that came to be a huge anti-forestry movement in a province where forestry is the primary industry and growing trees back. So I went to Brazil because they were calling BC the Brazil of the North as if we were destroying all our forests just like Brazil was. In British Columbia. Yeah, in British Columbia. Yeah. And in Canada in general, it was a big movement, green piece after I left it, started a big movement to ban Canadian forest products in all of Europe. Because we export a lot of forest products to Europe, seeing as though we have the second most number of forests in the whole world. The United States actually has the largest forest industry in the world. And the US South produces most of that wood.

But again, coming back to the hardly imaginable fact that wood is made with air. You're going to a different angle. I want to go a completely different angle. I want to go a completely different angle. And I really want you to help me out here. So based on your research, what is the measure? You said, two and a half percent of the city, right? I'm staying on this population topic.

What is the maximum capacity of human beings that can live on earth and we can coexist and everything is sustainable without it being insanity? What's the number? Nobody has a clue. Well, I think we do have a clue. We don't. How do you make a formula? But if that's your world, to me, if, okay, let's do basic math formula,

what do we have a clue? The way I would do it, I would say, okay, where can't men live? Okay, so maybe let's just say percentage of mountains, certain struggle, you can't live in mountains, you can't take those mountains. How many score feet is that? Okay, how many score miles that? Let's take this out. Okay, the world has so many total score miles. Here's how many score miles. We have fantastic. How much of it is water? Take that out. How much of feed is that? Okay, how many score miles is that? Let's take this out. Okay, the world has how many total score miles. Here's how many score miles. We have fantastic. How much of it is water? Take that out.

How much of it is this? Take that out. Okay, so we're really living with this many score miles. And then what is a two congested, is New York a level of congestion healthy? No, what is a healthy level of congestion? How about we do LA? LA is congested.

It's four or five is pretty bad, but New York is horrible. Can we do every city like New York? No. Okay, but give me that formula anyways that if every city in the world look like New York City, we can handle 22 billion people. I don't know, but I know we can figure out that mathematical formula. So then what that does to me is the following. Here's what I do. Again, purely thinking like an analytics guy that's's a financial guy Can you zoom into this real quick for me? Zoom in so the rest of people watching this as well can see it. Okay, so this go go a little bit more so we can see it Okay, this is world population buyer go down so that it can see what the top top. No, no the other way where the tops is what it is

Okay, worldometer world population by year 2020. We had around 7.79 for billion people. Okay Go down to when it was 3.7 million, 3.7 billion. Okay, so 3.7 billion was 1971, which is exactly 50 years ago, was 3.7 billion. Go down to see when it was 1.9 billion, okay stop. 1927, what is the difference between 1927 and 1971? That's what, 44 years? That's exactly 44 years.

So watch this, it doubled in 44 years, then it doubled in 50 years, so it dropped around 10%, 15% it dropped. Okay, go down, see, from 1.9 billion, when it was a billion. Okay, 1.9, okay, so it was a billion, 1804 to 1927 is what? Holy shit, that's 123 years.

Okay, so it's crazy. It took a long time to double there, between a billion and a half a billion was 1600. So that took how many years? 196 years, 250 billion is what? 900, that's how many years? 700 years, keep going lower, keep going lower, keep going lower. So 900, if you go to, you get the idea of what I'm doing with the math here.

At 5,000 BC before Christ was 5 million people. So we went in the last 7,000 years from 5 million people to 8 billion people. If I double that, if I double that, here's what it looks like. Let's double it. Let's play rule of 72. How many years is that? 7,000 years? 7,000 years. Unless it double it. So, 5 million goes what? 10 million, 20 million, 40 million, 80 million, 163, 20, 6, 40, 1.28 billion, 2.56 billion, 5, two billion, 10 billion. That's 11 doubles, okay? 10 doubles is what we're looking at. It took 10 doubles only to go from five million people to eight billion people in 7,000 years, okay? That to me, I sit there and I say, the following.

I say, Al Gore's full of shit. I say, AOC is definitely full of shit. The end of the world is in 12 years, foolish shit. But guess what? It has happened and eventually, if we don't do something about it. The end of the world, not the end of the world. Not the end of the world. The end of human population growth.

The end of the capacity, what our capacity will be. So then we can think like Dr. Evil. I can tell you one thing that explains why there went from $4 billion to $8 billion, for example. Why? It's called a Haberbosh process. It won two Nobel prizes in the early 1900s. It was a formula, a technological process, involving very high heat and very high pressure,

an extremely complicated process, which was able to combine nitrogen from the atmosphere with natural gas to make ammonia. That ammonia is the basis of all the nitrogen fertilizer being used in the world's agriculture today. It results in at least a doubling of crop production. And that is why we see this news today about Sri Lanka banning nitrogen fertilizer and Netherlands now basically banning much of the nitrogen fertilizer. And this is the biggest threat we have right now to an immediate starvation situation in

the world. Food shortage. You hear it said? So where I'm going? The odd time. Yeah. But the reason it's itself inflicted this food shortage, nitrogen, the air has 70% of the air is nitrogen.

We could take nitrogen out of the air for the next million years and make fertilizer because it all goes back into the air again eventually. Same with the carbon dioxide. We talk about ourselves emitting all this carbon dioxide. What are we emitting it from? Oh fossil fuels. Oh, where did they come from? They came from life absorbing carbon

from the atmosphere as carbon dioxide and being deposited in sediments called oil, gas, and coal. So when we put CO2 in the atmosphere, we're just putting it back where it came from. In the first place, that's why CO2 was so much higher in the atmosphere in the first place. That's why CO2 was so much higher in the atmosphere in past millennia, like it's gone from 2500 ppm to 180 ppm 20,000 years ago in 150 million years. That's a long time, but it's been a steady downward trend of CO2 in the global atmosphere for 500

million years. There's been a couple of dips and ups and downs, but basically it's a downward trend. And that's because the carbon has been taken from the atmosphere as carbon dioxide, which is the only way life can get carbon. It's the only source of carbon for life. And all life is carbon-based. That's why they call it the chemistry of carbon,

organic chemistry, and the chemistry of all other elements in organic chemistry. So what we've got here is a situation where people just don't understand that there is no historical relationship between the level of CO2 in the atmosphere and the temperature of the earth. But that's not where I'm going though. But that's what the climate change issue is all about. But that's not a climate change guy.

I think both you and Bill and I have problems. I think both of you are bad for society. Really? Let me explain to you why, because both of you are way too confident. And I don't trust that. I'm just going by data that is... But he says the same thing. No, he says the same thing.

He says I'm also going based off of data. No, he doesn't. Well, he takes the fire extinguisher and points it on a globe of the earth. Right. I don't do that sort of thing. But to me, you seem way too confident as well. The level of certainty and scientists concerns me too much on both sides. So I'm questioning the following. But I don't have a level of certainty because I said very clearly that we can't predict

the future of the climate. I'm looking at the past. We know the past. So I can be confident about what's in the past record. But the past record during the time where we did not exist does not make any sense in the argument we're making. It does. We had no influence over it back then. We do today. It's not about influence about we can measure. Impact. We can measure through influence, about we can measure. Impact. We can measure through sediment cores in the ocean floor, we can go back half a billion

years in terms of the chemistry of the earth and the atmosphere. I don't think you understand what my point is. I think you can go get that data based on what you're saying. We got it. But that data doesn't exist. If that data doesn't mean anything, if we were not there to show any direct negative impact we're making into it. That's my question.

So if you say, well, let me tell you something, here's what happened to the world during this time. Do we exist? No. OK, so now we do. And there's 8 billion of us now. And if we've doubled 10 times in the last 7,000 years, do you know what two doubles is?

Let me ask you, if something doubles 10 times, do you think it's a big deal of something doubles two times? No. know what two doubles is? Let me ask you if something doubles ten times. You think it's a big deal of something doubles two times? No. What's two doubles? You know what two doubles is? Two doubles is 32 billion people. You mean to tell me the world can handle 32 billion people? I didn't say that. But do you think it can? So to me eventually, I have no idea Patrick as what to will be invented in the next 50 years or 100 years. So but but but we have to sit there and think, okay, so we have to sit there and say, if that is the case, if we're going there, if math shows us, we have not stopped going like, right now the market crashed, right?

I think the market's gonna crash pretty bad the next six, 12, 24 months. I think it's gonna be very ugly. And I agree. A lot of people are gonna get hurt in a very big way. But you know what I think is gonna happen in five to 10 years? Mark is gonna go, that was gonna hit 60,000 in the next 10, 15 years. Okay, what are you think is gonna happen in the next five years?

We're gonna have a trillionaire. Whether we think it's gonna happen in the next 20 years, we're gonna have 10 trillionaire. I mean, that's gonna keep happening, right? And in the market, in the climate change stuff, you're like, oh, look what's going on today. I don't care what's going on today. I wanna see the difference of what's happened last 50 years oh, look what's going on today. I don't care what's going on today. I wanna see the difference of what's happened

last 50 years. Oh, what's going on this year? Look what happened to the temperatures. Give me 100 years, which I kind of, you know, go back to your argument. What I'm asking right now is, if we double two more times, we got 32 billion people here.

We can't have 32 billion people in the world. In other words, we won't double to 32. If we can't have it, we won't go there. Why? We can't get it. Okay, so let's speculate. Tell me what you mean by that. What I mean is today, people are getting wealth here. The number of people living in poverty as a percentage of the population is much smaller now than it was 20, 30, 50 years ago. When we reach a position where more and more people are going into poverty and starving to death, we will know we're coming close to that limit. How else are you going to find out unless you artificially reduce the population by cutting off the fossil fuels?

And by cutting off the nitrogen fertilizer? That's what the real problem is today. This is, I'm saying, this is a self-inflicted wound that we are dealing with right now. And it's a real problem because I can see this that these powerfully leads like Schwab and on down, they want control of the world. They want control of everybody. Now, what do they want? They want fewer people.

They think it's already too many, I think. That's what they've been saying in the United Nations for a long time. But the facts don't bear that out because less and less people are living in poverty and our knowledge of agriculture is growing, our knowledge of genetics is growing, and we're able to grow way more food now than we were then. And food is the basis of how many people can be here. Now, the environmental side of that is a different matter, but as I've pointed out, we are not losing the world's forests. There's a few places where deforestation is still an issue,

but there's not very many. Even in Africa, they are growing their forests back in the Sahil. Now, you know, people don't realize that Sahara Desert was lush with grass all during the first part of this whole of scene interglaceial. For 5,000 years there were goat herders and villages. You can see red dots on a map of where these villages were all across the Sahara. So the climate has changed long before humans could have been any factor in it. It's been changing all through the history of the earth. There was, as I say, an ice age, hundreds of millions of years ago, and now we're in another ice age,

and the irony is that people think it's getting too hot when we're in one of the coldest periods in Earth's history right now. This is an interglacial period in between. There's been like 40 plus major glacial periods during this ice age. People think the ice age ended 20,000 years ago. That was just number 42 or 43 in terms of glacial advance, where the whole of Canada and Russia recovered in ice and all of Northern Europe. That melted, took 10,000 years for that to melt, and for the last 10,000 years we've been in this relatively benign climate called the Holocene interglacial period, during which the ice has retreated, at least up to the Arctic Ocean. 20,000 years ago, the whole of Canada was covered in a mile or more of ice. Imagine if that happens again, which if history repeats itself, it will, because it's happened 44 times before this.

And they were in different periods, some were 42,000-year periods, others were 100,000-year periods. The most recent ones have been in 100,000-year periods. We know this from ice cores taken from Antarctica and Greenland, which go back hundreds of thousands of years. They can see what the CO2 was, they can see what the temperature was, they can see a whole bunch of other things.

And they show us these patterns of climate that have been occurring. So it's very clear to me that the human contribution to climate is virtually minimal, if at all. The main thing we need to worry about is the ecosystems of the oceans and the lands and the forests and how much land we put in farmland and how we can make farmland be conducive to bird life and other life. I mean farmers don't really like any other life other than the thing they're growing. They don't like weeds, it don't like insects, it don't like birds. But in forestry, the foresters don't care about those things very much. There are some insects that kill forests, but mostly foresters love birds, animals, and

plants. What percentage of the world is farmland than forest, you know? I don't know exactly, you know. But the farmland is, there's two types of farmland. There's land that's plowed, arable land, and then there's grazing land. And often the grazing land also has a lot of trees on it and a lot of other plants on it. So it's more natural. Can you pull that up? I just typed in what percentage of the world is farmland and forest? Just type in what percentage of the world is... If you do it on Google, it'll actually give

you the percentage right off the bat. Yeah. What percentage of the world is actually type in the word? What percentage of the world is farmland? What percentage of the world is farm typing the word, what percentage of the world is farmland, what percentage of the world is farmland and forest, yeah. And it should say right up there, 38% or something, zoom in a little bit. Okay, so global trends, global agriculture, land is approximately 5 billion hectares, and 38% of global land surface, about-third of the this is used as crop land and the remaining two-thirds consist of meadows and pastures for grazing livestock. Okay so doc question for you. So 10% of the land is used for

plowing and growing crops. So here's the monocultures. Let me ask you question. How low can we take that percentage down to? Well actually it has been reduced considerably by two factors in the last hundreds, hundreds or so years. One is the invention of the internal combustion engine and vehicles which replaced farm animals. There was a time when farm animals used 25% of all the farm land to grow food for the animals. So now we can use that 25% for growing food for people and using fossil fuels to produce the energy to do the farming. So that's one thing.

And the other thing is fertilizer and genetics. The advance is in the science of agriculture. If it hadn't been for the Haber Bosch process, there would only be half as many people on the Earth today, according to some people who look at that. We wouldn't be able to grow enough food to feed 8 billion people if we hadn't had the nitrogen fertilizer. Because along with carbon being the basis of life, nitrogen is the basis of proteins, enzymes,

DNA, a whole lot of important elements in our bodies. And so nitrogen is as essential in a way as carbon is and hydrogen and oxygen. Those are the main ones. And interestingly, they all come from the air and water. Yeah, I guess my question is, so I'm just asking such a mathematical question that I'm not even going into the carbon Because you want to see the carbon debate on a bunch of different videos. You can go watch a ton of them My concern is math, okay, so

Innovation is what what do capitalists and entrepreneurs do? Innovators go out there and say what there's a problem. Here's how we can fix it. Here's how much money I can make in it. Great, I'm willing to fix that. You need this need, no problem. Here's what I'm gonna do, and I'm gonna make this much money. Cool. So, but is there a level where are we gonna get to a point where food's gonna be man-made?

Are we gonna get to a point where food's gonna be, like, you know, what's this new meat they're making to the vegetable? Beyond meat, is that the direction we're going? Are we going in a direction's going to be, like, you know, what's this new meat they're making the vegetable? Beyond meat? Is that the direction we're going? Are we going to a direction? Well, we don't need any farms. Well, we don't need any because men can officially,

you know, make food ourselves, and we don't need to go to these places. Okay. And then some. That's so called meat is made from plants. I mean, it's still made farms. Okay. So how much of this can we not go without? Like, if it's 38% of the world

is a global and land surface is crop land and remaining two thirds of that is metals and pastures, how low can we take that 38? Because people are going to say, what if we can build this year? What if we can build that here? How low can we afford to take that 38% to? We're growing twice as much food on less land now than we did 50 years ago. So that's innovation, so that's progress, okay? And at greenhouse growing, if you fly over South Korea, it's amazing. Nearly every valley is covered in glass. And it's really quite a sight.

That greenhouse growing is not only because you can make the warmer. Greenhouse growers all pump CO2 into their greenhouses to double and triple it from the atmospheric level of 420 ppm up to 81200 ppm. And they get 20 to 60% increase in yield and growth inside the greenhouse and you can also grow without soil in greenhouse as hydroponic agriculture is hugely successful. So there's no doubt in my mind that unless we have a political collapse of the world and a self-inflicted collapse of the world by banning things that are necessary for life to exist, that we could theoretically have way more people than we have now. I'm not saying I'm in favor of that. I'm just saying that theoretically it's feasible, especially that greenhouse growing is just getting really off the ground now worldwide.

And you can grow twice, three, four times as much food on the same area of land as you can in conventional agriculture. Well, let me, let me, let me ask you a crazy question. So when somebody becomes a president or prime minister, how much do they care how the economy and that country does during the eight years they're the president versus how the country does a hundred years later. Well, at this point it doesn't seem like many presidents, especially in the English speaking, where we'll give a damn about the eight years there in power. I mean, we've got a ski instructor, a ski board instructor running Canada. We've got a half-demanded person here with a vice president that can't string two words

together properly, running the United States of America. Boris Johnson, thankfully, is gone, but who's gonna replace him? And the Australia has just brought in this weird government. Colombia has a broader weird guys, well, they're just bringing weird people left and right. I guess the qualification is to become a man in power is to be a little bit weird.

Maybe that's what they're looking for. I just don't understand why there aren't more qualified people seeking these positions, but then again, maybe not many people actually want to heat. No, not just to heat. It's fear, it's the freedom, it's life is a lot easier than let them deal with the problem. I guess the point I'm trying to make to is the following. How many people that become president, sister-in-law, say, I want to create policies that 10 presidents from now makes America better country. or how many presidents get up and say

Hey, Mary, can you tell me my approval rating this morning? Oh shit. Okay, let's go tell them We're gonna give a billion dollars of subsidies to pop up pop up pop up. Oh watch Yeah, but we went up to 41% you're no longer the worst president of all time like meaning what I'm trying to say is How many president is actually give a shit about what's gonna happen 100 years? You're not gonna bring up the t-word are you what's the t-word? The next letters are Trump no, no, no, no, no, is that a bad word in your mind? No, it isn't because I asked people not why you hate him Why what policies that he brought in during his tenure do you disagree with?

And I don't know what the answer can be. The policies he brought in were about the future and were about the economy and were about the people and were about the southern border and were about energy independence and were about whatever. I don't know of a bad policy that he passed. And Biden comes in and just rubs him all out with't know of a bad policy that he passed. And Biden comes in and just rubs him all out with a stroke of a pen on the first day and causes an energy disaster and an Afghan disaster, Afghanistan disaster and all these other disasters and he still has 25% approval rating. I mean, that's a good thing because that means he has 75% not good approval rating. But I just don't understand why the hate happened.

It makes no sense to me because hate is not a good reason to be against a person, especially if they haven't done anything wrong. And it's been proven eight or ten times over that he didn't do anything illegal or wrong, but they went after him like as if he had robbed the bank, you know, and I am very unpopular for even ever mentioning his name, even in my own country of Canada. Oh, we talk about him all the time. You're in safe space here, but we'll get back to that because he's got some things he'll

say to you about that. But let me finalize the point I was trying to make. Here's a, do you know what point I'm trying to make? The point I'm trying to make. I think you want to know how many people can live on Earth if we keep going this direction. No, my, my, my, yeah. So my point is the following. Here's my point.

No matter what country you look at when it comes on to elections, how many of those presidents are concerned about what the country's legacy is going to be 50 years? No, zero. They care about their eight years. Well, I, that's left or right. I think what you're getting legacy is gonna be 50 years. No, zero. They care about their eight years. Well, that's left or right. I think what you're getting at, whether you're, whether you're, this is the world's core.

You care about your power now. This is zero to do with left, right, middle or zero. This is not like, this is why we need a libertarian president. I'm not doing that at all. All I'm saying is, the current structure of any leadership in any country is what, how is the market gonna do while I'm there, right? Okay, isn't that the same for any CEO though?

Quarterly earning that's how the company is not founders CEOs. Yes, not founders Okay, founders live forever. CEOs don't okay founders live for like you can't you can name every CEO of McDonald's But you can name the founders sure you can name you you you founder you can name the founders. Sure, right. You can name the founding fathers. You're going to forget a lot of the presidents. If I told you who's the 19th president, you may not get a right. But if I tell who's a founding father, you're probably going to get a right.

So, should a point I'm trying to make. You're saying the founding fathers have a vision, the CEOs are more concerned with the orderly or any orders. If they're watching what's going on are devastated, because their founders, they're like, dude, we put this together for it to work. And you guys are breaking this thing. Founding fathered founders are different, but this is the point.

So if you look at right now, worst case scenario, according to the math that we just did, when is the next double going to be? When are we going to go from 8 billion to 16 billion? Talk about 40 years, I believe. Okay. So worst case, how many years? 60 years? What's 60 years from today? 2080. And how long will it take to double again after that? We don't know. So, but, but we based on data, you keep going back to data.

It's not based on data. You're projecting the future by past data. And you just use a bunch of past, but I didn't predict the future. But you have to predict the future. No, you can't. Of course, but no it's not. You can't. You can't. But you may be wrong. You can. That's what visionaries do. You're more than likely to be wrong. Well, George Orwell somehow got it right. Yeah. Some people do get it right. In 1984, when he wrote the book, a lot of people said he's a fraud. Exactly. Okay. So let's play the game of, let's forecast and see what could potentially happen. And it's okay if we get it wrong.

There's like George Volgatod right. If we do forecast in 60 years, we're at 16 billion. If we do forecast and I'm comfortable being wrong in 120 years, we're at 32 billion. You won't know whether you were wrong or not. I don't care if I know I'm a point or not. Why? Because the human species is supposed to exist. No, because we won't be here.

I mean the insurance business. I mean, I'm not human species, but it's to exist. No, because we won't be here. I mean, the insurance business. I mean, the insurance, I sell life insurance. Yes. All right. Do you know what age you're going to die? I don't know what age I'm going to die. Nobody does. Nobody does.

But guess what? It's better off having it in case you do die, so your family is protected. Yeah. So I want to sit there and say, OK, for the people that are using tactics to win elections today, that's not climate change shouldn't be the number one priority of any campaign. Should it be a top 10 thing that we pay attention to,

that we have to figure out a way, not even the word climate change, it's not even on my priority. It's what's the plan to know what the capacity of this, you know, planet is, what is our capacity? We need to know those numbers. What number can we not touch? Is energy on your priority? In regards to, like you're talking cobalt and what's going on in Congo and Lithium.

You know, I mean, just in general, that without energy, nothing moves. Sure. And without energy, there's no heat. Okay. Or cold because air condition. Sure. Depends on it, too.

So, what we have here is, even though you might not think climate change is an important issue, and I don't either as a matter of fact, because I don't know if I can do anything. I think it's a top 10, I don't think it's number one. No, it's a top 10 in people's minds, but the real issue is energy

because the climate policy that is being adopted- That's a better work. I'm with you there. I'm more on the energy side, but we have to pay attention to this because if we don't pay attention to this, this could be an issue in the next 200 years. But it's the energy side that I'm talking about being basically a suicide pact, net zero thing. And the whole idea that we can end the use of fossil fuels

without increasing nuclear energy, because the same people who are against all fossil fuel use are also against all nuclear energy. And that is the only technology that can actually replace fossil fuels as a reliable source 24.7. Hydroelectric is just as good, except there's flat places and dry places where there can't be any hydroelectric energy. Whereas nuclear can be used anywhere from the North Pole to the equator out on the oceans on a barge, you can put nuclear energy anywhere

in the world. All you need to do is cool it with water or air, and you can have it there. So, and the Russians are floating barges down the rivers from the North in the Arctic to some of the cities that don't have a grid that are way up North, like they purposely developed up there, and they're bringing nuclear reactors in there. Russia, China, and India are all way ahead of the United States now in nuclear reactor technology. And Britain is even further ahead too in many ways. They've got Boeing there, not Boeing, sorry. Trying to think of other people who made really expensive cars. What is the most expensive British car?

Rolls-Royce. Rolls-Royce, it's Rolls-Royce that has been building the submarine nuclear engines for UK fleet for 60 years or more. They know how to do it. And so the fact of the matter is we could replace 50% of the fossil fuels in the next 30 years or 40 years with nuclear energy with no difficulty at all. But the idea that wind and solar are going to replace fossil fuels or nuclear or hydroelectric is absolutely insane. Can I just explain a little bit? When you have wind and

solar you have at most one-third of the time can you produce reliable energy. The sun goes down all night, it's no good early in the morning or the afternoon and then the clouds come, right? So solar energy is more like 20% capacity. So 80% of the time it can't serve the grid, which is a demand for energy at certain times a day, a certain amount. The same with wind, the wind stops at night, the wind stops in the summer, the wind stops in the winter, the wind stops for two weeks at a time, the wind stops when the propellers freeze up, the wind stops when the wind blows too fast because they have to tether the blades.

And so if you're going to use batteries instead of gas or coal or nuclear to back up the wind and solar, you have to build three times as much capacity in production. In other words, if you need 100 megawatts of coal energy, you need 300 megawatts capacity of wind and solar energy to charge the batteries because you can't charge the batteries when the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining, but at the same time as you're charging the batteries, you have to be supplying the grid with the full amount of energy that it needs. So, there's no technical feasibility study on this. There's no economic feasibility study on this.

Mark Mills of the Manhattan Institute in New York is the expert. He's written three or four recent papers on how much material it's going to take in terms of cement, the wind industry, uses more than 100 times as much cement per unit of power produced as gas does. 100 times more cement. So the amount of fossil fuels that are required to build the wind and solar infrastructure makes wind and solar a parasite on the larger economy. That is a fair metaphor, a parasite. In other words, it's sucking wealth out of the system in

order to support this stupid idea that wind and solar are renewable. Yes, the sun is renewable and the wind is renewable, but the infrastructure is not. The stuff they build isn't made out of plants. It's made out of steel and concrete and cadmium and aluminum and glass and lithium and cobalt and all these things. And if you look at the amount of material it has to go in to a wind turbine. Compared to a gas plant, it's phenomenal. It means they have to mine vast amounts of ore and truck all this stuff everywhere, huge

machinery to put this things up and build them. So I've said that all the wind and solar infrastructure, onshore and offshore, should have to be built with wind and solar energy. In other words, they should not be allowed to use fossil fuels or nuclear or hydroelectric power to build the wind and solar infrastructure and then see how fast it disappears. It would be wiped off the face of the earth and goodly so because it is a parasite. And all these people are getting rich, all the crony capitalists are getting rich off the subsidies. Their first there are subsidies, then there are tax breaks, then there are mandates by utilities that politically are forcing the people to take the wind and solar when it's available,

even though it costs more than the other technologies, it's a total mess. And this is the part of climate change that is worth paying attention to. The science of climate change, I covered in my book Thurley, Fake Invisible, Catastrophies, and Threats of Doom. The main reason that we have all these scare stories today is because there are a lot of things that are either invisible, carbon dioxide, radiation, whatever is supposed to be bad in GMOs, which actually doesn't exist because it doesn't have a name or a chemical formula, so therefore it's fake. But CO2 and radiation aren't fake, they're just invisible, so no one can see what they're

doing. Then you have the remote things. Polar, why are polar bears and coral reefs the main icons here? Because no one can see what they're doing, right? So they say 93% of the Great Barrier Reef is nearly dead, is practically dead, is bleached, is in its final terminal stage. None of those mean dead. Of course, they just, they make it, like, practically dead.

You mean it's gonna die, right? No, no, it doesn't. Things come back from being mean dead, of course, they just, they make it, like, practically dead, you've means it's going to die, right? No, no, it doesn't. Things come back from being practically dead, like coral reefs. And they weren't practically dead in the first place. That was all hype in anyways. Polar bear population has grown by four to five times in the last 50 years. I ask big audiences of professional people.

How many of you have heard of the international treaty signed in 1973 by all the polar nations ending the unrestricted hunting of polar bears? No one's ever heard of it. No one ever talks about it. They don't want you to know about that because that treaty, on the advice of wildlife biologists to the leaders of those countries around the poll, that has caused a three to five times increase in polar bear populations. To this day, we're now the people who live up in the polar bear region in candidates,

Nunavut, and then it's Greenland and Norway. Those people in Nunavut, which is Canada, has the most polar bears of anybody, because we have so many islands up there in the Arctic. Those people have passed a polar bear management plan two years ago, because they think there's too many polar bears, because they're eating people, and they are breaking into houses, and there's just too many of them. They've grown so much.

And yet not one newspaper in Canada or the United States reported that polar bear management plan or report the treaty that was signed in 1973 That's my question. Yeah. Yeah I mean, so I'm I'm I believe in the kiss principle and keep it simple stupid, right? So I'm listening to everything. I'm writing down numbers greenhouse gas emissions. I'm doing science projects over here I'm doing math with rule of 72 I think think, and this might be a long question, you might, there, there, we'll go a couple of different directions here.

It sounds like you have a marketing problem. And I had the same conversation with the libertarians. When we had the libertarian roundtable debate, they've all these amazing ideas, but nothing breaks through because none of their candidates are charismatic or nobody's listening to them. So I'm gonna throw something your way. And just by the way I agree with you on that analysis.

Okay, well thank you. So I am a country boy from the North Indian Vancouver Island with a science PhD and I know how to write about it and talk about it. Yeah, well let's say you are absolutely correct. Is it fair to say that you're not a fan of the new green deal? Was that fair to say?

Yeah, that's fair to say. Okay, so we'll go there. Is it fair to say that you're not a fan of the new green deal? Is that fair to say? Yeah, that's fair to say. Okay, so we'll go there. Is it fair to say that you're not a fan of the Paris climate accord? Of course. Is that fair to say? Okay, I'm just painting a picture for you. So, but you know who is? Okay, and I'm just going to go down some names here and just throw them out there. And this will get to my point of the question about the marketing problem. We all know Greta Thunberg, you've turned, you know, 16 year old girl, whatever, maybe

she's 18 now. You got Leonardo DiCaprio, you got Al Gore, you have, um, Forel, Robert Redford, um, Mark Ruffalo, Joaquin Felix, Sir David Attenborough, Elon Moss, you can throw him in that category. Jayden Smith, if you're familiar with him, Will Smith's son, big, uh, advocate of the, uh, did I just go there with? Did you just say Jayden Smith? Okay, I got you. Listen to the list of names. Jane Fonda,

point is you have all these celebrities on the other side of your argument. Yeah, except they know nothing about science. Okay, but that's my point. Yeah. And then, and this is actually, you just basically answered my question. They're doing great at marketing.

They have them, some of the most famous people in the world saying, listen to us, we know what we're talking about. And then you have Dr. Patrick Moore for the most part, not a household name, smart guy on the other side. So who's on yours? Who can you recruit? You know, much like Hollywood or the celebrities or the green, new deal crew, the AOC crew.

Who can you recruit to be your biggest advocate to say, oh, it's not just me. It's not this smart Canadian scientist that's saying this. It's x, y, z, a, b, c, bing, bing, bing, bing, bing. It's a kind of even the playing field because it sounds like you have the exact same problem the libertarians have. All these amazing ideas, but it's lost in the echo chamber. Nobody's listening.

Is that a fair point? You understand what I'm saying here? Yes, I don't know about the libertarian analogy, but your right of a point is they don't have a charismatic leader or leaders. You're right about the celebrity analogy. I don't know how to parse society in a way to give a decent answer to that, except all I know is I've worked all my life in the environmental field. I've seen how it has changed and gone off on a course that it's gone off on now,

where it's taking advantage of the situation of people being afraid that they're killing their grandchildren while they're driving their car. And there are really no celebrities on the science side. Most of the people on the science side that think like I do are scientists. Well, you have someone like Bill Nye out there, he's, I would say, a celebrity scientist,

household name. Yes, exactly. A lot of the Gen Z grew up with that guy. Bill Nye. But the point is, I know you're shaking your head, you're kind of a Bill Nye, he's a joke, Green New Deal, it's a joke. He is a joke, yeah. Paris Climate, I don't agree with that. No, I'm not saying that those head. You're kind of a bill now. He's a joke green new deal to joke. Yeah, Paris climate I don't agree with that. Not saying but this is who's making traction. Yes, those aren't jokes the Paris climate deal is not a joke

It's an international treaty and it's based on the idea that a one degree more rise in global temperature will be a Disaster crisis and emergency which is so ridiculous if you look at the history of the temperature of the earth. I mean, we're actually at the tail end of a 50 million year cooling period at this point in the place to see an ice age. And yet they're saying it's too hot. I mean, it's that simple. But what do you do about fads and cults and popular movements?

Well, we have to get your message out. We have an organization which is recruiting. It's called a CO2 coalition. It's based in Arlington, Virginia. Greg Wrightstone is the executive director. He is a very smart geologist who understands the ages of the earth. And he also understands politics very well.

We just had a really good win in Pennsylvania, where a judge overturned the Pennsylvania greenhouse gas initiative, which was going to cost billions of dollars. And just like with the recent Supreme Court decision on the EPA and CO2, this is basically making the point that these administrations, the deep state basically, does not have the right to overrule Congress and to go beyond what Congress has approved.

There's a trend in that direction now, and that is a good trend, and we are helping with that with information, directly to the people who are making the decisions. So the CO2 coalition here, Clintell, is a funny name, but it's initials for a global warming group in Europe, mainly. It is now got over a thousand people who are real scientists behind it. And so we are organizing, but we are not politicians. We're just not born and we're not movie stars. So it's not an easy road to hoe, but the truth surely will eventually come to the surface, especially if the climate doesn't warm very much in the next while, which it hasn't been doing for the last while. So we don't really have any big trend of warming going on. As a matter of fact, Western North America was colder this spring and early summer than

it has been for a long time. But those are the messages we're hearing in the media. That, well, they don't report cold, they only report hot, you know. So that's the other problem that is a societal problem and a political problem is the vast majority of the media is fake now. And they're not reporting the southern border. They're not reporting the climate news. I see politicians saying that Bangladesh now has the biggest flood in 100 years. They have floods every year. Oh, 100 people have died this year in floods. Just a few years ago, 400 people died in floods.

And they're saying it's the biggest in 100 years. And these are Canadian members of parliament. Who are they? Is it the fact that the media is actually fake or they more just have an agenda and they They're saying it's the biggest in 100 years. And these are Canadian members of parliament. Who are... Is it the fact that the media is actually fake or they more just have an agenda and they want to stick to that agenda? In order to... There's a difference there.

No, in order to stick to their agenda, they must lie. That's what they're doing. And they know they're doing it. They absolutely know they're twisting it and turning and ignore. They have two strategies. One is to lie, the other one is to ignore. So a combination of lying and ignoring works really well at making the population

ignorant of what's really going on in the world today. Because what's going on in the world today is that the air is healthy. Healthier than it was 50 years ago, or even 100 years ago, or even 200 years ago, when they were burning coal in every house. You know, they had, they had the black death in London occurred before 1900 when they finally realized they had to stop using coal as their main fuel. And all kinds of changes have happened which make the air in the world cleaner today. The forest area of the, of the world is growing today. As I mentioned, China and India are

largely responsible, but Europe as well, and we're not losing forest. There's more forest in the United States today than there was in 1900 by a small margin, but there is more. And that's because people are planting trees because you see, the more would we use, people think, oh the more would we use, the fewer trees there will be. No, the more wood we use, the more trees there will be. Because when people use wood, someone has to plant another tree in order to produce the wood for the next person that wants it. So building all our house structures out of wood

actually is one of the main reasons why we have so many trees here. The reason Haiti has almost no forest is because they build their houses out of substandard concrete, which falls on their heads in an earthquake and killed 250,000 of them after the Japanese tsunami, which killed no one in the earthquake. Unfortunately, 20,000 people died in the tsunami. But that wasn't because buildings failed.

That was because of the wave. The buildings in Japan are built to standards that can withstand an earthquake of nine in Haiti and earthquake 20 times less powerful, killed a quarter of a million people. It's powerful right now. Because they built their houses out of wood that is treated for termites,

who's easy treatment for termite existence in wood. If they would build their houses with termite resistant wood, they would have forests all across the country, like their neighbor Dominican Republic has. It's a famous border between the two. From the satellite, you can see Haiti completely deforested, and the Dominican Republic green and luscious can be. I've been there. It's a beautiful place.

I'm not going to Haiti. It's funny, you know, for me, the more we do, this is not my area expertise. I'm just curious about it. Like it's something I want to talk to more people to see opposing ideas. But the one thing that does concern me is capacity. That's the one thing that concerns me. And you see half of these guys that are using it. It's very easy to use fear tactics with something that can be made up.

It's very easy to use this in marketing campaign. It's an easy gimmick to use, but the concern, again, for me is capacity, the world population, that's the part that concerns me. Because we're two doubles away from 32 billion people living here. But you can see Patrick that it's self-controlling. Because if there's too many people, they won't

be able to live. And so then there won't be too many people anymore. Now, it's a fine line because possibly what will happen is the population will continue to grow and grow and grow. And then something will happen, it'll get cold, and the crops will fail in the north, and you'll have mass starvation. That's what happens, has happened all through the history of civil disease.

Yeah, but so then there's two choices we have. Do we just accept that, and when it comes it comes, or do we do something about it today to educate, to prepare, to anticipate? Is it better to plan the anticipation and preparation game, or is it better to sit there and say, look, when that time comes and we starve and have the population and the game or is it better to sit there and say, look, when that time comes and we starve

and have the population and the world dies, we'll adjust to it and we'll move forward. Well, that would be the case. It's with the case with all the animals and all the plants and all the insects that have to adjust to the change in climates through the millions of years. Is that the approach to proactive approach?

There are plagues and you're afraid of a human plague. I can understand that. It would be a plague is really when there's more than can survive and then're afraid of a human plague. I can understand that. It would be a plague is really when there's more than can survive, and then you have a mass die off once they've eaten themselves out of a house and home, like with locusts, for example. Once they've eaten all the crops, there's nothing left of them. So that kind of thing could happen with humans. I don't know if, I mean, we are capable of planning.

Whereas a bear probably, I don't know, they plan a little bit. They go and get into a den in the winter. So I guess that part of planning for them. But we can really plan in a serious way, of course. But you have to wonder how far you go from a draconian point of view. What do you force people to do? Not force. I don't think I'm saying force.

I'm saying education. Yes, I agree with that. And I think most people today would agree with you that we should not overpopulate the earth. Okay, the problem is, what is the definition of overpopulation? But what I'm saying is, you know, if the guys who are the PhDs of the world, I'm not the PhD of the world. But are the PhDs of the world, I'm not the PhD of the world,

but if the PhDs of the world team up with the business analytics of the world and they pull up the formula, I guarantee you guys can come with a high low. I guarantee you can come up with a high low to say, this is the number, guys. Not if you take into account the fact that there are gonna be countless innovations

into the future, in health. I know a guy who's working on a procedure that would prevent calcification in our veins. And that's the main reason people eventually die is because of blood flow in your veins. A lot of, I mean, people die of other things before that happens. Sure. But the reason not many people live more than 105 or so is because it just, that's a natural process that occurs. And if you think about it, death is an absolute

necessity for evolution, because nothing would change if nobody died. That goes for birds and plants and everything. So the reason that life has evolved to where it is today is because of the cycle of birth and death. And so we may be able, though, with our chemistry and our medical knowledge, to make people live 200 years. Then what happens? Now you've effectively got twice as many people. That's even worse.

Well, I don't know about worse. It would mean you'd want to live 200 years. It would mean, well, who wouldn't? No, I'm fine. Okay, you're good. You want to live a little longer than I would. I think 80 to 100 is fine with me. Yeah, well, I'm okay with you.

200 years old, you don't have kids, you live 200 years old. I got to watch a couple of my kids, I'm good. What if you're 200 years old and still as healthy as you are today though? I don't I don't I think there is I think there is nobility in It's somebody else's time and it's time for you to run and somebody else taking over Yeah, I think there's nobility and honor in that. I don't I think it's too selfish to want to

or I think there's nobility and honor in that. I think it's too selfish to wanna hold that kind of influence for that long. Somebody else says, they're pruning processes healthy. Anyways, that's just my philosophy. I was saying that, but evolution, it is healthy. There has to be a pruning process or nothing would ever change. In other words, everything would still be microscopic

one-celled things in the ocean. I'd like to know what our audience has to say. Would people in our audience want to live past 100? Is that a goal for most people? A lot of people do. You may want to comment that. We'll follow it. Comment that.

How many guys would like to live beyond 100? Beyond 100 yourself. 200. I was just at a birthday party for 104-year-old woman who has all her marbles and doesn't have any walking. 104. Yeah, she still drives. Well, I'll cut for her.

He's even respect, respect. Where does she live? In Comox, British Columbia. I won't be driving around there. It's right here. From Nicky, but over there. My mom's 94 and she still drives. One thing we know for a fact.

She's got all our marbles. One thing we know for a fact, our friend here, Adam is not into older women. It's his formulas, half his age plus seven, transist sweet spots. So can we talk about a couple different things? Can you bring up? I was just in Texas this morning. I got in at 2 a.m. this morning from Texas. And I was in Dallas. And it's funny. We're eating at ocean air and all of a sudden lights upstairs goes out. And the guy comes up and he says,

look, this has nothing to do with the blackouts and the power. We're not turning it off because we're trying to save power here. He joked about it. I'm like, what's he talking about? So then here's the article, Texas, Texans asked to conserve energy to protect the power grid. For the second time in a week, Texans have been asked to turn up the thermostats and avoid using large appliances from 2 to 9 pm Wednesday. The power grid operator said it does not expect rolling blackouts.

And I think the temperature, Tyler, if you wanna go up so I can read the rest, is 78 degrees. 78 degrees. For the second time this week, the state's power grid operator is asking Texans to turn up their thermostats to 78 degrees and to avoid using large appliances

as it expected record high demand for power grid ongoing scorching temperatures that is asking for conservation to the 9 p.m. interesting. So what do you think when you hear some like this or you read some like this? I think in the Southern states the temperatures kept too low in most buildings. I think it's 78 is fine. I set my... 78. I set mine at 80 and I come from Canada but I set my room at 80 here because when I go outside It's 90 right and I come on. I feel fine I'm more people are gonna hear the numbers Sleep at 80 talking about sleep at 80. Yeah, I can sleep at 80. I just take the cover so like can you sleep at 80?

How though? I'm a 72 guy. It says to you on my thermostat The number right there 72 when you say? 80. I said it at seven. I'm in my everybody, 80. Are you kidding me? I want to feel cool when I sleep. Are you telling me that people in Texas should disregard what they're saying and just keep their thermostat at 80?

No, no, they should put it at 78, like they say. 78. Yeah. Nobody's doing that, man. No, I know they're not, but. Nobody. When you're from the north, right? You set your thermostat probably at 75. People, most people would set it at 75 or even lower. It's true.

But that's because it's way colder outside. Eight months out of the year, you don't even use the AC. No, use the heater. Well, I don't, we only have AC in our bedrooms. We don't have the rest of the house. Okay. Our condition just opened the windows. But what about our friends in Texas? And yeah, what is it? Irkaut, ERCOT, is that? No, that's the whole, like they...

The real stupid thing about this is they're running out of power in Texas, one of the richest places in the world. And the reason they're having this problem is because of the huge amount of wind power they put in. Because it just isn't there sometimes. A lot of the time, it just isn't there. And it's just where people are going.

Texas, Australia, New York, Ontario, in Canada, Germany, all these countries are going to come up against this wall because they just keep building more wind and solar. The plans to build offshore upstate New York and off Long Island, they're plants to build like vast wind farms offshore. Now they're worried about the right whales being in, because right whales have their birthing up north of there and then comes south. And they're going to have to be navigating through this massive bunch of wind turbines to get out of there.

I may be it's a made up thing. I mean, I think right whales can probably get past wind farms. But- Let me ask you a quick one, because the thing is the wind farming in the first place. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm misinterpreting this, but in economics, there's a term, laissez-faire economics, right?

We don't do anything, just let free market capitalism take its place, no government interference What so ever just it is what it is led to be what it be is that essentially the argument that you're making for Climate change or the environment is just do nothing let let it be what it be it might be I have I spent a great part of my life stopping toxics from going into the air and water There has to be rules. But when the EPA made the ruling that CO2 was air pollution, instead of recognizing that

it was the main food of all life on earth, that was a big mistake. And they did it without Congress giving them the authority to do that. And that's been ruled against by the Supreme Court now, which is a really good decision. Like, what that did was it gave the EPA the power to determine the entire energy infrastructure and what technology could and could not be used. Nothing to do with clean air. The air that we can burn coal clean now, it's being done even in China, they're putting good pollution control on their coal plants. But when you make CO2 a pollutant, the food of life, that's absolutely nuts.

CO2 is not a pollutant. What else is on your checklist? Like if you're saying, all right, no, don't do laissez faire for the environment. Like there's some things you should do. Is there a certain like 3.5 point checklist? Do this, do this, do this, like you talked about. Oh, well, don't see what else. It's the don't do's that matter.5 point checklists. Do this, do this, do this. Like you talked about. Oh, well, don't see you too.

What else? It's the don't do's that matter. Don't murder people. Don't abuse people. You know, don't, don't, don't, don't, don't, don't. We've known about that since the 10 Commandments. I'm talking about government interference today. It should be done.

Well, there's no clear answer to that question. It's, it's what shouldn't be done to a large extent. What shouldn't be done is calling carbon dioxide carbon. It just remember this, anybody who calls CO2 carbon, don't listen to a word they say. Because CO2 is not carbon, it is carbon dioxide. We don't call water hydrogen. Water is hydrogen dioxide, right? I learned that from the water boy, shut out that I'm saying. So you don't call water hydrogen. Water is hydrogen dioxide, right?

I learned that from the water boy. Shout out to Adam Samus. So you don't call it hydrogen, because it's the first letter in the formula. So these people are calling it carbon because they want you to think of soot. Right? Well, why don't they want you to think of diamonds? Because that's pure carbon too. And so is graphite. What our pencils have in them.

Carbon is a miracle element. And CO2 is a miracle molecule because all the carbon in all life comes from CO2 in the air and the ocean. That's where it comes from, and fossil fuels are made with carbon that came from life. So all the fossil fuels were made with solar energy. Have you heard that before? No. Well, how else did the oil and gas are from marine animals, and the coal is from forests on the land?

They were made with solar energy. That's the basis of all life, turning carbon dioxide and water into sugar. And then the sugar is the energy for all of life, from there on up to us. All life. And if we threaten our own food system with the stupid rules about not using nitrogen or carbon dioxide, maybe they're going to ban carbon dioxide in greenhouses the next thing you know. People are working in there in CO2 levels two and three times what it is in the atmosphere

and actually right in this room now, CO2 will be at least double what it is out in the air because of our breathing. We breathe out two pounds of CO2 every day and the, you know, the atmosphere is now 420 parts per million CO2 when we exhale it's 40,000 parts per million CO2 because we're taking in oxygen and breathing out CO2. The plants take in CO2 and breathe out oxygen, so it's a perfect cycle. And that's nature in a nutshell. And people are not being even educated about that. Never mind about basic chemistry and biology. And the fact of matter is,

the earth is very healthy at its present state. That's great to hear. We always hear there's no planet B that the earth is dying. You're not dying, but the oceans are being overfished in many places because of... You hear that all the time? Well, it's international waters. There's no governance there. And for example, Canada and the United States have a treaty with China, sorry, with Japan and Russia over the salmon in the North Pacific. So we do have governance there about how many we can take and what we can do.

There's quite a few of these treaties that one of the— Who's the biggest culprit in overfishing in the international waters? Japan, China, Spain, Portugal. I may be I haven't got the top four there, but who's holding these countries accountable? Well, they make their own rules in international waters. For the reason they were able to kill 30,000 whales a year, big whales a year in the North Pacific. Japan and Russia were both involved in that with big factory fleets before we got out there

for four years and got in front of the Harpoons and got on television all around the world. And it was finally ended by the International Whaling Commission, which is an arm of the United Nations. And so that we succeeded. But it was very difficult because there really, there was a sense of governing body, the International Whaling Commission, but it was totally ruled by the wailing countries. So we did a political movement where we recruited island nations to join the International Wailing Commission, ones that wanted to stop the wailing. And we got a majority on the IWC.

Back then we didn't want to admit that was what was going on because some people thought that was unfair, especially the guys that were killing the whales. But. There's two stories I want to tell you before we go. Apparently we have one of our guys, Vincent Oshana, who's an actor and a comedian we hired. I'm not going to go to him right now. I'm going to go to him in about 12 minutes. I think he's in a very strange place.

Yeah, he's about to, he just texted me right now. He's on the chair. Wait, wait, wait, wait. We're going to go to him. We're going to go to him in about 15 minutes. Let's stick to two stories. Okay. One, you commented about Trump earlier,

I want to get your feedback on this. This just happened over the weekend. If you want to prepare the tweet, both of them, Trump's first message of what he said and then the follow up from how Elon responded and what then Trump put the day after. So let me read this article to you guys. Trump ramps up feud with Elon Musk,

claiming he would have made Elon Musk drop to his knees and beg for help when he was president. So on Tuesday morning, Trump penned three posts hitting that just a day after Musk tweeted that it was time for Mr. President to sail into the sunset. When Elon Musk came to the White House asking me for help on all of his many subsidy projects, whether it's electric cars that don't drive long enough, driverless cars that crash or rocket ships to nowhere without which subsidies he'd be worthless and telling me how he was

big, a big Trump fan and Republican, I could have said dropped your knees and beg and he would have done it. Trump claimed in a post and by the way, did they prior to that? He was given a message, a speech and he called Ilhan Musk a Bolshed artist. Bolshed artist. Bolshed artist. Yeah. And then Musk responded and said there needs to be a maximum age for presidency after Trump publicly criticized Musk, calling him a bullshit artist

at a rally in Anchorage, Alaska. Musk tweeted that he thinks it's time for Trump to hang it up and say, into the sunset and a series of tweets, Musk said he does not hate Trump, but that his days at the forefront of politics should be done. Musk also suggests that Democrats were enabling Trump's potential return to the White House, which he said should also stop.

A Twitter user then asked what issues he had with Trump's presidency to which he replied, yeah, but too much drama. Do you really want to abolish a China-shop situation every single day? Musk's then suggested that the legal maximum age to start a presidential term should be 69 years old, which is one thing we talked about 35 to 69.

So that's going back and forth to two, then. What is your take on Trump going after Elon Musk? Yeah, a lot of people to go after why go after Elon Musk? I'm for Musk. You're for Musk Yeah, I think Trump should disappear into the sunset All the circumstances that have happened. I can't I can't understand why he is miffed about what happened to him through his presidency He was attacked every day, every day, all day. I still think the policies he brought in were worthy, and I still think what Biden did to them is wrong. If you look at the, just the southern border and the energy issue at Afghanistan and on

and on, I believe he tried to do the right thing during his presidency, but he is a bull in the China shop, and it would be a good idea if someone less like that, such as... Decentis. Decentis. By the way, it's so funny you're saying that. This is very important that you took the angle that you took

because Trump tweeted about you. I wanna say in 16, I don't know the exact date, but he said Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace. Greenpeace. Greenpeace. The whole climate crisis is not only fake notes, it's fake science, there's no climate crisis,

there's weather and climate all around the world, and in fact carbon dioxide is the main building blocks of life. Wow. And then, Patrick, you were him. He quoted me. He quoted him. So I put it on the back of my book because I? You were him. I made, but he quoted me. He quoted him. So I put it on the back in my book because I, well, I wasn't quoting him. He was quoting

me. That's right. I thought that's, that's why he's a fan of yours. Apparently. And you want him out of, you don't want him to run for president again. I, I didn't say that. Uh, if he decides to run, you said, sail off in the sunset. Yes. That's what, that, if I was him, that's what I would do. But I am not him and I'm not I don't have that temperament Maybe he does why do you say that's what he should do if you're and again you're an advocate it seems because I Think it's too polarized And I think he's part of the reason why it is and I think he did a good job when he was in office But he would have done a much better job if they hadn't impeached him twice and put him through that whole

Mueller investigation, which was all phony baloney. So, you know, you look back in history and you look at the situation now and I would have said something different back then probably I would have said carry on. But he shouldn't get into these kind of myths with Elon Musk. Elon Musk is pretty good. He's he yes he panders to the climate issue to a certain extent, but who doesn't? Well that's right. It would help them become the richest men in the world. Exactly. But you know you know what's the crazy thing about this? Here's where I don't understand his strategy. And I tweeted about this a couple days ago, people were all upset. I'm like, I can't believe he did this.

Who's side-oriented? I said, I'm not trying to make more friends. I'm just telling you how I process this. Because so you say this about Musk. He's the lead today as a Republican. And it's not even close. I think it's like 46% is him, 29% is the Sanctus. And then I think it drops to 7% Cruz.

And I think it's 6% is Pence and Nikki and niki he's still the guy in the republic that's so so check this out so you make a comment about a guy that's got a hundred million twitter followers and you're not on twitter he's on twitter rogan a week ago just said he would never have you on then musk says this and you go after musk so let's just say let's let's play this out let's say trump is the candidate for the republican side let's say say, let's play this out. Let's say Trump is the candidate for the Republican side. Let's say he is, let's say he wins. You think Musk is the kind of a guy that would flip and say,

oh, we have to vote for Trump? You think Musk is all of a sudden going to get behind Trump? You think Musk is going to remember what he said when he called him a bullshit artist. Well, what kind of a wiring do you think Musk has? You think Musk is going to sit there and say, well, let's get him in there. Or is he gonna say, shit, why you put him in this kind?

You cornered Musk to not support you even still. That's why I said it. You do it. By the way, I did not Trump do it in a bad way. But you summed up exactly what I'm thinking. If there's, like, you talk about this all the time, don't create unnecessary enemies. It's a game of conversion, it's a game of math.

Let's say you're at 48%, you want to get to 52% of the country to support you because that's how close these elections are. No sense. You're creating unnecessary enemies, you're supposed to be building advocates and building allies and you're taking arguably two of the most popular men in America approval ratings considered. Elon Musk and Joe Rogan, by the way, who are allies within each other, right? Those guys are in touch, and you're cornering these guys to basically say he's untouchable.

It doesn't make sense to me, and this is the problem that people have with Trump. It's like, make these guys your allies, not your enemies, or at the very least be neutral. Now Elon Musk says nothing to do with you. You can understand why Trump is bitter, but he is bitter and that doesn't look good.

No, it's not attractive. You don't, when he was saying make America great again, it wasn't from a place of bitterness. It was from places. It was from a different place, but you should read that. But you know what it is. Here's the question you got to ask yourself. Okay, here's the question you got to, and I asked this. I said, and I put that in the tweet afterwards.

I said, the only way this makes sense is the following way. way. The only way that go go back to my tweet, it's part two. The only way this makes sense is if his concern is more to increase valuation of true social over him become a president. Maybe that's a agenda. But by the way, let me unpack that in case anybody, in case there's a 1% chance of this being true, which 99% is not. If it is President Trump, just so you know, the day comes where the world is celebrating your funeral and your service to whatever you did in humanity, somebody that became very successful in business and media and you were a controversial figure that became a president,

your policies were effective, but you know, people hated you, you had a lot of different things that happens. No one's going to care whether you die being worth three billion dollars, ten billion dollars, a hundred billion dollars, and I'm willing to say, even if somehow, some way, you're worth three hundred billion dollars, that reputation of business, nothing's going to change. You winning one more time and coming back and being able to redeem yourself, that's the true legacy. And you're hurting yourself when you do stuff like this. This to me made no sense with, so,

so I don't know your own sense, so let's just say the spacks of true social goals and he sells it for 20 billion hours and he's 38% on where he gets, you know, 7.6 billion. Who gives a shit? Who cares? So you got another 7.6 billion dollars. I'm 100, you're basically saying.

The bigger challenge is your legacy. It gives a shit if you have a couple more and business in your bank account. In the most competitive environment, New York, in the most hated, you came up and you had all this stuff, always daddy's son, you left the other side to go making in Manhattan.

Your name Trump is all over hotels. Then you have a reality TV show, then you go out and become a president. Like who's been able to do, that's like saying you're trifecta. You know like this guy can dance, he can sing, he can act. Dude, you want in business, you want in media, and you want in politics,

what are you talking about, how many people like that are there? Not many, what are you doing anyways? But are you getting a lot of hate for basically calling Trump out here? Like I'm not, I don't wake up in the morning saying, what do I need to do to get a lot of likes? I wake up in the morning saying, this is how I'm processing this. You agree, this is me, you do what you gotta do.

This is my beliefs and make a decision for you. I'm not advocating for you to leave value attainment and become an advisor to Trump, but someone like you is what someone like Trump is missing. Someone to say, dude, I'm is what someone like Trump is missing. Someone to say, dude, I'm on your team. And you're a Trump fan. I mean, I don't think that's secret. I think that's policies are unbelievable.

Just like Dr. Moore over here, but at the same time, you're going to be like, dude, what are you doing? Yeah. This doesn't make sense. And that's the problem that Trump has is there's no one saying, dude, I'm with you. I'm on your team. I want you to succeed. Don't pick fights with these types of people.

It does not serve you. This is only gonna hurt you. But, bowling a Chinese shop, friends. It's a little wild situation. I had two other stories I wanted to get into, but I got a dreamt in cult today, so I can't do it. And by the way, so everybody knows that this point, we hired this new friend of ours,

Vincent O'Shauna, who's an actor and a comedian, was part of Def Comedy Jam. I think Kevin Hart interviewed him. They did a lot of different works when he came onboard to the Vietaima team. I said, look, one of the things we can do is, I'd like to see you go around the world, go around different places and, you know, well, we can find out where is Vinnie and he's going. So, is it true what I just got in text? Tell me this is fake. I've been told. Apparently this is fake. No, apparently they are. Can we go to Vinnie real quick?

Yeah. I think Vinnie's live right now. Hey Vinnie, is it? Where is Vinnie now? Vinnie, is it true that what Mario just text me? What room you're in? I can't tell you. Can we come to him?

Can my life? Yeah, we can hear you. Who's alive? Who's alive? Who's a liar? Who's a liar? Who can hear you? Where are you? I'm a Nazi Pelosi's son. That's who you're supposed to be.

Get the hell out of here. Hold on. What? Is it a Nazi Pelosi's office? I can't see the picture. Can you get a little closer? You're a Nazi Pelosi's office. We came to the last meeting to make videos of our entertainment.

We did a tour of the capital and the redone was always this said. Bro, your mom's going to kill me if she says you hire my son and he goes to jail. What is this guy doing? My mom takes her to look at. Look at. Look at this.

I look at the jerk. This guy's going to go through her office. Look at this. Do you just pull that out of her desk, Vity? Wow. I sure. I sure am.

I know what I'm trying to do. That's not me. What is he doing up to more? What is 100% of that? That's not like Steve's hat. Vinnie, Vinnie, it's out. Can you hear me, Vinnie? Listen, number one, I think you should get the hell out of there.

But while you're there, see what's in the desk, would you? Yeah, OK. I think he drank the other half of that bottle. Adam look, look, look, look at the birthday. Those are safety. Oh my gosh, I guess today is Sunday, Saturday, for dance, home on Feud. Oh my God.

Look at that. What else you got? Look at look, look. He wanted, this is what Nancy got. He wanted to go on desk. I'll bet you any money she uses this on her birthday out of the D. What Respect to her. She's creative very progressive. Okay. What else you can see that?

What do you see? You got Vinny honestly just the last thing and then get out What do the last thing and then get out don't stay there to Look at this inside Inside training. No shit. Old and then look. Be calm. Watch the art of the deal.

Is he making this up? Well, put that. Nancy, despite what we show the public, I can't wait for us to make America great again. It's going to be huge. Your dear friend. Come on, baby. Come on. Vinnie.

Vinnie. This is the worst thing. Vinnie, come on out. Come on out. Are you freaking kidding me like this? What's wrong? How did he get in there, Pat? Oh, my God. This is the worst thing. Oh, my God. Oh, my God. Oh, my God. Oh, my God. Oh, my God. Oh, my God.

Oh, my God. Oh, my God. Oh, my God. Oh, my God. Oh, my God. Oh, my God. Oh, my God. Oh, my God.

Oh, my God. Oh, my God. Oh, my God. Oh, my God. Oh, my God. Oh, my God. Oh, my God. Oh, my God.

Oh, my God. Oh, my God. Oh, my God. Oh, my God. Oh, my God.'s meeting a friend. Yeah, he was meeting a girl from back in the days. He was gonna go to DC and then, man, I mean, he got, look, it is what it is. This will be the short lived job that he got. He just came in and said, that's not good. But the insider trading and the art of the,

what are the odds of the two books that he finds are insider trading for dummies and the art of the deal by Trump? I can see her reading that book. It's actually a pretty good book for her to read Art of the deal you can tell them when she comes onto the notion. It's just pretty hardcore Well, anyways, hopefully we got Vinnie out of there somebody text me and tell me Vinnie the moment your out just text me I need to know your safe and you're in a good place. I guess we got 10 more minutes with another story I just can you please zoom in on Patrick's face right?

on Patrick's face right? Dr. Moore. He was our plan. We were part of that. He came in with the heart and he was no clue what's going on. He's not faking it, is he? No, no, we just went from having all these crazy serious conversations.

Then we talk about Trump. To now we see Vinnie is, look, I mean, if this, if this story breaks, just so everybody knows in the public in case you write about it, Dr. Patrick Moore had nothing to do. He's just a guest today. This story breaks, just so everybody knows in the public, in case you write about it, Dr. Patrick Moore had nothing to do, he's just a guest today, he's not your...

But you promise to incorporate me in this somehow. Yeah, and you're publicity, you know, maybe they're not able to get through to some, there you go, that's marketing 101, baby. But yeah, this guy Vinny, he's second ahead. I can't, number one, I hope he gets out of the capital unscathed No problems. I hope he doesn't go to jail. I hope he's gonna be okay But I can't wait to see where Vinnie is next. Where is Vinnie now? I think it could take off hopefully if he doesn't

End up in jail. Let's get him off first. But he carl to meet nance. Let's get him off first. Look what they did to the January six people No, he's gonna be in solitary. Well, those people did some damage to her office. So Vinnie, hopefully, didn't do that. Yeah. Maybe he leaves like a nice note. Thank you for the time here, some like that. Well, be safe. Look, since we got 10 minutes, can we do two more stories?

Sure. 10 minutes. I wanna talk about Sri Lanka. So Sri Lanka has been a bit of a mess lately. I know you've been, it's actually, it's mess, but it's also good what the people are finally standing against the government to say, look, we're sick of this. So which pages it on?

Bottom of five. Bottom of five. Okay, let me go to the bottom of five. All right. So leaked security video from inside Rob Elementary School. No, this is not it. This is a, what story are you on? I am on bottom of five.

It's real uncle deleted article right here. Maybe next page. Maybe it's the next, uh, no, this is five. So give me your five. Yes, sir. Okay. Let me read this to you. So Sri Lanka is the one over there. Deleted WF article Sri Lanka PM, uh, uh, prime, uh, prime minister. This is how long I will make my country rich by 2025. We have achieved many positive gains over the last three years through bold policy initiatives and pragmatic strategies that enable the country to win back recognition and friendly engagement with the rest of the world This has been a key forum policy achievement of our government. The plan is delivering impressive or results the current government has created over 460,000 jobs, help more than 260,000 families secure home, strong progress is being made on plans

to bring opportunities to rural communities by building necessary infrastructure such as road bridges, connecting rural, and urban areas, and linking Sri Lanka and Kenyanka Cubs, a program enterprise, Sri Lanka, anyways. And then eventually, that leads to why Sri Lanka is facing one of the worst economic crisis. The island nation of Sri Lanka is in Lanka is facing one of the worst economic crises. The island nation of Sri Lanka is in the midst of one of the worst economic crisis it's ever

seen. It has defaulted on its foreign debts for the first time since its independence and the country's 22 million people are facing crippling 12-hour power cuts. And an extreme scarcity of food fuel and other essential items such as medicines in March 2020 the COVID-19 pandemic struck in April 2021 Rajapaksa government made another fatal mistake to prevent the drain of foreign exchange reserves all fertilizer imports were Completely banned Sri Lanka was declared a hundred percent organic Farming nation this policy which was withdrawn in November 2020, on led to drastic fall on agriculture production, and more imports became necessary, but foreign

exchanges reserves remain under strain, a fall on the productivity T and rubber due to the ban of fertilizer also led to power export incomes. You guys saw the people were the tyler, if we can pull this up, where there was a protest in going on and the prime minister's house, they're jumping in a pool in a backyard and then they're going up to the, what do you, are you following the story on what's going on with Sri Lanka?

What do you know, Steve? What's going on there? Social breakdown is almost inevitable unless some miracle happens because the president and his flunkies have all fled. They're on a boat somewhere out in the ocean. And the people are occupying his palace. But I don't think there's any leadership there now.

They don't have the fertilizer they need to grow their food. And Sri Lanka is a very big food-producing country. There's a lot of millions of people there. And so this is the first bellweather of the self-suicide destruction of these elites, who I don't know where they get this idea that there's too much nitrogen in the soil or in the water. Nitrogen is, again, one of the building blocks of life and just like with carbon dioxide. And so you've got now Netherlands, the president or prime minister, whatever he is of Netherlands, is saying they have to make a third of their animals go away, which provides a lot of the manure for fertilizing the crops.

And then I also go into ban part of the nitrogen fertilizer for the crops. And then I also go into ban part of the nitrogen fertilizer for the crops. And as I mentioned earlier, the process of making synthetic ammonia is why there are many more billions of people alive today than there would have been if that hadn't happened. Those two Nobel prizes that were given to Dr. Haber and Bosch, Haber invented the process and Bosch built it up to an industrial scale. So millions of tons of fertilizer could be produced around the world. And all farmers in the world are dependent on this fertilizer for making their crops grow faster and bigger.

And so if this cascades, like Netherlands is getting a little close to home, it's happening in Western Europe that leaders of governments are banning fertilizer. And as I say, Corb Lund has a great country singer in Canada, has a song about, have you ever seen a child who hasn't eaten in 18 days? And we can live without food for longer than we can without water, and we can live without water longer than we can without air. But there is a limit with food too. And mass starvation is not a pretty thing. And it's happened all through human history. We haven't had much of it lately because we've been on a role in terms of technology and

agricultural innovation and producing more food and double the population like we see, but that doesn't necessarily go on forever. And it would be a shame if it was a self-inflicted wound. It's okay. Let's at least not shoot ourselves in the midsection here. That's what I see happening. And food shortages are not something that are easily caught up with.

There are such things as seasons. And there are such things as how much you can grow in a certain area of land. And if you don't have fertilizer, you're only going to get half as much. And pretty soon, the store shelves are going to start being empty in some parts of the world. And hopefully, we're in a much better position in North America than most other places in

the world in many ways. But this can happen anywhere. If people start deciding to ban carbon dioxide and nitrogen, which are what life is made from. You know, it's crazy. When I saw this, I wrote this out on Twitter. I said, if the world allows a country with an 81 billion other GDP, go bankrupt, so can America allow the two big

to fill companies fill soon? Bad policies created by bad leaders cause countries to go bankrupt. The people of Sri Lanka were sick of goto baya, rajapasca's democratic socialist policies and they moved on right there saying they don't like it now here's what's crazy a guy responds back to this tweet and he says he says you're not gonna find if you go you'll find it because there's a bunch of to go through he says

well that that has nothing to do with their democratic socialist policies and then one guy responds to the great thing about Twitter when people have a debate. They're gonna solve each other's issue. He says, I'm sorry, what do you mean? He says that's not, has nothing to do with democratic socialist policies. Can you go to Sri Lanka's Wikipedia please? Go to Sri Lanka's Wikipedia.

What does it say on the top right? Democratic to the top right. Democratic right. Democratic right. Right. Can you go to the right? Democratic socialist republic of Sri Lanka. That's long hand for communists. Democratic to the top right right right Democratic right right. Can you go to the right yeah Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka. That's long hand for communist

yes that's exactly it. Guys folks if you hear anybody in America pitched at two U.N.s they seem noble. Eventually you'll be doing that five 10 15 years later realizing that vote that vote was a shitty vote just like right now we're facing some consequences With inflation just came out yesterday being 9.1 percent Inflation came out yesterday 9.1 percent. You know what inflation was in December of 2020 Do you know what inflation was at December of 22?

Two percent. No, no, it was 1.4 1.7 percent Okay, if you pull up right now was on the article inflation just two years ago, December of 2020. You can actually look this up. It was 1.4 percent. Okay. I was off by 0.2. Then it went up to 1.7, then 4.2, then 5.4. The month that Putin invades Ukraine, it was 7.9 percent, which means they can't blame Putin, even pre-Putin. It was at 7.9. Now it's 9.1 percent inflation. And who pays the price for this?

Do the billionaires pay the price for this? No. Do the rich pay the price for this? No. Who pays the price for this? The workers. Low income, middle income families who are going out there working a job, making $15, $20, $20, $20 bucks an hour trying take care of their families and their paying a price for this because they're filling in in the gas station, they're filling it everywhere. Now, Biden sent a tweet out yesterday responding to inflation. I don't know if you have that one up or not. If you do real quick, this is what Biden said after the inflation numbers came up.

He said if he can zoom in a little bit more, energy companies nearly half of today's inflation numbers. So here's what's important. Energy loan comprises nearly half of today's inflation numbers. So here's what's important. Energy loan comprises nearly half of today's inflation numbers. The price of gas has increased 30 days straight. Decreased. Decreased. I'm sorry, decreased 30 days straight. The price that the pump has dropped by 40 cents since mid-June. Gas should continue to come down in the days and work weeks ahead. Here's a crazy thing. Here's a crazy thing.

He's the president. Can you go back to that tweet? A president sends a tweet and he gets 17,000 likes. This is not a tick tocker. This is the president that got 17,000, you know what 17,800 likes? That's like you putting the tweet and you get two likes. I got over 3,000 retweets just the other day.

And I've got... And you're not the president. I got 1,500 today. This guy's the president. And can you go to the other one about inflation? Go to the other one about inflation that we got. Today's report is inflation too high. Fighting inflation is my topic, economic

priority, and while the numbers today are not acceptable, they're also outdated in the past 30 years, the average price of gas is okay. So he's trying to put that message in there. He got 30,000 likes on that. So that's good. That was making some progress. It's like, I'm telling you, do you know what this reminds me of? Where is Will Ferrell when he was making a fun of Bush? Will Ferrell, how come you're not doing it with Biden? Biden is 100 times easier to make fun of than when you were making part of Bush. When you came out and said, you're in President Bush, you know, I'm here in Crawford, Texas, growing my soul patch hanging out with Connie and Dick, but we're keeping our eyes on the

ball and we're focused on climate change and BC to raise and are intensifying in such a way where the lava flows and In cut. I'm not gonna lie to you. I don't know what the hell I'm talking about. I mean let it the boy Wow, she's what you trying to say right here. I'm trying to say is will Ferrell come on man Come on, where you fair and do a Joe Biden impersonation? I just want to show it would be better than The Bush impersonation anyways. We have a lot you. It'll be better than the Bush impersonation. Anyways, we have a lot of fun today. We talked a lot of the things today. Did we mention my book yet? No, let's do that. So let's wrap it up. Faken, Disable, Catastrophies, and Threats of Doom by Patrick Moore available on Amazon.

It has 2,300 reviews, which is more than most books ever get. And it's only been out for a year. It has really good ratings. 95% of all my ratings are four and five star for the book is easy to read and it will give you a whole bunch of information beyond what I've talked about today. Tyler, can we put that in the description and in the comment section in the show. And it's available in all four of those formats. Kindle audio book, hardcover and paperback. Well, we're gonna drive towards that, Dr. Patrick, more thank you so much for coming out and educating us and challenging and being open to the pushback and going through it.

I'm sure all of us got smarter just by having you on the podcast today because I didn't know that. I'd be scared there for a while. No, I just want to, for me, when I bring somebody that's smart, I want to kind of get them to the course of, I learned. That's how I learned. I'm trying to learn from you and I was able to's smart, I want to kind of get them to the course, so I learned. That's how I learned. I'm trying to learn from you,

and I was able to do that, which was a successful podcast. Once again, I appreciate you for coming. I enjoyed it, great. Thank you, Dr. Moore. Thank you very much. Have a good one, everybody. Have a great weekend. We'll do it again next week.

Take care, bye-bye, bye-bye.