PBD Podcast - Worlds #1 Climate Contrarian - Marc Morano | PBD Podcast | Ep. 157

Episode Date: May 18, 2022

In this episode, Patrick Bet-David is joined by Adam Sosnick and Marc Morano to discus Elon Musk, the Green New Deal, Neil DeGrasse Tyson and much more... TOPICS 0:00 - Start  2:00 - Elon Musk's thoughts on climate change  10:00 - How the movie 'thank you for smoking' relates to climate change  18:00 - Big oil is supporting the Green New Deal  21:30 - How China is dealing with climate change  28:30 - What are Putin/Xi's next 5 moves  35:30 - How Gen Z'ers view climate change   40:00 - Russia's Co2 collapse vs. China  44:00 - Atmospheric Co2 levels  51:30 - The truth about the Green New Deal  57:00 - What is the solution to climate change?  1:03:00 - What's wrong with 100% of cars being EV's  1:08:00 - How capitalists are debunking the climate change theories  1:19:00 - Is Neil DeGrasse Tyson a fraud?  1:24:00 - Who is the Tony Fauci of Climate Change  1:27:00 - Is there a consensus on both sides regarding climate change?  1:32:00 - Jeff Bezos strikes back  1:36:00 - Pintrest will now ban 'misinformation'  1:46:00 - Digital currencies  1:52:30 - Marc Morano's legacy Check out Climate Depot: https://bit.ly/3yG1aIS Pre-order Marc's upcoming book The Great Reset: https://amzn.to/3PoBhDn You can purchase Marc's book 'Green Fraud' here: https://amzn.to/3Mo6KDK  Check out Marc's documentary, Climate Hustle 2: https://bit.ly/3Lk4oo3 Check out Marc Morano on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3yFFlJu 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. This is it. I thought that's not by chance. We're live. Okay, are we live or no? We're official. I'm gonna live folks.

I literally just put the headset. Thank you for that. Yeah, I can't. The head of the phones you want to join the show. Okay, this is episode number 157. Today we have with us Mark Marano, which if you don't know who he is, he is one of five criminals against humanity,

against planet Earth itself. In 2009, the eco magazine, Grist said he was one of the five. The other four were Bjorn Lumberg, Richard Linson, Senator James Inhoff, and President George W. Bush. He was Russian-Limbovs man in Washington, former Republican political aide who founded and runs climate depot, and probably worlds number one climate contrarian. With that being said, Mark, thank you so much for being a guest thank you pat I'm happy to be here yes it's good to have you on I was watching a lot of your content and I've

I've seen you with you and Bill nye and and I you know what I did when you were speaking all I did is focus on Bill nye I'm like when he gets upset his facial expressions I don't know if you did you see that or no have you seen it the way he was getting agitated by it was just entertaining to me to see and then you know I you know, I've been following this topic of climate change. I think it's actually the next thing that's gonna Be used by the media a lot. I think For some people that are creating content. I have a feeling they may if there was COVID that were videos that were Being taken down. I think climate change may be some of the next videos that were being taken down, I think climate change, maybe some of the next videos that may be taken down and censored.

But at the same time, what I want to get with you today is there are a lot of people that are very smart who fully believe this is taking place. It's coming. And I'm not talking about Greta Thunberg. I'm not talking about AOC.unberg. I'm not talking about AOC I'm not even putting out Goren that makes these are politicians I'm not talking President Obama who said this is the this is the biggest crisis that we should pay attention to I'm not talking about Bernie Sanders, Betmiddler

Not John Kerry, not Jane Fonda, not Leonardo DiCaprio, but I'm talking about An Elon Musk the way he explained it You know the I don't know but i'm talking about any law must do he explained it you know that the the i don't know if you've seen the twelve-minute speech he gives when he breaks down what's going on with the temperature were two degrees to some of us may not be a big deal and he says you know five degrees uh... of new york city five degrees as he explained the new york city would be under ice

uh... minus five degrees and new y York City would be underwater plus five degrees And that's not just a regular guy who says that he's a guy that'll call out bullshit So when he says it he makes me think but prior to us getting into the questions that we have here If you don't mind the audience who maybe doesn't know your story give us a little bit about your background And how you came to the conclusion of this may just be a hoax and maybe they're selling it from the other side as the next massive crisis. I will. I actually just want to say one thing about, uh, about musk. Fascinating figure.

I don't know what year that speech you're referring to. Do you remember when it was done that? Oh, I can pull it up. I can see what you're what. I'll get it for right now. I just wonder what his views are now on climate post COVID. But Elon Musk was in a position for years. He wasn't.

Five years ago, that was five years ago. But he wasn't always the rebel, especially the free speech rebel you see today, because maybe he wasn't needed to be. But essentially, he was relying on a lot of government contracts, a lot of support that he sort of played along. He was a big promoter of climate change fears. And it'd be interesting to see, now what he's doing there, the two degrees,

and we can talk about it later, he's just using with the UN, when that number, the two degree Celsius temperature was literally pulled out of thin air, just to give the public something to latch onto. This was admitted by top UN sciences in the climate gate emails. So all the on musk and what you're referring to

is saying, well, two degrees is what the UN says, and here's what could might may happen if that scenario, it's kind of like saying, we're gonna to is saying, well, two degrees is what the UN says. And here's what could might may happen if that scenario, what's kind of like saying, we're gonna go on a family vacation, but if the car hits a tractor trailer, here's what could happen, and they're gonna show dead bodies in the highway. I mean, that's basically, it's easy, it's simple,

it's cheap politics. And I like Elon Musk, not saying, by the way, just to say Elon Musk, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. These are people, they're they're huge climate fear promoters in my new book I publicly essentially forgive them especially Robert F. Kennedy Jr. one of the jail climate skeptics.

And in interview I did with him. He said we belong at the Hague with three squares and a cot with all the other war criminals. And I forgive him because the way he came around on COVID and was just one of the most incredible anti-tym Rannichols anti-terranny speakers. Oh, he got censored by Instagram by everybody. I mean we've had him on multiple times and Every time videos would get flagged on what he had to say. This is the number one environmental attorney in America Apparently based on what a lot of people would say, but please continue. Okay. Wait. That's all I wanted to say there now my background

I'm not a scientist. I come at this as an investigative reporter. My background actually is Ronald Reagan volunteer for his presidency in 1980. I was going on 12 years old, my older brother worked there. So I just went on the Saturdays in the fall of 1980. And actually that peaked my interest in media and politics because I was giving audio clips of governor Reagan to all the local things. And then. It was real to real tape cartridges. That got me involved in politics. I always liked the Reagan presidency, but I was always considered myself a Republican

except when it came to environmental issues. And I had taken these tests. I always wanted to be a park ranger. I loved animals. I love hunting and not hunting, but fishing and hiking. And what happened was I, during the Reagan years, just literally was not happy with his policies, but later on, I got caught up in the National Geographic.

The Amazon's going to disappear, the species extinction. It wasn't until the real Earth Summit that my eyes were essentially open when I heard claims Dixie Lee Ray, the nuclear physicist was on, it was actually on Rush Limbaugh's radio show, all the things, but she was doing live reports and she was down there doing a whole bunch of media condemning the UN Earth Summit, the George HW Bush went to, in 1992, and that was an eye-opener

because she said the deforestation claims were not, were all grossly exaggerated that it was the most intact force, I remember starting to investigate that, that led to an environmental awakening, which years later I did an Amazon rainforest documentary. And I even got the Amazon scientists in Brazil to slam down the travel guide books by saying, this is bullshit, bullshit, bullshit, throwing the book down

because it was all about the computer models and how many football fields a minute of the forest were disappearing. Turns out Amazon most intact forests on the planet. When you reforest using modern techniques, you can't distinguish between plant and animal species according to studies. And even the New York Times admitted later, I think it was 2006 or 2007 that for every acre of rainforest cut 50 year being regenerated, not to say there aren't challenges, but the biggest thing is people are leaving the jungle

and moving to urban areas and sub-urban areas. So that was the environmental scare I grew up with. So by the time global warming came along, I was skeptical, I worked for like an independent news magazine show, it was called American Investigator, I started doing, didn't do climate at the time, because I was doing wetlands and dangered species, Amazon did a show on organic food and the impacts it could have on land use unless they get higher yields of farming and how

they actually had higher bacterial contents of food production. And that was a fascinating thing because that was an interesting because that cut across all ideologies. But essentially from there, I mean, investigative investigative reporter then I worked for the Senate environment of public works committee in the United States Senate And as such I worked for the ranking member at the time was senator James in-huff who's actually retiring this year from He's one of the five. Yeah, one of the five my mom had a funny comment when that list came out There's a couple other lists She said how come only one on that list that isn't, you know, either very powerful in terms of a position

or a lot of money, because it was in deal with all these, you know, she was always saying that, which was silly, but my role at that point was the spokesman for essentially the Senate GOP on the top environmental committee. And in that position did a report, of author to report a 400-decenting scientist where we got voices from around the world,

and then we updated it to, I think, it was 650, then 750, then later a thousand after I left the Senate. And the gist of it was we were being told a fabrication, and I became very, so I whole career then became from general investigative reporter with a focus on environmental, to then focusing almost exclusively on the environment, then I found a climate depot after I left the US Senate.

But essentially, one of the biggest things we did was the dissenting scientists. We were told there was only a dozen scientists, the same amount as the flat Earth society who didn't think that the Earth was doomed by mankind's carbon dioxide. And that was said by the United Nations climate chief, Regente Bacciari, that was said by Al Gore, that was said by the United Nations Climate Chief, agenda Brecciari, that was said by Al Gore, that was said by a lot of the climate activists. There's only two dozen or so.

This is nonsense. There's a consensus to settle. So we came out with a list. We included Nobel Prize winners. I did sub-reports about UN scientists who turned against the United Nations, talked about it being a political body, masquerading as a science institution, talked about it being a political body, masquerading as a science institution,

talked about how the scientific authors would have to bow their report and summaries to the politicians and bureaucrats. So we exposed the whole UN process for what it was. So anyway, that's how I got started, started climate depot, and my goal was to just provide an alternative to most of journalism out there. And I was doing this since 1992. I started with Rush Limbaugh's TV show, and I was his man in Washington,

as is DC reporter, where a Hatton trench code was very much a silly entertainment segment. I'd go to all the Capitol Hill stuff. I got thrown out of the Clinton White House and my camera confiscated. And actually, Helen Thomas, the UPI bureau chief, marched me into the White House press office, the Clinton office and demanded they return it and apologized to me. This really offended the media.

Now I don't know. I think most of the media today would cheer if Peter Ducey had his microphone taken away. But I was essentially, you know, I was a blogger before they had blogs and I did that with, you know, Wreslin Bus TV show. So that I got kicked out of before they had blogs. And I did that with, you know, Wreschlinbuzz TV show. So that I got kicked out of Democratic fundraisers. I did a lot, a lot coverage of Earth days and all the marches in DC for Wreschlinbuzz. So I've had to fuse politics with entertainment

and also science. And one of my goals with climate depot and with climate science and with the Green New Deal and even with COVID is to make everything understandable. So that's my whole niche, if you will. I try to make it entertaining and understandable for the average person. You don't have to be a scientist.

Don't let them intimidate you. And that's where this 97% and all that comes from in the climate world. They try to silence you like, you don't know more than, same with COVID. You can't tell me you don't want to mask your kid. Anthony Fauci is an expert with decades of experience and degrees. You don't know more than him.

He knows what's best for your kid. You're nothing but a red neck in Kansas. That's the mentality of our publisher. So did you ever see that movie about cigarettes back in early 2000? What was I saying? Thank you for smoking, yes. So you've seen what a sick movie, right?

I mean, the sick in a good way, like great actor, right? Yes, yes. And I watch it, I'm like, okay, first of all, I can't stand cigarettes. I mean, sick in a good way, like, great actor, right? Yes, yes. And I watch it, I'm like, okay, first of all, I can't stand cigarettes. I mean, I'm somebody that, you know, if a salesperson comes to my house, they smoke cigarettes, if I shake their hands, I'm not buying from them.

That's just me, I don't like cigarettes. I've never been a fan of cigarettes. To me, the smell of cigarettes is very different than the smell of weed, the smell of cigar. There's something about cigarettes. It's all chemical. And it's my personal opinion. Some people say, I can't believe you just said that.

I'm offended. The smile opinion, it's how I feel. But when I watched that movie, I sat down and I said, what a freaking great job lobbying to convince millions of intelligent people with common sense, that cigarette doesn't harm you. You're just watching, you're like, wow, what a great job lobbyist did, right? And then you know, there's all the commercials and all this.

And then finally, people are like, listen, you foolish shit. Here's a lung, smoke and cigarettes. Here's one, not smoke and cigarettes. Oh, that's not the case. That's something else. No, no, this is the reality. They always think you are anecdotal. I have an uncle who lived in 95s. Yeah, so then, but what that took, what that took me to was what other industry or product

have we been convinced that's good or bad because of brilliant men like him that are great salespeople, great communicators, great persuaders who go around being witty, sharp, smart. You're like, oh my God, this guy knows what he's talking about. He's just kind of back down and the average person can't, you know, debate and have an interaction with somebody at that level, just like, dude, you know what,

I'm not even gonna have the conversation, whatever, I'll leave it alone, right? So for me, when I think about climate change, I look at both sides, I try to reason I look at both sides. So on one side, they're, you know, shoving it down or throwing like needle, Tyson, you know, what's his name? Yeah, he's like, well, you know, at this point of the game, the question isn't whether it's happening or not. There is no such thing as anti-multiple climate change, whatever deniers. It's happening. Those people don't know what they're talking

about. So now that we know what's happening, let's address it, right? You can't even have the debate. And then the other side, you know, is who wouldn't want that to happen? Who doesn't want the debate of climate change to happen? Well, I'm from, you know, I lived in Texas five years. There's a lot of oil guys that probably don't want this to happen. I would assume that a part of Elon Musk selling the fact

that we have to be careful with this is his company is Tesla. So the incentive is, I sell insurance, I have to sell you what the benefit of life insurance. He sells life settlement, he's gonna sell you on what life says. You have something you sell, you have to sell us on it and we all have to persuade each other, right?

But there has to be somebody that's right and somebody that's wrong. So I had Paul Manafort here two weeks ago, last week maybe, you know Paul Manafort is. And he's a lobbyist, he's made millions of dollars just off lobby and I'm uncomfortable with a lobbyist as well. If they're gonna use it And he's a lobbyist. You know, he's made millions of dollars just off lobby. And I'm uncomfortable with lobbyists as well. You know, if they're gonna use it,

he's gonna use it as well. Fine, no problem. Your argument that you make, one may say, Mark, I mean, you're from Russia Limbaugh side. I mean, we know we're Russia stud. You know, Russia's as right wing and Republican as he can get. He pissed off a lot of people for 20 years. Ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah.

Okay, great, fine. He's a hero too many, but he's hated by many as well. I mean, say hero and hated is in the same right wing and republican as he can get he pissed off a lot of people for twenty years of a bopabababa okay great fine he's a hero too many but he's hated by many as well i mean of course the hero and hated isn't the same category meaning that as far right far left both sides some may say yeah you know you're probably just defending your oil guys and and people who are on your side of the other your friends you go to parties with them so you have to say some like this because

if some happens those guys may use billions of dollars so you just just helping those guys out. What do you say to people who say that? I get that all the time. In fact, if you go to my about page at climate depot, actually someone said, and I can't remember who now, but some professor that I was Nick Naylor in the flesh or embodied in the flesh on the climate issue, I am not a lobbyist. I've never been a lobbyist. I don't lobby. I don't go to, I stay as far away from DC as possible these days, but when I work there, I was a communication director for the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. My organization, I work for a company called Committee for Constructive Tomorrow. Cheefly, and when I say cheaply, 85% of my money is from direct mail to the public.

We are strictly grassroots. The rest of the money might come from foundations, but we do not. And you can go look at my about page on Wikipedia, which I have no control over. They'll say that the group we had was funded by ExxonMobil. Well, they're very careful in their wording. I've never gotten money that I'm aware of from ExxonMobil. ExxonMobil gave to everyone back in the day. And they've tried this, this is a trick that they say,

they'll say Exxon mobile is given to, you know, all these conservative, all these climate denial groups, and you'll look at it and they'll say they've given to the Heritage Foundation, they've given to, you know, Kato, they've given, and a lot of these have like five, 10, 15% of their budget go to that. But then you look at it and Exxon mobile gave to a lot

of liberal groups, they gave it to the natural gas industry, got, gave money to the Sierra Club, so they could fight coal. Moneys like that all the way out there. But in terms of me being, you know, courting fossil fuels or being a spokesman for fossil fuels, it's utter nonsense. They hate me.

They've hated me. They want nothing to do with me. I went time to a tour of fossil fuel guys, H. Yeah, because they're, when I say that, they may have liked me in the 90s or something, or maybe early 2000s, but that, they gave up about 2004 or 5, long before I was even in the Senate. Exxon Mobil announced they were no longer giving to any groups expressing climate, you know, denial or whatever. So here's the gist. They stopped giving money. And when they gave,

when they stopped giving money, they start, they increased their money to the other side. They just got a grant. It was from, I wanna say, ExxonMobile gave to Stanford University, to $100 million to study climate change. Another basic grant just came out the largest single climate grant by an internet billionaire, and I can't remember his name right now,

it was no one, not a household name, gave to another university. So the money from that side, and, from the fossil fuel to appear green far outweighs it. So I don't like that idea at all because I basically, my salary hasn't even changed that much on the same scales it was when I worked for the US taxpayer in the Senate. So you could argue, you mentioned Russia, but you could argue I'm ideologically motivated and I think there's truth to that.

Everyone has an ideological motivation. I think particularly people involved in politics. But if you go back, I look at what happens. And you could even just remove the science. Forget about the science. And this is what I like to do. To your point about, you don't want people. Rush Limbo was an entertainer.

And I don't, you know, but I'm trying to, I'm trying to actually, you know, let people see the other side to this whole issue. So one of the ways I don't, you know, but I'm trying to, I'm trying to actually, you know, let people see the other side to this whole issue. So one of the ways I do it, I just say to hell with talking about the science for a moment. If we actually face the crisis, nothing they've proposed in their own words, by their own methods,

would have any impact on the climate and save us. In other words, if we were facing a climate catastrophe and we relied on them for the Green New Deal, the UN Paris Agreement, carbon taxes, et cetera, we would all be doomed. And I can go through and I can point to you quotes from United Nations. I can point to you quotes from the EPA. I can cite their studies, their magic, they're called as the acronym for magic for their climate models that show that even if we fully committed to all this, there would be no impact pretty much on CO2 emissions let alone the climate if you actually believe CO2 was causing it.

So that's the way I like to go about it. And again, they don't like me. ExxonMobil likes the UN Paris Agreement. All the oil companies support it. They support carbon taxes. Donald Trump's first pick at Secretary of State was Rex Tillerson, an absolute disaster. One of the first things he did was go.

I didn't make any sense. Made no sense. He goes to the Arctic and signs on some UN climate agreement. Are you serious? I'm made no sense. Do you know who he is? He's big or CEO. Yeah, I mean, how do you, that didn't make any sense.

But he wasn't even, it wasn't like climate skeptics. He was horrible. He actually on mobile, they would have nothing to do with anyone. They would never give to us because they don't support our agenda. At this point, big corporations support the woke agenda. 20 years ago, they were all, 20, 30 years ago, the left hated big corporations. Now, big corporations quake in the boots

of the left and the progressives, and they love them now. So they're not with us anymore. And anyone who claims that, oh, these climate denial groups are fossil fuels. I'll explain that. It's my very important what you just said. So tell us why, why would Exxon mobile, why would the left or Exxon mobile support the left?

That doesn't make any sense because what they're saying, the Green New Deal is there's no way in any shape or form there's a Green New Deal help in Exxon mobile's business model. Well, yes and no, the more solar and when we do, the more backup you need for fossil fuels, and it's who controls it. There were reports years ago of Soros groups buying a lot of the old coal plants that were going out or buying them and buying fossil fuels to have them for backups, because what's going to happen here is ExxonMobile has the best lawyers, has the best lobbyists.

They can control the agenda. So they're not afraid of massive increases in regulation, massive government control because they partially control the government. It's hard to tell in today's world whether government is taking over corporations or corporations or controlling the government, especially when you're talking big farmer or you're talking now even big oil or a whole range of these issues. And then you get into things with environment, social governance, the Chinese style, credit

scores of all these companies where the boards are infiltrated, just like school boards were where parents found that out. It's the same thing with these corporate boards. So that's one of the pressures they have. They want to look green to the media and they also know that they can handle it. It crushes the smaller competition. Biggest successful American energy, we led the world in CO2 reductions because of fracking.

Initially, it was a lot of smaller fracking operations. And recent years, they've been consolidation and taking over. What's happening, and it's the same when a lockdown happens, what happens? Small, mom and pop restaurants get crushed. That's a government designed planned recession, and they've called for that to fight climate change. So that's why big corporations support government intrusion.

It gets rid of the small competitors. It allows consolidation, causes bankruptcy. They can go in, buy up toxic assets. Why do you think BlackRock loves economic chaos? Because they can then buy real estate. Why does Bill Gates love farmers having difficulty? Bill Gates is now the single largest farm owner in America. So it's a consolidation and all of these government policies support that consolidation. And the ultimate one was climate. I noticed I'm talking past tense climate.

In fact, I lead a chapter in my new book with a quote from Richard Linson saying, it's hard to imagine a better leverage point for the control of society than carbon dioxide. Humans exhale carbon dioxide. It's involved in everything from plastic to all aspects of our life, to human energy, economic development, long life, and human health. But they imagined it and that a virus scare, and that's what they ended up doing. So that's how that happened, but essentially big business loves big government at this point, and that's why ExxonMobil would never support your average climate skeptic.

Now there might be some climate skeptics out there who are lobbyists or something like that, but that's not in my world. You know, I trust my enemies a lot. I trust them a lot, because I know my enemies have a very honest outcome, right? They want to eliminate you.

They want to eliminate you and they want to be true to that. So you have to trust your enemies, right? In that context, what makes sense? Okay, so if we trust our enemies and we look at today what's going on in the world, who doesn't like America, you may have to put Iran, China, and Russia in that group. As of right now, those are the three countries. This is very fluid.

It changes sometimes, but as of right now, those are the three. Okay, what is from your experience? What's China's, Russia's, and Iran's? I'm talking Xi. I'm not talking to people of China. I'm talking Putin. I'm talking at the top. What is their fear and paranoia and handling of climate change?

How are they strategizing to fight against climate change? Are they putting any time into it? Are they putting any resources into it? What are they doing? Okay, I've extensively studied Russia and China. Little less clear on Iran, Iran. I don't think, you know, care isn't much about it, but they're the beneficiary. We can start with Iran.

Iran is the beneficiary of climate policy. So the more the West commits itself to green new deal, to net zero, to build back better, we're going to be more reliant on rogue regimes, if you will, like Iran, and also like Venezuela. In terms of the way Russia and China, China and Russia are the biggest beneficiaries of this entire climate agenda at the moment.

It's incredible. When price of gas, barrel goes above, oil goes above $40, Russia then starts getting funding, and it's a huge exponential increase. When it's below $40, a barrel, Russia doesn't get extra money in their coffers. So what's happened is with our shutting down Europe

in the United States and Canada of our domestic energy. And remember, Europe is way ahead of us. They literally started shutting down their fracking. They sat down their coal. Price of electricity has been skyrocketing across Europe. You have a few bright spots in places like France where they allowed nuclear and support nuclear. But essentially, what they've done,

and you had the UK Prime Minister, let's Boris Johnson, I always wanna say Tony Blair, Boris Johnson, in 2019, pouring concrete into fracking wells in the UK as a virtue signal to how they were gonna be committed to net zero climate goals. 50 years of natural gas from these wells poured cement over. Now what happened during the 10 years? Radical increase in reliance on Russian energy.

And that included Germany, some country, I think Germany is 40, near 50 percent. All of Europe is like 38, 39, near 40% their reliance on Vladimir Putin's Russia. Why is Russia able to do all this? Because they're not following the dictates of the United Nations, they don't have a domestic green new deal. You don't see Putin will pay lip service as needed. But it has been the greatest boon to Russian aggression, Russian national interest. China, same, basically the same premise, China loves the premise of the once free democratic

West, shutting themselves down energy wise and doing what? Making us more reliant on China. 90% of our solar panels come from there. 90% of rear earth mining. China has cobalt mines in Africa that amnesty and their national kids. 60% they own. Yeah, kids. Yeah, young is nine, allegedly doing slave labor in China. And then at the same time, you'll get your Starbucks mom or someone on the America who's like, oh, we have to buy only things

that are certified and ethical, but at the same time, they're shutting down our domestic fossil fuels, which are the cleanest, greatest standards in the world, because of everything we've done since the first Earth Day. And I talk about it in my PowerPoint. To your point, I think it was a very important thing you said today, because Rush Limbaugh was an entertainer in Rush Limbaugh, had a core audience. And I do come from that world where,

essentially, four years with his TV show, and I love Rush Limbaugh, but I'm trying now, especially in this post-COVID age, especially in the censorship age, where we got to win people over. And I'm very excited when I see people like Naomi Wolfe in Robert F. Kennedy and Jimmy Dore and Russell Brand, who by the way, Russell Brand is my new favorite, number one favorite political commentator,

probably followed by Jimmy Dore. He's incredible. But never even heard of the guy pre-COVID. I mean, I heard of him as an actor, but not as I remember him as a socialist or something being on Fox News and they were making it anyway. It's sort of losing my train of thought on that one. You said you agree with the point I made at the beginning? Oh, yeah, that I'm actually trying now, especially in the last two years since Grush Limbaugh. Yeah, to be less divisive and to actually I have a

whole chapter in my upcoming book, including all the progressives who agree with us on tyranny. I now believe it's no longer a left, right political battle and that went on for way too long. It's now basically tyranny versus freedom and we welcome anyone on our side with that. So when I do presentations, I'll praise the first earth days because the first earth they had a lot of wacky elements,

a lot of ridiculous predictions. But it essentially laid out a very big concern about filthy rivers, filthy air, and just major environmental problems that we had. Well, we got the message, and it wasn't because of government regulation. It was because we made ourselves aware and we had radical improvements in human air quality, human water quality, well at the same time,

huge population increases in huge economic growth. We did it leading the world essentially, and so how it can be done, through innovation, technology, and the more wealth you have, the cleaner the environment you have. But back to China, my only final thing there is China loves the climate agenda.

It makes it, we're gonna get off American energy independence and dominance, which beginning of COVID, 2020, we were the world's largest oil and gas producer. We had more energy production than consumption, more energy exports than imports for the first time since Harry S. Truman was president. And that all, of course, toppled with COVID and then with Biden coming in

and even further decimating fossil fuels. And that wasn't just executive orders, it was the defunding of it. So China is sitting pretty, Russia is sitting pretty, and they'll always say climate change causes more war. No, when you shut down your domestic energy and you rely on hostile regimes, that's what causes more conflict. When now, instead of relying on America and Canadian oil and Europe relying on their own oil, then killing a pipeline for the East Med pipeline from Israel to Poland and Eastern Europe, they've been relying on Russia. They can be increasingly relying on China.

And then of course the perverseness is they do sanctions on Putin. We're going to stick at the Putin. And when you pay more for gas, you're sticking at the Putin. All it's done is hurt American consumers while Putin sells his energy to India and other countries. But that's not where I'm going with it. What I'm going with it with is, I paranoia reveals a ton, right? Like if you can know what Putin is afraid of,

you'll know his next few moves, right? If you know what G is afraid of, you'll know his next few moves. If you really know the real fear, not the fear that we think it is. Most of the time, it's hard to think to know is the real fear of the enemy. But how are they as a country

that is overly prepared in many areas, China, right? How are they fighting and what is the message from the top there about climate change? Are they treating it the same way we are? Are they putting it as a top five crisis that's, you know, we better be prepared for it and spend billions of dollars if not commit, a few trillion dollars of our resources

the next decade or two to make sure we can fight off climate change? What is their messaging with climate change? That's a good question, because it's a bit schizophrenic, because on one hand, they're building, they're 50% of the world's coal production, they're building about one new coal plant, a week in China.

They're going through their industrial revolution. At the same time, rhetorically, they will go to UN climate agreements, which they have every annual meetings, every year, yeah, as part of the Paris Agreement. And they pay it lip service, why? Because if you're making all the solar panels, if you're producing the rear earth mining, and you don't have the same environmental standards, you can produce it cheap and get it out

there. And you know the more the rest of the world signs on to the climate agenda, the more we're going to be reliant on China. You think that's what it is? I truly believe it's in their long term strategic national interest. So you don't think any of the people- Rest of the world is becoming dependent. No, I do not think you have't think they have any fear of climate change

I can't imagine that they do it all. Look do you think they don't have any fear of climate change the way The average person doesn't have any fear and consequence of eating too much cheesecake and too much food That's just yeah, I'm gonna live forever. There's no way. I'm gonna have cancer There's no way. I'm gonna you know average person was a heart attack or stroke or some happens when they ate that food Or did an exercise they weren't thinking that it's ever gonna happen to them It's always the other guy that's gonna have cancer the other guy that's gonna have a heart attack or a stroke or some happens. When they ate that food or didn't exercise, they weren't thinking that it's ever gonna happen to them. It's always the other guy that's gonna have cancer, the other guy that's gonna have a heart attack, right? So do you think it's from that arrogant state

that oh, you know, we're gonna be powerful forever? Or is it, we really think some's going on, let's do something about it? No, I think if anything, they would welcome a climate nightmare or climate emergency because it would create a chaos, if you listened to what the climate models claim and what he was saying,

it would create a chaos that only government could solve in their mind. So they win either way. They benefit from the climate agenda economically and long-term strategic interest, but they also benefit even if the climate we're gonna turn into the apocalypse at Al Gore or the United Nations or celebrities predict, because chaos empowers the leadership in the long-term goals of China.

Then they can control every aspect using the pretext of a climate crisis. Same way they love COVID. People hoped COVID would be bad. I mean, there are people, whole movements, beginning with Paul Ehrlich, in particular about the overpopulation. People wishing that viruses would kill people off that the habitable population of the earth is only one billion. So to answer your question, they win either way. China is in it for the long haul.

And the whole thing with China too, if you go back to NAFTA, it turns out Ross Perot was right. George H. W. Bush was wrong, Al Gore was wrong. Ross Perot was right about all the free trade, so-called free trade agreements because that shifted China from this, oh country we should be helping and developing world

to now the global superpower that by this no turning back from at this point. Yeah, I'm, go ahead. No, I mean, with China, Tyler, if you wanna pull this up, it's almost like you're saying, don't believe your lie in eyes. I mean, you see the images that coming out of these major cities in China with the lockdown, you're talking about it.

No, not with the lockdowns, with the smog and the pollution. So anyone with eyes can see, this is what's going on in major cities in China. So how does that, that doesn't translate to what you're saying, that they don't care about this? They don't care about the people. They have 1.5 billion people. Okay, okay, there's two different things.

Explain that. There's air pollution and then there's carbon dioxide. I think probably at some beginning, we should have laid out like a science definition of all this, but essentially, they're going to their industrialization, but you're looking at these pictures right now, is Pittsburgh and N1885.

It's Detroit, it's New York City. This has happened during rapid industrialization. When they sign on to the U.N. Paris, they pledged, essentially, even though they're pledged to reach peak emissions, I think, was 2030. And that's when all the estimates said that they were going to hit their peak emissions, because they're going to then level off and then they're going to be able to start improving their environment. But they probably have another decade or more of that kind of filth in cities. That's traditional pollution from sources.

Carbon dioxide is we inhale oxygen, we exhale carbon dioxide as humans. Carbon dioxide is a trace essential gas in the atmosphere that they're claiming too much of will create a greenhouse effect and crawls this whole climate emergency, et cetera. That's a little different though, because that's a, you know, the long, distinct difference between pollution, smog, grossness, and actual CO2. And actual CO2, which is what they're talking about. Because when you see these images, whether it's in China or whether it's in Pittsburgh, of funnels, of smoke, and sm fog, just leaving pipelines into the air, anyone with a heart or a mind will be like,

that's just not good. That's not good for the environment. Absolutely, but that's what they can't avoid that right now because they're going to rapid and sane industrialization of economic growth. But just as a point. Are you saying that does nothing to the environment that does nothing to the evolution?

No, of course not. Yeah, this is why I wanted to start. In my nothing to? No, of course. Yeah. Yeah. This is why I wanted to start. In my opening on my PowerPoint, I showed the World Health Organization actually praises that there's the United States for one of the cleanest air in the world. I think we're top seven or eight of the cleanest air. That's great to hear your top 10 and something. We've gone through that.

I'm talking about like, you know, 100 years ago in the United States and beyond 100 years. But I'm saying that is not to be, don't conflate climate with pollution. That's what Al Gore was, climate pollution. We have a professor Will Happer, the foremost expert on the greenhouse effect. Actually said that this is a abuse of the English language to look at pollution and smoke stack

and say that's carbon dioxide and that's what's causing. It's not pollution. CO2 is by the least objectionable thing to come out of industrial production. Yeah, but China is just so rapid right now and it's a horrible. It's horrible environmental standards. That's what's so incredible. I mentioned the Starbucks mom or the Starbucks liberal. They don't want to be all-carefully, they want to buy only stuff from certified forests, all this ethical buying and the whole movement toward that. Yet they have no problem renewable energy

and all the rare earth mining and everything coming from China and all the coal production or anything that Putin has been doing. People have just been accepting it because we're outsourcing our pollution and carbon dioxide. And when I say outsourcing pollution, the more we rely on energy from other countries, we're getting it from countries

that don't have the same environmental standards as the US, Canada, Western Europe. Russia, Iran, China, Venezuela, do not have the same technology and focus on clean air and clean water. Let me ask you, and I'm sure we're gonna have way more of a nuanced debate or a conversation, personal question.

You're married? Yes. You've got kids? Yes. How old are your kids? Ranging from 11 to 20. Okay, so you got kids and they're in that Gen Z range of Gen Z has been indoctrinated that the world is falling apart.

On a personal level, I mean, even having conversations with their kids or your kids' friends on a personal level, how does it even having conversations with your kids or your kids' friends on a personal level, how does it feel to know that you're the guy that's rooting for Earth to not win, right? This is the argument on what you call it, the left that you're the bad guy. What if bad put it, you're one of the top five people

who are criminals against humanity? So from a personal level, if I was branded a criminals against humanity. Yes. So from a personal level, if I was branded a criminal against humanity, I'd have a very strong like feedback or pushback on that, but explaining to your kids, like, you don't want the earth to fail. You want us to live, right? Yes.

I'm for human flourishing, the earth prosperity, and that's why I argue it's about technology, it's about wealth, the wealthier a country, the cleaner the environment, it's that simple. Literally, you know, there was a young South African activist, I interviewed at the Earth Summit, who seems like the rest of the world is BS. We need to be doing everything to the African. Africa has it right.

They're living in harmony with the Earth. Well, are they really, if you go, it's a one billion people don't have running water in electricity, Asia, South America, Africa, they have, they're used, the rivers are sewage. There's filth, animal dung being burned, horrible air quality, low life expectancy, slash and burn agriculture, nothing about it makes sense. So I consider myself a champion of the earth because we want to use everything from high yield agriculture

to sustainable forestry to use that word, where you, you know, instead of doing swash, you cut areas, you make it so it's regenerative and as quickly as possible. We've done a incredible success story on endangered species, rapid drop in species extinction since 1870, on every metric, and there's a, there's a multiple reports, one of the greatest

person on this is Beyond Lomburg, who runs the Copenhagen consensus, who goes to all the ways in which planet Earth is improving and how we can improve it further. And the way to do it is technology wealth, not a top-down destruction of economic growth. So I'm not against solar, wind, and renewable energy per se, but I'm against mandating that energy and banning energy that's proven itself. So because one of the greatest liberators of mankind has been fossil fuels, but beyond that, it's been also a liberator of the earth. Because when you have people on earth and you have economic progress, you're going to, if you're using the old methods, what saved the whale, probably whale oil from, to use them in lamps instead of whale oil. I mean,

that was one of the biggest things in coal. What saved, you know, what made their cities radically cleaned up, internal combustion engine. There were projections in 1890 of every major city that horse manure could be two two stories high in New York City and other cities. Then what happened? The internal combustion engine came along and basically had a massive cleanup of all these cities in that regard. I mean, there's always other issues. But so I don't look at it in terms of my kids. You know, it's funny because people think like, oh, the whole world thinks this way, I live in suburban Virginia and, you know, my kids have really, I'm all their friends think

they have the same view. There's very few that are all worried. I, very few kids are all worried. And my lifetime experience, I've even spoken at high schools and spoken at their schools. I wanna stay on the topic with China. I wanna say, I appreciate that.

I appreciate the question, but I wanna stay on the topic. Can you refresh this? I want you to on this topic with China. I appreciate that. I appreciate the question, but I want to stay on this topic. Can you refresh this? I want you to see this. From 1960, we're China ranked on carbon emissions and how it's grown. Refresh again so people can see it. Eric, I don't know if you guys put it live or not.

So the audience can see it. I'll wait for you. Okay, go forward. So do one more time. Do it one more time. This is where China starts off. Yeah. The US is still the world's largest historic contributor

of CO2, but China is now the biggest by far. And you'll see, and John Kerry's referenced this. He said, even if the United States and all the industrialized world, zero, go down to zero, it basically won't make a difference in global emissions because of China, India, these other countries.

But look how much Russia dropped off by the way. And then boom, that acceleration in the 2000s with China and how it went up and Russia kept going lower and lower and lower and staying at 400. So refresh one more time to see what happens from 1980 on. Okay, to see what happens from 1980 on. So look at Russia's climate. And then US has got a big lead.

And this is not something you want to be leading in This is CO2. Yeah, this is CO2. Look at Russia's going up to 5 5 75 80 5 9646 45 6 60 and then bow 6 80 and then look at Russia drops That was it so what did Russia do to drop and what are China do to increase from 2019 95 till today. Okay, great question. What did Russia do? Russia collapsed. What a great way. You collapse your entire economy and all the Eastern satellite.

Same thing happened in Eastern Europe. You're gonna lower your emissions. But you're also gonna have, you know, misery and power. But you just said the more wealth there is, the better it is, right? You just, well, that's, they haven't there a communist system. They didn't have, Russia had a huge increase until, like it's 1989, or Berlin,

or all 91, and then it collapses, but then all industrial activity stops. So I don't, I'm not talking about CO2, I'm talking about an environment when I say huge increase. Okay, yeah, yeah, yeah. But even environment, I mean, the US, because we switched from coal to fracking, natural gas fracking. And that's why ours chiefly dropped dramatically, defied every energy prediction in 2010.

But I'm talking when I specifically said, well, it's cleaner environment overall, but also CO2, but Russia has nothing going for it. They had a centralized communist system, then they collapsed, and then now they're under an autocratic dictator's, I mean, they're just having, it's not even a country that would apply to the same standards anyway, in terms of that. Well, China, you asked what happened, I can talk about China a second, but I want to hear about China.

That's how it's going to ask about China. Well, China, I mentioned earlier, Ross Perot was right, in the late, not all these free trade agreements, and all of the, from, from NAFTA, the World Trade Organization, literally allowed and I blame a lot of the doctrinaire free market conservatives as well, libertarians, who always said it's, you can get your product cheap, you buy your product from the cheapest place, doesn't matter where, those people who buy American is nonsense. That would work in a world where the people you're buying it from

don't have an agenda that basically crush you and use it against it. Holy great. And I was still in a Walter Williams. And I was always saying, I wish she was still alive. He died about a year or two ago. Economist Walter Williams from George Mason. And I knew him, I interviewed him, and I wish I could,

you know, in later years, ask him about that. Because to me, that's what happened. We gave away our industrial base through these agreements to not just China but also India. We transferred, not just, remember, I said, outsourcing pollution, outsourcing, we outsourced our wealth, our job creation, and our industries to these countries under the guise of free trade because they were always going to beat us under cheaper. And now what we're facing is China is essentially can rule the world.

In fact, when they do stuff like lockdowns and we all follow when they control the world health organization along with Bill Gates, it's incredible how powerful they are, but economically unbelievably powerful. All the supply chain issues, we are so reliant on them now. And I think we're just waking up to what we've done under Republican presidents

chiefly I would say and and some and Democrats as well With all these retraight and a call of free trade and quotes, but that was the huge economic transfer Can you go a little more China's booming watch this if you go a little or disagree to article by the cool little or Channel remember to act into me to climate target that they have a keep going lower to the coal charts China continues to rely heavily on coal, which is what you just talked about, energy consumption in China by source. You see where they're at, look at that, from 65 till today what it looks like, which is insane.

And in Xi on the bottom makes a prediction about what they're going to do with coal, go little or right there, make a little bit bigger president. Xi says China will face down coal use from 2026 and will not build new coal-fired project abroad. But some governments and campaigners say the plans are not going far enough. Research is at Chinghua University in Beijing so China will need to stop using coal entirely for generating electricity by 2050 to be replaced

by nuclear renewable energy production. So, okay, so that's this part. Now, can you pull up the other two charts that Musk put up the two pictures? So here's what Musk was explaining. And I want to really kind of get your feeling on this. What does this mean to the average person that's watching this? So here is what CO2 looks like from 1960 to 2015, right? And this is part of the speech that Musqueh gave.

You look at this, the average person's gonna be like, that's not really a big deal. But when you zoom out and you look at it from 1000 to 2015, that's what it looks like, okay? How this has grown in that time period. So this, anybody that looks at this will say, this is deeply concerning on the growth that we had from whatever 1950s till today. Can you unpack this please?

Yes, do you wanna go to my PowerPoint? Beginning of my PowerPoint, I actually have this same chart I think from Al Gore's movie, basically. Go keep going, keep going, keep going, keep going. Right there, zoom in on that. That's basically the second yellow, where Al Gore is is where his projections are. But I believe the chart you just showed is where that first yellow dot is. That's what he on that. That's looks intimidating. A couple things there. That's

ice-cored data from Antarctica and it's CO2 in temperature. The red is the CO2, but what Gore doesn't mention is that the temperature leads the CO2. So as the temperature goes up, the oceans emit more CO2. He makes you think that CO2 then drives the temperature leads the CO2. So as the temperature goes out, the oceans emit more CO2. He makes you think that CO2 then drives the temperature. That's 0.1, which is a technical point, and even his producer in a children's book, reversed that and said that CO2 leads temperature when it's the reverse.

Now go to the next slide. And that's if you look back further in the geologic record, there you're going back, millions of years years that's Al Gore's high point and this is a key point here and this is in but when you talk to a second years back is this this is going back five seven hundred million years or so I believe that who gets data from seven hundred million years ago how do you do that it's based on all sorts of you, basically a data from everything from sediments, lake bed, rocks. People have a hard time believing a book came out 2000 years ago called the Bible in Jesus,

little on 700 million years ago. And they could be off on the year. I don't even know if they are off on the years. They're pretty confident in it, but that's a different argument. You know, you're talking about young earth creatures. I wonder if they use Excel back in the days like that. But here's the key.

90% of earth geologic history had CO2 levels higher than today, and 90% of Earth's geologic history was warmer than today. We're in the 10% coldest, 10% lowest CO2. We're actually, we've had scientists testify to Congress that we are in a CO2 famine. So if you look at it, the Earth has been 90% of the history has been too warm to have ICT either pull.

We're in the 10% coldest part. So what Gore is showing you is a little snippet of earth's geologic history. Now go to the next slide, what do I have? I think this is according to NOAA. This is an actual chart and the Biden administration's up up on their website showing earth's history much harder than today. And this is a quote from the NOAA website, past temperatures much too warm for ice sheets or perennos, exactly what I'm saying. And they go back 500 million years. Now you could argue about that,

and you know, but that, you know, if you're gonna accept the other science, you gotta, you gotta look at this. I agree. I agree. And you see the blue chart, that's today. That's an idea. Now, if you go again, I think I have the UN chart,

but I don't know that I do. Yes, this was in the first United Nations report in 1990. Look at the medieval war period, showed it as warmer than today. This is important because this is what Elon Musk is using and you brought up. We had a scientist named David Deming, University of Oklahoma, come testify before the United

States Senate Environment Committee in that after that 1990 UN report, which this chart was featured in the IPCC, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The gold standard, if you will, that the UN scientists started an email campaign and started contacting, we have to get rid of the medieval warm period.

Why would a climate activist scientist chosen to work with the United Nations want to get rid of the medieval warm period? Well, because if current temperatures are not as warm as the medieval warm period, it's hard to scare the public about it. So that led to the whole creation of the hockey stick, which was done by Penn State professor Michael Mann, who just recently moved to University of Pennsylvania, which was called statistical rubbish. He went through and used all sorts of proxy data for climate, and he smoothed out the medieval warm period.

He smoothed out, this is just the northern hemisphere because we don't have real good data for the southern hemisphere, but he smoothed out the little ice age. And he made a hockey stick, meaning the 20th century, showed this great big temperature. These are temperatures, not CO2, this chart. This was critical because people need to know

that when originally the UN report, the science hasn't changed in the past. You could argue our understanding of it but then you get into what they did the lobbying campaign the professors received an email saying we have to get rid of the many of the war in period lo and behold they got rid of it a few years later with a very controversial chart that has been roundly attacked even by people

who believe in a climate you know climate is a huge problem discredit it and even man Michael Mann's own colleagues in the UN, climate gate emails were real. So go to the next thing, I don't know if I have any other chart here. Actually, this is another, this is a chart exaggerating,

Chen global temperatures in 1880. We always hear this is done by the Greenpeace co-founder, Patrick Moore, who's now a big climate dissenter, if you will. But that's showing you the global temperature and I believe that's, you know, tense or half a degree. The key here is when they claim that things have gone

skyrocketing or unprecedented, the hottest year on record, the hottest decade, it's within tense hundreds of a degree, not even measurable. It's within the margin of error, within the margin that they adjust the temperatures. It's a fancy way for them to say, you know, 2016, it's the hottest year on record,

when it's not statistically different from 2005 or even sometimes it was 1998. So essentially it turns into the last 25 years. We haven't had since late 90s, we had very little warming. But then if you go back to the 1970s where they start a lot of the baselines, we've had a lot more warming

because that was a little ice age. If you keep going, I believe I have a EPA chart, just one other point I've since we're doing charts. Keep going a little faster, more and more, keep going, you'll see a temperature chart. That's tipping point. Well, actually, let's stop there.

This is a CO2 chart that shows you since 1960, the same chart, but here's the other thing, and this is what I focused on. These are UN meetings. The UN Earth Summit 1992, you see Rio, Berlin, there's Kyoto 1997. If you go up, you can see Paris, that's 2015. You can see the lockdown.

Everything they've talked about, everything they've tried, has failed to reduce CO2 emissions. It's all window dressing. It's a fancy way of saying we need to convert to a technocratic socialist system in order to control the climate because this, because capitalism will destroy the environment. But nothing they've done or attempted to do

has had any impact. And Roy Spencer, a climatologist formerly with NASA, said it would take about a 50% reduction in CO2 total emissions for at least a year or more to actually make a dent in that kind of a chart. So go to the Green New Deal. What the Green New Deal is not a bill, something that was 14 pages,

what are they proposing is their solution for it? So, because to me everything's fine, let's just say this is happening. What's your solution? What's your approach to fixing this? The Green New Deal. The Green New Deal looks at this and it goes back to what I just said.

They believe that the Earth can't handle capitalism, essentially, in freedom, and that we need to have a socialist system, but they know they could never sell their brand of socialism. I don't even know if it's the right terms anymore, especially since COVID, it's not really socialism. You could argue it's technocracy. It's a tyranny of a small elite group of people.

But essentially, the Green New Deal argues that they can't sell their ideas in their own. So they argue that we have a crisis and that this is the solution. In other words, if they had to sell the Green New Deal in its own merits, it would have no chance. So they use the climate scare to say, this is what's happening with the climate scare.

And these are our solutions. And the solution is. What is these? The solutions, okay. In my book, Green Fraud, I have a whole chapter on the 1970s ice age scare. And it's eerie how the green you deal literally mirrors the same solutions to the ice age scare. Sovereignty limiting treaties, economic degrowth, stopping of meat, radical restrictions on

freedom of movement, radical restrictions on a home ownership, radical restrictions on freedom of movement, radical restrictions on a home ownership, radical restrictions on just, on thermostat controls in your house, on the size of your home. In other words, it's a micro regulation of every aspect of your life. They did this in the 1970s. First of all, they said that man-made global cooling

was caused by fossil fuels emitting aerosols, which were blocking the sun, causing global dimming. Their solutions were sovereignty-limitry treating well-3 distribution, and literally the same virtual signaling of the climate. In other words, it's the same agenda. You can go back to the overpopulation. You can go back to the rainforest scares.

Whatever environmental problem, they always believe the government needs to step in and micromanage all of freedom every aspect of our life because people left alone will create environmental disasters, racial disasters, will create climate disasters and we need the government to essentially keep a watch over on us and that's why the Green Need Deal does everything from your dishwasher to your washing machine to your control your home thermostat to your diet, to your travel, to

the type of homes you can buy, whether the sustainable to the type of car to eliminating the internal combustion engine which is gaining, that's a huge issue, that's gaining huge steam. But all of this was part of the Green New Deal, it was a framework. Importantly though they introduced the Green New Deal multiple times, but most recently, when Biden was first elected, when he first sworn in, and you never heard of it again, why is that? Because they know even Democrats won't support it.

As the same way Democrats didn't support Obama's cap and trade. Forces not going to work. Forces not going to work. As much as they want to do, can Can you pull up this article from North Northwestern Education that E.D.U the one I just text you. Yeah, can you make this bigger? So I just pulled up to see what are ways to Stop global warming. Okay, let's see what they have number one change a light Replacing one regular light bulb with a compact fluorescent light bulb will save you 150 pounds of carbon dioxide a year Number two drive less walk by carpool or take mass, transit's more often.

Number three, recycle more. You can save 2400 pounds of carbon dioxide per year by recycling just half of your household waste. Number four, check your tires, keeping your tires inflated properly, can reduce your gas mileage by more than 3% every gallon. Okay, so far nothing is force. I'm okay with any of these so far.

Yeah. Use less hot water. It takes a lot of good time. Okay, fine. Avoid products with a lot of packaging. You know, okay, fine. Adjust your thermostat. Move your thermostat down just two degrees in winter

and up two degrees in summer. Could save you two thousand pounds of carbon dioxide a year. Okay, whatever. Planetary single tree can will absorb one ton of carbon dioxide over a slifetime. And last one, turn off electronic devices, simply turning off your television, and DVD, and I was like, okay, I'll find it.

So DVD player, that's when we used to watch DVD. That's the same list they would have given you in the 1970s during the time. But what I'm saying is the following, okay, Bill Nye said, the year I was born, America, the world had 2.99 billion people live in there. Three billion people live in there. Today it's at 7.5 billion people, Okay. So then you go and you say everything's linked to the growth of population. 7.5 billion people.

Okay. Then you'll hear the word being thrown around where even Gates said this in 2011, I want to say CNN when he was talking to is it Gupta, not Gupta, he was talking to the doctor that was on Joe Rogan. What's the guys in the end? It's not a Gupta. It's okay. Yeah. He's talking to is it Gupta not Gupta it was talking to the doctor that was on Joe Rogan What's the guys in the end of the group? It's okay. Yeah, yeah, he's talking to Gupta and they're talking about You know depopulation right okay, so if they're saying the problem is really serious okay, so You know, so then the solution becomes you need to go from seven and a half billion eight billion back to one billion So what do you want to do about it? Do you really want to fix it that way?

Because that seems to be the only solution. Because, okay, so then let's just say you can't have that many babies. You know, like China deal and China went back to the one baby deal and now they're back down to back up to like listen, we need to have some babies because we've slowed down in average ages now 38.4 and we got India's at 26. We got to compete, we got old people. We got to have more babies. So what is really the solution? Because the solution I'm hearing about is either more control.

You know, at least you look at what Tesla's doing. What Elon Musk is doing, right? Credit to him. By the way, too, given credit on what he said, even though he said that six years ago, the video I played, the what I read about what he said. Yeah. He said this, October 18th of, the what I read about what he said. He said this, October 18th of 2021, what I'm about to read to you.

He said, if you ask any scientist, are you sure that human activity is causing global warming? Any scientist should say no. The Szeelah Mosque, because you cannot be sure. Let's say hypothetically, CO2 was good for the environment,

and let's say hypothetically, the United good for the environment and let's say hypothetically the United States possessed all the oil in the world. Well, you'd still have to get off oil because it's a finite resource and as you start to run out of it the scarcity would drive the cost up and cost economic collapse. It's just I just don't understand why we'd run that experiment particularly when at you when you consider that at some point We have to get to something that is sustainable. We have to have sustainable production of energy and consumption of energy because Tatalog a tautology Gickley it is is that the word by the way? Tautologically, how do you what does that word mean by the way?

It's it's like you guys are using big, I'm a ESL over here, right? Tell me what that, do you know what that word means? I proved that earlier, it's like a double meaning to talk about it logically. It fits, it's redundant. Okay, because talk to logically, if it's unsustainable, you will run out of it.

So even he is saying, that's a, that was to it. That's a, that's a shift. Seven months ago, he's months ago. That's a shift, the first part, that's a, that's a shift. That's a shift. It's been seven months ago. That's a shift. Yeah. The first part of that. Yeah. The second part, okay. I, in the book, I detail into my research, I went back. Johnny Carson's show is a great source for people like Paul Arilac, who was a celebrity. He was like the outgore of his day

on overpopulation. Well, in 1980, well, first of all, in the 1960s, he warned of the same thing. Peek oil, resource scarcity. We're going to have famines. We're gonna have massive population disruption because we're gonna run out of all these fuels. He lamented people hopping in their car, driving to the grocery store, getting a six-packer. This is all Paul Ehrlich.

He predicted the end of oil within 10 years in 1980. There've been people predicting the end of oil for decades. I think at least since the 1930s, 40s, maybe earlier, the problem with what Elon Musk said, and there's not, I mean, if solar, first of all, solar and wind, the last count 2020, or less than 4% of the US energy production,

we're still about 79% fossil fuels. If you go back 100 years, we're about 80% fossil, it's the same with global, not much has changed. So there is no chance. People thought we were going to run out of natural gas, or didn't think natural gas was that plan of a wearer, or we can't get it. We found a new way, or they revised and improved upon an old way, fracking, hydraulic fracking. We ended up in it. This is in my book, I think

it was 2009, Energy Information Agency made projections. Not a single prediction was right about the trajectory of CO2 emissions because the United States led the world in our reduction. That little chart, the little video animation you showed showed our rapid. And that was because we switched from cold and natural gas. A better technique was able to extract it. So there's no way people can predict that when fossil fuel ran out. Having said that, when you're powering a modern economy, you don't ban energy that's plentiful now and available. And

there's probably, who knows, with new technology, oil and gas could go for thousands of years, hundreds of years. Who knows how many years. But you always know, 100 years ago, 200 years ago, technologies always change. You can never predict the energy mix. The problem with the whole climate agenda Problem with what Ian on must said He's trying to use subsidies Government regulations and bands on certain industries and to promote some and ban others Which means they're gonna be shutting down one and forcing us to go to another. They're going after the internal combustion engine the world bank Nicholas Stern former president of the world bank meeting a couple of weeks ago, once a stop,

the World Bank financing of institutions, organizations. 2030, 2035. That's huge. I mean, you can't just say, I'm not gonna give up my SUV. You're not gonna have a choice when Chrysler Ford and all the automakers aren't gonna be able to get financing to even make it.

That's point one, but then point two, of course. And this is where I still waiting for the woke, I shouldn't say woke, but the newly woke to skepticism, both on waiting for RFK junior and Elon Musk to come out and address this of Naomi Wolf already has. She's condemned the green new deal as fascist, but I'm waiting to hear RFK junior and Elon Musk start condemning some of their previous positions on climate. They haven't done it, but I do sense a shift in Elon Musk. But essentially, you use what you have until you have something to replace it. And that's the biggest complaint.

When people can go to Walmart and buy a solar panel, put it on their roof and get off the grid, that's the day you don't need to have this silly argument. But in the meantime, you're allowing bureaucratic bean counters, politicians, lobbyists, and big corporations to determine every aspect and say, we got to get rid of this, this kind of car, your dishwasher is going to have to run for three hours. We're going to have a thermostat control on your home because we don't want you to, you know, put the air conditioning too high. We're going to have carbon ration cards. And then you get into this whole post-COVID dystopian world, which I'd like to talk about, I'd like to talk about it at some point,

because that's changed the entire climate debate. It's a quaint discussion to sit here and talk about the green New Deal. It's really irrelevant at this point. It's probably never gonna be voted on in Congress. It's being implemented as we speak in every agency of the Biden administration through financing, through the bureaucracy, through executive orders, but more importantly, climate is no longer the issue it was.

It is now a, literally, it's been consumed by COVID. Climate is a supporting player now. You uncheck climate change leads to unchecked COVID. If you don't support Green New Deal, you're a grandma killer, but it's all about climate causing more, COVID, sorry, climate causing more viruses, because people don't care. They tried for decades to get people scared on climate,

they failed, according to Pew, Harris, Gallup polling. A virus comes along, cut across ideological lines, terrified them, and then the climate activists said, everything we're doing for COVID, we should have been doing for climate. And now Harvard Public Health, Journal nature, they're all saying, unchecked climate change leads to more viruses. So COVID is now consumed climate

and climate is important. What's wrong with having 100% of cars being EVs? The problem with that, okay, couple, first of all, what's wrong with that? Here's what's wrong with it. Biden administration right now is trying to build a national charging station powered by the government and funded by the government and all over the place. The problem with that is Henry Ford didn't envision a nationalized

gas system. What does that mean? If you have a ban the internal combustion engine and then you only have a national, especially a power train or you have to plug in your house which is going to be huge electricity bill increase, you're going to have the government without the power to turn off this electricity. Number one, they can stop movement. But more importantly, when you're plugging in and charging your EV, not only are you relying more on China for all the rear-earth, mining, the coal bolt, and for other components, but you're also literally charging your car currently on 40, 50, 80% fossil fuels. So it's a cold car, it's a natural gas car,

it's an oil car, depending on where you live and what your local generation is. So it's just kind of, it's a weird, nonsensical transfer. People think, oh, I have an electric car. I don't need fossil fuels. I'm sorry, and how are you plugging it in? Where's the energy? Michael Moore laid this out brilliantly

in plan of the humans. He said, oh, everyone's for solar and wind, electric cars, but where is that energy coming from? And he would show like the solar panel displays it, pull the curtain back like in the Wizard of Oz and show the diesel generators running the power. It's back up behind the scenes. So, but an electric car, if you want to get one fine, I personally will never buy one because I die of stick shift until they come up with at least a faux stick shift in an electric car. I have no interest in it. But there's nothing wrong in electric car.

I know people have Teslas. They love them in that regard, but don't try to sell them as planet saving and don't mandate it and don't use them to get rid of, you know, internal combustion cars. But beyond that, huge number of government reports, academic, US information, and energy. All these reports coming out calling for the abolition of private car ownership, which is where I think this is ultimately going to go and you're yang the Democrat president.

I believe you interviewed him like, four weeks ago. Oh, okay, really, okay. He actually during the campaign, when he was running for president, said he went to possibly look at eliminating private car ownership and instead turning to roving fleet of rental electric cars for people. That is where I think they want to go with this.

And an electric car, and there's also reports, and I haven't been able to verify this, but that Elon Musk should try to deep-power or turn off his cars that are in Russia as a punishment to the Russian citizens for living under Putin. But the idea that you have to pay a subscription for certain elements is, personally, the self-driving parts of Tesla. You're getting into this corporate government merger where your life's going to be more dependent. One of the things that the automobile, i.e. the internal combustion engine, gave Americans

was freedom. The freedom to move, freedom to move, freedom to drive. Same way with cheap air travel. They're going after that hard. Under a declared climate emergency, you can only fly when it's morally justifiable. In France, there are already a limiting short haul flights due to CO2.

In the United States, they are literally talking about flying once or twice a year in all these government reports. And I detail, these are in peer review journal, these are in academic reports. It's very clear where they want to go with this. So they've got this threat of CO2 and they're using it for everything. The same way they use the threat of a virus to shut down churches and backyard barbecues

and weddings and funals. But hey, Walmart was open and hey, Amazon was making a lot of money and hey, go on online and Facebook. This is part of their agenda. They need crises, and that's about crisis declaration. If you go back in history, the Roman Republic descended into an empire from abuse of emergency powers. Middle ages saw a centralization of power.

Germany, 1933, the abuse of emergency powers, the Patriot Act, abuse of emergency powers, which essentially is leading to all the banning of free speech today. But this is the world we face. Now they want to declare a national climate emergency. They want to have a pandemic treaty, which is the most frightening thing modeled after this UN Climate IPCC report. That's where we're headed right now with the COVID climate merging of issues.

And Bill Gates is calling it germ. Bill Gates, single biggest funder to world health organization. They want a pandemic treaty where Bill Gates paid experts can declare a viral emergency, shut down essentially the world in a whim. You can get rid of your outliers like Sweden or around the Santas. Make us beholden to some global treaty

where we have to go on it. That's what's scary. They tried for decades on climate utterly failed. That's where they went after kids. The whole Greta Thunberg movement was the climate's activist realization that they failed to convince adults so they went after kids. They did a pretty good job with kids to scare them. You know a part of this when it comes on to climate change, I have a hard time fully

buying this big of a threat. And it's such a title we can hear you. And it's such a different angle on why I have a hard time believing it is I'm in the insurance business. Okay. The insurance business, these are capitalists. Okay. These are capitalists that don't like to lose capital.

The reason why life insurance business has the tallest skyscrapers in top 20 metropolitan cities and you'll see MetLife, you'll see New York Live, you'll see all these other companies is because they don't lose money. That's why life insurance companies have so much money. So why don't they lose any money? Because they have the best and brightest minds, actuaries who sit there and they look up data all day long and that's what they do for living and what kind of data Are they really looking for they're looking for data to see when you and I are expected to die and then they

Ensure us and they underwrite us right try calling people to well know that doesn't matter the insurance companies Well underwrite anybody bullshit I can tell you personally our company. We've sold nearly 500,000 insurance policies the last 13 years right give or take and I can tell you personally our company, we've sold nearly 500,000 insurance policies the last 13 years, right? Give or take. And I can tell you how many times I've had to call a carrier and say, Hey, this person is now their table D, you know, their table D is now they're not going to get approved. No, no, no, we're not going to prove this, but it's a big premium. I'm sorry, we can't approve this person because it's a risk, right? Okay. So why are they, you know, selling life insurance

to 20 year olds and they're giving them a million dollars to pay 50 bucks a month because they're expecting that 20 year old to live 100 years. And if that 20 year old's gonna live 100 years, that means the next 80 years, nothing's gonna happen. So that 2050, the end of the world coming, if it's so bad, why are insurance companies underwriting trillions of dollars of paper? Yeah, why are they doing it? So my mind is more of a logical

Mathematical where the capitalist is not gonna give up money for the hell of it because it doesn't help them out So the moment folks if you really want to know like here's what I'll tell you If the market's doing well of the market's doing bad if you want to know if the market's doing well, if the market's doing bad, if you want to know if the market's doing bad, look at annuity sales. When annuity sales goes up, it'll tell you if people are afraid or not. Okay, when annuity sales goes up, when people start buying annuities

and they start buying insurance against things happening, people are afraid, meaning there's a, you know, downturn coming, okay. If people stop going to Vegas and gambling, there's issues going on. If people stop buying and gambling with NFTs, they're afraid something's going on, right? Because that's part of a gamble. It's a new thing. NFTs that's going on, right? So if you ever see cost of life insurance go up and actuarize all of a sudden, three ex the cost of life insurance, you best believe these insurance companies know something we

don't know. They have the best lobbyists. They have the best, you best believe these insurance companies know something we don't know. They have the best lobbyists, they have the best, you know, people that they hire that are sitting there wondering whether they can protect their hedge against the risk long-term or not. So as much as I hear both sides of the argument, I just go back to logic and say, if it's such a big threat, why is 100% of all life insurance companies still using the same formula as actuaries to underwrite clients? Why?

If the world is coming to an end, why are they not so worried about it? Well, I think they're looking at the data. In fact, part of the COVID climate merging is a doctor in Canada and a new doctors group is now diagnosing patients with climate change, a suffering from climate change. A woman in Canada, the head of the ER department

of a major hospital in British Columbia, Canada, diagnosed her as having climate change. What does that even mean? It means she was suffering from heat exhaustion so she's suffering the effects. So they want to make it a clinical diagnosis. World Health organizations said climate is the greatest problem. You being serious about, you pull up the store.

Pull it up. A Canadian doctor has diagnosed a woman with climate change after she came to hospital breathing problems. Dr. Kown Merritt came to the unprecedented conclusion after finding that a recent heat wave and poor air quality in Nelsland, British Columbia contributed to the seven-year-olds deteriorating health.

This is seven months ago. Hypochondria, is not what this is. Well, this is the problem. You're making up a problem. This is an important, it's a legal thing. The World Health 2018 pre-COVID climate is the greatest public health threat we face. Bill Gates has said publicly,

COVID is gonna have, climate is gonna come to war. So what people think COVID, following up directly on this, adding climate change as a cause of death to death certificates. This is important. This will give us a daily annual, monthly, weekly, a death count of climate deaths related deaths. This is, they want to put this as a cause of death, contributing factor. The reason I'm bringing all this up is because you're talking about insurance and you're talking

about actuaries and everything else. Well, if you look at it and I think what these underwriters you're referring to are looking at, if you go back 100 years, you know what the climate-related rate for Americans, or I think it was global, has dropped 99% death rate drop, from affected by heat, cold storms, hurricanes, floods, droughts, you name it, and that's chiefly because of better technology and better infrastructure due to fossil fuels.

The death rate from climate has dropped 99%. So I think the insurance actuaries are looking at that. To use, if you wanna find about a death certificate, that's pretty interesting too, but it's in my PowerPoint toward the end, where you could just go to my website and look up that certificate of this person. No, it's a whole other group of Australian academics

wanna add climate as a cause of death to death certificates. That was done first, and then they're diagnosing patients with climate change second. But here's the bottle line. If you're are worried about climate, it's like, is there people always say John Kerry is always famous, but that's what could happen.

They're gonna place COVID. It's just, if you actually, what does this one say? Yeah, death certificate's coming. Yeah, you could even play my Mariano Minute there if you wanted, but anyway, if you have a situation where people are looking at the climate situation and they say, John Kerry will say, well, we need insurance policy in case the climate deniers are wrong,

would you buy a premium on your home that costs more than the home and paid out absolutely nothing if your home burned down? Because that's what they're selling. And John Kerry admits that at different times. But even if we zero our missions out, it wouldn't even affect global emissions, let alone theoretically the climate in some way. So I always say you don't want whatever buy a policy like that. That's part of the reason the green you deal, the UN pairs, none of this makes sense. Even if every nation does what they want, we're committed to in the UN Paris Agreement, within, by the year 2100,

you wouldn't even notice a barely detectable temperature change, slightly cooler, according to the UN, within like 10th or hundreds of a degree, not even measurable by any way, shape or form, and that's using their own data. And the same goes with the green you deal and everything. So it's just a, it's a misdirection. They're scaring you with climate, and they come up with a solution that if you actually

face the climate crisis would have no solution. And that goes, yeah, calls to add climate change to death certificate. It's an Australian national university. Take this seriously because they're talking about making it a public health threat. 230 medical journals. Anthony Fauci has said that COVID was a result of our not mastering nature that human beings have to now master nature. It's all about control. They want to control every aspect of human endeavor. These are the new fascists. These are

the new tyranny. They're using climate, COVID, any kind of crisis. They can declare an emergency. They become all powerful. That's literally what we're facing. And that is why I think the eye opener for Elon Musk, Naomi Wolf, Jimmy Doer, Russell Brand, and a whole host of Bill Mar, I mean, look at Bill Mar, I mean, it's shocking his transformation on, and once you start examining,

there's no way someone like Robert F. Kennedy, Bill Mar, can talk about COVID, the exaggeration, the lies, and the so-called solutions and the tyranny, and then not say, oh, but climate change, and then say climate change is real, would make no sense. Once you see the light and once you express it, I'd love someone and I've not heard it. And I've even talked to people in research. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., talking about climate recently, how I don't know if his position is he support the Green New Deal, does he support a U.M. Paris Agreement because it's the exact same solutions. There's a book in the

80s called Everything I Learned I Learned in kindergarten. It was a famous pop culture book. Well, everything I learned about COVID I learned during the climate debate. You come up with a scary prediction based on faulty models and you say this is what's going to happen, catastrophe, and we need this draconian solution. They did it for climate no one paid attention. They did it for COVID. Everyone listened to Neil Ferguson including, pathetically, President Donald Trump who signed that emergency declaration in March of 2020 who empowered the Fauci at all. The lowest point of the Trump administration was Larry Cudlow being asked I think of was CNBC, when does the economy going to open back up?

And he's like, oh, I don't know. That's up to the health people. Literally, the President of the United States, seated, our United States economy, the greatest economy we had in 50 plus years, lowest black and teenage to the public health people. Larry Cudlow, the brilliant economists, you even fell prey to this. And that was how this happened. And that emboldened if a Republican conservative president

could fall for this, this is where the climate activists began to pounce. And you'll see in the Greenfraud book and in my new book, multiple chapters just on how the climate activists praised the COVID lockdowns. John Kerry himself said it's the same thing. The parallels are screaming at us between COVID and climate.

Jane Fonda said COVID was God's gift to the left. It gave them everything they wanted. And that's the scary part. That's where we are right now in this world. Jane Fonda said climate change is God's gift to the left. COVID was God's gift to the left. COVID. In part, because it gave them their agenda

in part, I guess, because it helped defeat Donald Trump. You can look that up. Look up Jane Fonda. COVID God's gift to left. But this is this is the world which we're facing and I still can't believe Republican. I mean, I spent almost my time these days just bashing Republicans on climate and COVID. Jane Fonda calls coronavirus gods give to the left. Yeah. Two years ago. Can you go to the Neil, the Grace Tyson article? Okay, so so the grass Tyson says it might be too late to recover from climate change.

This is the one where we had an emotional. This is five years ago or something. Can you go a little lower to read it on how he puts it? Make it a little bit bigger so it can read it. So Neil Tyson, Neil, the grass and so on and so on. There was the devastating floods in Hurricanes and we can make a little small Kadego. And in interview with CNN GPS, Tyson got emotional when Farid Zakari asked about what made home that security advisor, Tom Zah,

refusal to say what the climate change has been a factor in Hurricanes Harvey or Irma's strength despite scientific evidence pointing to the fact that had made the storms more destructive, 50 inches of raining Houston Tyson claim. This is a shot across our Boa hurricane, the width of Florida going up the center of Florida. What will it take for people to recognize that a community of scientists are learning objective truths about the natural world and that you can benefit from a knowing about it.

And he continues to say that he had no patience for those who, as he puts a cherry pick scientific studies according to their belief system, the press will sometimes find a singular paper and say, oh, there's a new truth, if the study holds it, but an emergent scientific truth for it to become an objective truth, a truth that is true, whatever,

a weather or not, you believe in it, it requires more than one scientific paper, it requires a whole system of people research, all leaning in the same direction, all pointing to the same kind. Anyways, so he goes on, you know, saying the two, the day two politicians are arguing about whether science is true, it means nothing gets done, nothing. It's the beginning of the end of an informed democracy, as I've said it many times. What do you think about when you hear this is considered to many people when the smartest guys in America, okay?

So some people, the guys got billions on top of billions of views, okay? Adults, kids watch this content, they're taught by and by many teachers. If he's saying something like this, the average person says, right, Neal has to be smarter than you, Mark, to say something like that. And they said the same thing about Anthony Fauci when he first came out. They bet this is what you'd call science by expert decree. He comes out with this, he does it passionately. He's a science spokesman for decisions

that have essentially already been made. He's a science lobbyist. And that's what I call the United Nations Climate Panel. This is a group of people who are self-selected, who join up and they try to make the report, we have multiple UN heads in. Wait till the next report, there'll be so alarming the world will have to act. So what he's saying, first of all, what he's saying about hurricanes, it's not, first

of all, it's not about, well, this new study, oh, skeptics are right, we have a paper in our hand. It's about data, and it's about the complete picture. What ends up happening when climate alarm, and he's talking about a hurricane, the width of Florida, when current reality fails to alarm, you make up scary predictions of the future. And if you look at this, and first of all, all weather, hurricanes, floods, droughts, tornadoes, wildfires, there's either no trend or declining trend. And this is sourced from United Nations reports. And there's no way, the worst hurricane that gave

the last 100 years with the 1940s. The UN has done multiple extreme weather reports where they bury this information, but essentially shows there's either no trend. Global droughts, there's no trend. Global floods, there's no trend. But they scare you because they predict it's going to happen. And then he mentioned Houston having 50 inches of water, whatever it was. The whole nature of extreme weather is you can always find some extremes somewhere.

There's always going to be a record broken, liking it to a lottery. The odds of you winning the lottery are low. The odds of someone winning the lottery are almost 100% at some point, or maybe some weeks they don't, if you're doing a pick six or something. But what his job is is to highlight the lottery winners

and make it look like everyone's winning. In this case, he's highlighting one city with 50 inches of rain and making it look like that's happening globally. When in reality, it's not global flood. So if you look at the actual trends of all the underlying data, it's not there. By the way, I'm seeing sea level go by here.

Sea level's been rising since 20,000 years ago, the end of the last ice age. Sea level by tide gauges. Sea level has been rising since 20,000 years. 20, end of the last ice age, sea level by tide gauges. The sea level has been rising since 20,000 years. 20,000 in the end of last ice age. Yeah, it's been a natural rise. So first of all, sea level has always been rising for 20,000 plus years. Second of all, if you look at tide gauges, it's about the thickness of a nickel rise per

year. And if you look at satellite, which they started in 93, I think it's like triple or maybe double that rate or maybe a one and a half times that rate. But there's dueling data sets and even if you accept their high end, it would take 3,500 years to get the sea level rise that Al Gore warned about in his film and then coming in true. 35,500 years if you were to believe humans were accelerating it. But the point is sea level rise is natural. If you're worried about sea level rise, you could look at what the Dutch did. There's all sorts of things you can do with that. And that requires development, economic growth, and also wise building plan.

You don't want to put all these houses on the beach because it's a natural thing happening anyway. So, but it's important to go back to the Neal Tyson to grass because that is expert judgment, expert consensus. That's the way they've done this. That goes back to the whole 97% consensus. These are scientists, people, trust them. You know, four out of five Dennis recommend this toothpaste.

97% of scientists says, we had Richard Toll, who interviewed who was a lead author of the United Nations report, looked into the 97% consensus done by an Australia named John Cook, the underlying data. He said the consensus in that paper was quite literally pulled from thin air. There's another paper of 97 percent and they got a survey of 10,000 scientists whittled it down to 77 and they came out with 75 answered the survey as the earth warming to humans contribute and they

came out with a 97 percent consensus that way. Even though there were questions a lot of skeptical scientists would answer yes to. So this is important because when you cut to the COVID debate, you put out a credentialed expert who makes these claims, puts a little bit of data in, but then tries to scare the public because they're lobbying.

He's lobbying you for a policy position there. Are you basically saying that Neil deGrasse Tyson is the Anthony Fauci of climate change? I don't know enough about him. I don't think he's that bad. No. But I do think he's lobbying for, he's not just, he's not that bad. He doesn't have that kind of power. Right. Anthony Fauci has power and influence. Neil is a, Neil's also more careful, I think, generally than Fauci. Fauci was just all over the place. I don't know. I he doesn't come on. Who would be who would be the Anthony Fauci of, you know, climate change? Who would that voice be? Well, it depends on the again,

not NIH. It's not going to be CDC. Who's that person going to be? Who's leading the Paris climate accord? Well, you have John Kerry and Gina McCarthy are in the Biden administration. So John Kerry is the administration so john carry is the sort of the climate of the international climate on voy and then you have gena macArthur is like the domestic and wasn't carry also the head of the rn nuclear do yeah he was yes so he's the climate and nuclear and john carry and he's the perfect spokesman for this but john carry

you know he's he comes up he doesn't do the cause any good for the climate movement but it comes and i've a whole chapter my new book on this whole idea of credentialed scientists in the whole process. And essentially, what they do is they're using science as a lobbying tool. And I think it was Thomas Sol, whose famous quote was, you know, science, government science, they bring in the science to support decisions already made by bureaucrats essentially or by government.

And that's what they do. It's very easy to find any position you want when it comes to science like that. And you line up an administration, give you a case in point. Biden has an EPA advisory board that was there. They didn't like any of the Trump appointees, so I think they're getting rid of like 50 plus of these scientists. Because they wouldn't agree with Biden's view on climate and environment. So once they get rid of them within a year, when Biden proposes a new environmental protection agency climate rule, they can credibly say there wasn't any dissent and I knew 100% of our scientists all agreed with it. Well, if you had been paying attention a year ago, they just eliminated a third of the scientists because they knew they wouldn't agree. They just removed them from the

board. This is how they create science consensus. You have these national academy of science, the American meteorological, the American Geophysical Union. Look at this, they came out with a statement in support of Al Gore in the UN, tens of thousands of scientists endorsed the view that climate is causing harm.

Oh, really? It was a governing board of two dozen and so elected officials voted without direct vote or input of the members that that tens of thousands of members of these groups. In the case of American meteorological society, there were studies that up to 75% at one point were skeptical a man made climate change at least 50, but it didn't matter because the two dozen governing board members steeped in politics, lobbying and government connections voted that we

agree with the UN Al Goreview, and so that whole organization and there's another one of the consensus, can those thousands of scientists be wrong? That was the whole point of the way. It's just about stopping debate, stopping stuff so that we have to accept the premise, and then we have to be accept their forced rushed solution because we don't have time to act.

We're running out of time. You've used the word consensus multiple times in your last statement right there. So I just wanna hone in on consensus. You see the stack, 97% of scientists believe this, right? Obviously you take different positions in these people, but like even if you use the abortion debate, pro-life, pro-abortion, pro-this, pro-life, pro-choice,

they find consensus that they both agree in the life of the mother, okay? The health of the mother right whether you believe in pro choice pro abortion whatever pro life You believe you want the health of the mother but where do you find consensus with the people you all hardly disagree with is there Anything that we at least the general public can understand. This and this is actually real. What is it? We've warmed since the end of the little ice age in 1850. I think that's not, no one disputes that. And since that was a, you know,

so on either side nobody's just adding up. That would be a sad copy, Chuck. It's just now disputed about the medieval warm period and the Roman warring period because they went back and revised all of that history. We generally, there's a proud agreement that more CO2 would equal a warmer world theoretically, meaning if it's not canceled out by something else,

but then you get into disagreement. Who's agreement that CO2? Bad. No, that it would add to Warming, not necessarily bad, because there's a theory about saturation point when she hit a certain point of CO2. More does not make it warmer. It sort of levels out.

There's also the whole geologic history. We've had ice age with many times higher CO2, but generally there's a whole contingent of scientists who say no, there is no greenhouse effect, but there's small, but otherwise, that's generally agreed upon the CO2 adswarp. But there's also so many factors. Hundreds of factors that influence the climate

till to the earth, clouds, water vapor, ocean cycles, volcanoes, and the sun, obviously. So the idea that you can tease out one and say, this is the cause, this is the finger of our climate catastrophe, CO2 is the finger control of the climate, not the case, in terms of the scientists that are dissenting. That's where you get to dispute. But essentially, the CO2 warms temperatures

gone up since 1850. Beyond that, Arctic ice has dropped since the 1970s. Again, that was the height of the global cooling scare. But then it's disputed because there may have been similar levels of Arctic ice in the 20s, 30s, and early 40s, which including Greenland.

Polar bears, I think it's generally agreed that the numbers have gone up. And you know why that? But that's not a public agreement. But I'll tell you why it's a group. Polar bears are disappearing. But they're disappearing from Al Gore's books and movies and climate activist brochures.

Why is that? Because conservation and all these different environmental groups all admit that we've never had this many polar bears. It's the highest they've ever counted. They did a hunting band back in the late 60s, 70s, but the numbers have gone up dramatically, we're up to over 30,000. Gore made it the poster child in his first film,

never mentioned them in his second film or his book at the same time, 2017. So that's generally agreed upon, but they won't talk about it, that kind of stuff. So in terms generally agreed upon, but they won't talk about it, you know, that kind of stuff. So in terms of beyond that, if you listen carefully, John Kerry agrees that, you know, the UN Paris Agreement zeroing out industrial emissions for the West would have no impact on CO2 emissions, but these are all said, disjointed at different times and reaction and moments of candor.

But otherwise, I'm trying to think what else does general agreement on that? The debate you did with Bill Nye was seven years ago. Yeah, I think it was on Bill. I was on, well, I did three meetings. One was on your personal. One was on Pierce Morgan and one was on Pierce Morgan. And how often do you do debates like that? Great question. You used to do them all the time. I mean, all the time. I mean, from 2000 to 2016, it was regular debating. Donald Trump won the media, said we could never allow someone like him to win again.

We can no longer allow to sit and they just stopped it all. But I was doing that regularly. ABC News, CNN, regularly on CNN, Don Lemon's show, they would have, yeah, we were, but then they just, they decided that Scott Pelley, CBS News anchor, then CBS News anchor said, I will not interview a climate denier for the same reason I won't interview a holocaust denier. That's the whole move.

That's the whole move. That's the whole move. That's the whole move. That's the whole move. That's the whole move. That's the whole move. That's the whole move. That's the whole move.

That's the whole move. That's the whole move. That's the whole move. That's the whole move. That's the whole move. That's the whole move. debates they allow now are with other Republicans who believe climates are problem with free market solutions. No, I'm trying to think that's a problem because I was on their silencing. Yes, they have the outlier debate was damn Bungino had wanted me to debate the UN report last summer in August of 2021. They couldn't find anyone. They ended up getting some surrogate Biden spokesman who didn't really know anything about the climate. He just read a couple talking points. But beyond that, it's been years because they will and there's no it's not just me, but no one's allowed to debate. But beyond that, it's been years because they will, and there's no, it's not just me,

but no one's allowed to debate. It's very, very rare. Well, listen, I got some devastating news that just came in and I hate to ruin your days. Anthony Fauci said he will not continue if Trump becomes a president. And I don't want you guys to be disappointed by that. I know America is probably, look, we're probably going to lose 1,000 people right now getting off immediately because this is going to be very disturbing for them. But you know, I don't know if you read what he said yesterday. He said, if question was asked, if Trump wins, will you stay? He says, no, I'll resign and move on. So for those. Well, he's also 85 years old. It's time for him to move on.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no I don't know, the video was specific about him not continuing if it's Trump. I'm sure, but there's a lot of it. Again, I hate to do this to be, because I know bothers you a lot, but I don't want to do that to you.

And another number came out yesterday. I don't know if you saw the other number that came out yesterday, because you know how every time they'll say Biden's approval rating is the worst we've had, except for Donald Trump. Well, the fish, you can't say that anymore, because it's the worst.'ve had except for Donald Trump. Well, officially can't say that anymore because it's the worst ever measured, yeah.

Dude, again, two things back to back within a minute. Adam, Biden's approval rating has been the worst in the last 100 years. To the point where you know things are bad when MSNBC puts stories up saying, if this goes the way the 75% is not happy about the direction that's going with Biden yesterday, there was a question asked of the new press secretary

having to do with shortages and inflation because they're trying to blame inflation on corporate taxes. And then Jeff Bezos, I don't know if you saw the Jeff Bezos store if you want to put that up, Bezos has never. I don't think I've ever seen Bezos say anything negative about a president on the left and yesterday he just popped off on Twitter. I'm like, dude, were you having a bad day

that you and your girl get into a big fight? Can you make that a little bit bigger and click on the Jeff Bezos tweet not the other one? Is that the right one or no? Just click on his profile. It'll go to because he doesn't tweet that often. Just go up a little bit. You'll see it. Yeah, zoom in. You'll see it right there. Just zoom in. Zoom in. Go up a little bit. Go up a little bit. Go up a little bit. The one right above it, I think. Two hours ago, Amazon.

No, that's not it. Can you find what he says to? Oh, I think it is the one that says the best way. I think that was it. There it is. The newly created disinformation board should review this tweet. By Joe Biden.

Or maybe they need to form a noon noon non uh... sequitre board instead raising corporate taxes is fine to discuss taming inflation is critical to discuss motioned them together is just missed erection by the way this is a man who hates trump hey this is a man who him and must go at it all the time you know they're opposing sides and this is a man who him and must go at it all the time. You know, they're opposing sides. And this is a man who supported this guy.

And he's saying this publicly on Twitter, look how many likes it's his most like tweet of all time. Okay. We're Joe Biden. Yeah, look at the click on Joe. Now, if you look at Bayeson's tweets, he doesn't get a lot of likes. Look at the like before 13,000, 6,000, 3500,

you know, 2000, 5,000, and then500, you know, 2,000, 5,000, NM boom, 170,000 people agree with this guy click on Joe Biden's tweet by the way, click on Joe Biden's tweet You want to bring down inflation? Let's make sure the wealthiest corporation paid their fair share It do you realize even if you taxed a hundred percent of the wealthiest people it still wouldn't do enough Think if you tax them a hundred percent still wouldn't do enough thing. If you tax them 100%, it wouldn't do anything with where we're at. So by the way, in regards to climate change, did you hear what Pinterest just said?

Pinterest just said, last week I think, Pinterest will now take down content, spreading climate changements and formation. This is, let me go to what story of a page is that on. It's on page three, I'll read this to you and then I'll get your commentary on everything we just discussed right now. So Pinterest will take down content spreading the climate changements information.

The announcement shows Pinterest known for providing a space to share ideas about clothing, food, and furniture is also getting into sustainability. The company is launching a preemptive, striking as climate change misinformation, becoming the first social media network to prohibit users from sharing inaccurate data about climate change. The site will now use a combination of automation and human review to find misinformation, remove it and replace it with accurate articles about climate change.

Yeah, well, my only first comment is, I can't believe they weren't doing that already. I just thought, I assume they all were. It's just sad because YouTube just recently demonetized any climate skeptics from even getting anything, not that that didn't affect me. But the same thing, everyone cheering on what they did for Russia right after the invasion into Ukraine, where banking, government, corporations all got together and immediately just went after and essentially shut it.

Same thing that Trudeau did to the truckers in Canada. Be very afraid, because they can use that directly back on someone if you hold anti-COVID views, if you hold anti-climate views, anti-viral scare views. This is all part essentially, you know, Davos crowd, Klaus Schwab, small narrow window to reset our world, disinformation, control of it is probably one of the most important things. They're not other training sessions for COVID. They talked about shutting down the internet to stop misinformation.

So I'm sure Pinterest probably has a COVID policy, very similar. And these are just the first steps. They're going to keep going. And any, I almost said idiot, but any person out there who says, so private company, they should be able to do what they want. Nothing's private anymore. Big tech censorship is government censorship. When the White House gives issues, lists of names for big tech corporations to censor, and then they follow suit and do it.

This is no longer private companies. So that's where I get really angry with a lot of the people on the Libertarian conservative who just think, oh, this is their choice. They can do it. I don't know the way to fight it I don't think Elon Musk is buying Twitter by the way. Everything I'm seeing is I think he's looking for an out He's saying it's full of bots and he's either the whole deal is on hold. I have a feeling he's gonna walk from this I think he's just probably doesn't want the hassle And I think in the long-term interest, just personally, it would probably destroy Tesla. If he did what he's talking about doing at Twitter, they're the establishment's pet company,

they will destroy that company, no matter what he's done on climate, no matter how popular he's been, they will get him and they have the power to do that, even to the world's wealthiest man, they will dismantle him. I don't think it's a good move if he doesn't, if he backs out of it.

Well, he's looking for a way to get it. I know what he's doing because the whole $120 million that they're trying to say because you waited a few days, you saved yourself this much money by doing that and now they're trying to investigate him. So obviously the one thing that's obvious, forget about the fact that he wants to buy it or not. No one on the left wants him to buy it. No, but yeah, no even yesterday

Did you see what the Twitter CEO of Twitter put Twitter? Yes, I didn't know how Elon Musk reacted to it So yesterday the CEO Twitter put out how to address the Fight off all the bots and He wrote out a series of tweets And he wrote out a series of tweets and Elon Musk's response was he says let's talk about spam and let's do with the benefit of data facts and context Okay, and he explains it in this 10 part tweet or 15 part tweet that he puts and then on the bottom What does how does Elon Musk respond to it with a go up go up go replies. Now go all the way up and go to replies, right there's second that's as replies and zoom in a little bit

because we can't see anything, zoom in a little bit. Okay, keep going, keep going, keep going, keep going. And yeah, there you go, move it. This is how you respond. There, not that one, keep going. You have to see what he responds with, what emoji. There it is, right there, okay. So proxies, unfortunately, we don't believe

the San Andreas San Andreas, but the problem is we're given it. So the part about the bots Elon Musk responds with a what emoji is that? Pup emoji. Yeah, I'm a poop emoji. That's essentially if you buy the company that's a CEO, but he responds with a poop emoji. I don't think it's a good move for Musk to back out. I don't think it's a good move for Musk to back out.

He must, I just read a whole, Alex Berencin did a thing. He's, Alex Berencin thinks the deals over. It's not going to happen. I don't know. He was probably looking at a collapse of his whole enterprise, possibly. I mean, they would be ruthless and going after him. I mean, he could lose his face on track, no matter what with them. Well, even now, but less so now, because he be backs down, I think. I'm, it's, it appears to me he's looking for every out, but I don't know if he'll get it out. We'll see, because now I think Twitter's suing him for the original deal. It's, it's getting messy, but.

I hope Twitter actually forces him to buy it. Okay, I hope they do. Okay, because the cause I'm getting, the cause I'm getting is I'm getting cause and I'm getting on, you know, Morgan Stanley's leading this whole thing. Goldman has involved, but it's really Morgan Stanley's deal. And there he's looking for guys to come in. This is what the cause I've been on,

rounds of 100 million cash, because he wants to, you know, leverage some of the folks who get in as well, but you don't get to say anything. But I hope the deal goes through. I think it's gonna be a very, he may, if he buys Twitter, he may be the most influential man in the world because he's gonna use his voice, if he buys it, if he doesn't buy it, and he's smart enough

to know how to get out of it. If there's anybody smart enough to get out of a deal, it's probably gonna be a lot of muscle. Let me ask you about, you're saying he's basically looking for an off-ram to get out of the deal. It's what it seems like to me because he's talking about these bots. And it looks like the point of contention is, are these bots in this fake accounts? I've seen it.

I've seen it. Is that really what he's worried about? Or is there a bigger play? I think he's just worried. I think all his investors, all his partners, everyone is telling him this is the end of Tesla. And it's very well. I mean, I don't put anything past them. I mean, in terms of what I say them,

I mean, the established. It'll be the end of Tesla why if people goes through a twist. I just think they're gonna do everything they can in terms of government contracts, regulations, support could affect a space and a strizer's, because a lot of his whole world has been. Okay, so that's the will between government and private. That's exactly why

Taking money from the government is not is not a freaking good move because they eventually Strong army like it like he's talking about did you get that SpaceX? Who do you think you and then they eventually say if you do this here's what we're gonna do because we fed you this That's exactly why the nationalized system doesn't work. That's exactly why that doesn't work. It punishes individuality, any dissent, you have to tow the party line on everything. Same thing we saw on every, I mean, everything from climate, COVID. I was selling health insurance. Obamacare comes out and all these guys in LA were like, oh my god, I'm selling Obamacare. I just sold a hundred policies. I just packed, we're making money so much money. You got to get in. I'm like, oh my God, I'm Son of Obama, I care, I'm a foreign let me tell you, I just sold 100 policies. I just, we're making money, so much money,

man, you gotta get in. I'm like, yeah bro, there's one person I don't compete with and that's the government, I'm out. I left. I'm like, I'm not touching health insurance at all. They forced everybody use three or five different insurance companies. Every year, I saw my premium go enough

or what I have to pay for as an employer. I'm like, yeah, I'm not competing with you guys. You're right, you win. Obama, you win. I'm out. We'll go to a different industry that you're not going to be involved. So what's the correlation there,

the lesson there with Elon Musk and what he's doing with Tesla and potentially with Twitter? The correlation is, oh man, look, I'm watching, you're watching this, Amber, and Johnny Depp. What a sweetheart of a girl she is, right?

Just listen to him. The more I I watch her like they showed a recording yesterday of how she's like you know the attorney says do you know why Johnny doesn't look at your eyes do you don't bother with the after use the rest of the day. No, not fine. So did you know why Johnny doesn't look at your eyes and he's like no. Do you look at Johnny's eyes in court? I do. Does he look at you? No. Do you know why? I don't know.

You should know. I don't know. Then she plays the recording. And it's a recording of Johnny and Amber. And she's like, please stop touching me. And I say, come on, please. I just want to one more time. I want to hug you because I, I know I'm so I'll be like, stop touching me. Says, you will never see these eyes look at you ever again. Never, you hear it in the recording. Johnny got to a point that I will never, can you imagine a love one telling you,

I will never make eye contact. Cause you know, love the eye contact, I will never look at you ever again, right? You've seen all these things being revealed about where it's at and how power structure and manipulation when somebody gets ahold of you, I will never look at you ever again, right? You've seen all these things being revealed about where it's at and how power structure and manipulation when somebody gets a hold of you, dude, Amber heard as a small government controlling a guy

that she almost ruined his life because he came out and said, this guy beat me. You know what was the question that the lawyer asked? I love the question. He says, hey, does Johnny always wear these rings? As long as I know, he always has these rings on. Is it fair to say these are not small rings?

No. Is it fair to say he wears very big gory rings, in a not gory rings? Like just... God, he rings, yeah. Yes. Has he always, for as long as I know, he's always worn this. He says, okay, great.

This is the picture you showed that he hits you. What would happen if he hits you with these rings? You're like, what a freaking great point. If he hits you as many times as you claim he's hit you, how come you don't have any scars for these rings? This guy, this girl ruined the guy's life for what she did. And he comes out, it's so weird. Can you imagine a man saying, yeah,

I'm soon my wife or domestic violence. Yeah. Yeah. That's your immasculator, right? Yeah. Anyways, the government is doing to musk what potentially Amber heard did to Johnny. And I hope musk response like Johnny did. I hope musk response like Johnny did because somebody has to stop the bullion. And if that is really what is going on behind closed doors If there is a guy that can do that. It's this crazy guy It's him and that doesn't mean they're not gonna stop coming after you that doesn't mean they're not gonna stop playing games with them That doesn't mean they're not gonna stop trying to get SEC tax They're gonna find some shit on this guy that if they want to do it

But the alternative is what you're officially owned by the government. You officially have to get a tattoo that says I'm government owned property. Yeah, my book on the Great Recent I go into the whole digital currency, what they're trying to do. And they're actually done it now in several countries that I think was Zimbabwe or,

and obviously Canada where they're, you're gonna be government, Joe Biden just did an executive order about three months ago about a central bank digital currency to essentially compete with cryptocurrency. The idea here though is, you're gonna be relying on this government,

your credit card will be shut down, your banking will be shut down if you don't get a COVID vaccine, if you don't support or fall out of favor with the party. And there's actually a partnership now between the United Nations and MasterCard, called a Ducatomy, a credit card, where it's gonna monitor your carbon footprint.

And the car, the world economic form, very excited about this, the car cuts off your spending when you hit your carbon footprint max. And those of you get too much gas, or if you fly by airline tickets, your card stopped working. Now it's voluntary at the moment. It's for people who want to monitor it,

but how long before that, six months, a year, before that becomes mandatory, as a part of it, control your banking, control your thermos. This is about human freedom. And that's ultimately what the climate battle's about. And now the real battle, and the next transition to this is going to be

the viral battle in this pandemic treaty. I think it's the greatest threat. I don't think they're going to win though. I don't think they're going to win. It's a question of how many years of darkness before they lose. That's the question. I think you didn't win, but they had 70 years. Think about, think about, think about building one of the most ridiculous technologies of all time and not wanting any credit for it. What are we talking about? Bitcoin. Bitcoin. Oh, okay. And I'm not even a Bitcoin guy.

I have some Bitcoin and Ethereum, but I'm not the guy that's going out there saying, you know, that's if you, but think about producing the greatest, one of the greatest technologies out there, and not caring for people to say who you are. Like, think about that. Even about Satoshi.

Yeah, yeah. Whoever this Satoshi Nakamoto is, right? Think like, you know how some people write these books that's not their name. What do they call it? There's a word for it. What is it called? Sudanam, right? And eventually what comes out, yeah, I wrote that book. You know, I was really me that wrote that book, right? This guy still has not come out. So how do you process that? Here's how I process that. For you to produce someone like that, where you create a

revolution in the world, essentially, everybody, governments or everybody's talking about this Bitcoin thing and you're sitting there, imagine imagine him on the, you know, you know, sitting in his living room and he's watching us and saying, ha ha ha, yeah. Okay. You know what? I should come out and tell the world I build it. I bet I'm going to get more girls. I bet I'm going to get more this. I bet I'm going to get more respect. I'm going to, I should go out there and say, nah, I really don't give a shit. That guy who produced it is driven more by being left alone than recognition. You can, they're not gonna win.

You don't win with, there's people behind closed doors who are just sitting around who are so powerful and they don't even to impose their power on you. They don't care for the recognition. They don't give a shit for you to tell them how special they are. Those are the people that they're waking up. So for me, I think common sense prevails

and I think they're waking up to wrong people. And those wrong people are ones who know how to stand up to them. I hope, I hope, whoever isn't Elon's ear and is talking to him. Elon's a man who's gonna make up his own mind, he's gonna do what he's going to do. I hope he realizes buying one of these virtual governments is very, very important to not let all of those guys be on the same page.

It's very important for somebody who is reasonable in the middle to own one of the big social media companies. It would be revolutionary. It would put a massive dent in all their plans. So to the point where even if the people who have money, like this is the part that you gotta give credit to the left and not the right,

the, you know what the left would do, I said, say Yalamas was on the left. Say Yalamas was on the left. And they had to figure out it would have come to get and get that money to make sure this deal gets down or whatever it is. You know what they would do? They'd be doing zooms and and get that money to make sure this deal gets down to whatever it is. You know what they would do? They'd be doing zooms and calls and conference calls

to make sure everybody came together and they'd be raising money for each other to make sure they got that money to make sure they own Twitter. I hope the people on the other side are also making calls and doing whatever they can to help this man end up owning Twitter. But at the same time, you know,

what you're saying with Tesla DeFiers, I don't know, man, I hope he stands up and he picks up Twitter because somebody opposing from the mob needs to own one of the social media companies. Someone needs to do it. He's pretty much the only one at this point because they're so big and powerful. It's, but by the way, let me tell you what kind of very weird thing happened in last 24, 40 hours. Kind of like the fact that Bezos kind of threw himself out and maybe Bezos is sitting there saying, shit, I'm not as love this musk is

because I'm playing it so damn safe. You know what, I'm the new rebel and I'm the new guy. You know what, screw this shit of trying to beat and Mr. Nice guy, we're $300 billion. And you know what, forget about it. I'm in the game of recreating myself. I'm about to show you guys what I'm really all about. I'm gonna push my weight as well. I hope that backbone comes out, but you're just hoping when that backbone comes out,

people are not bought on the back end or afraid of all these other fears that people are gonna bring. Who knows what's gonna end up happening? Anyways, today's been a blast having you on. We've talked a lot of different things. Folks, if you enjoyed today's podcast, give it a thumbs up and subscribe to the channel. And the book that's, can they get your book on Amazon? Is your book available on Amazon? Yes, the book is Green Fraud. It's available on Amazon. And my new book is the great reset

and the permanent lockdowns coming out August 28th, I believe. So this one, they can order. I know this one because the auto is out. Yes, this will lay out the entire climate agenda, including the history behind it, the going back the 1970s, it goes through the kids indoctrination, goes through COVID climate connection, it goes through how the UN was corrupted with these extreme scenarios to scare everyone forward

by Mark Stein. And then the other book is the great reset, which goes the world economic forum, Prince Charles, all the big corporations, all aligning essentially for a very narrow window to reset our planet. You'll own nothing, you'll be happy, you'll have everything delivered by drone, you'll have no privacy, you'll be eating insects and printed meat from a 3D printer.

It's all their words. And I thought it was much mainstream sourcey, but again, this is where I talk about the new politics. It's not left-right anymore. Last question for you. Assuming the Earth's still here in the next 50 years, what do you want your legacy to be? What do you want to be known for?

I want to be known as the man who questioned authority. In the new book, I go back to the 1960s, it was the left who showed the way to go after the Pentagon to find the Pentagon papers, to challenge the administration's claims on Vietnam more, who knew that government agencies lied to the public. I want to return, I want to be the man now championing that return, question authority, question the consensus, question what you're told, whether it's climate, COVID, vaccines, or all the so-called solutions. That's what I would like to be, is let's have an open society once again.

Well, I look forward to you actually being in a heated, fierce debate with somebody that you guys can go back and forth for a fun journey. Or a year and a half, we've been trying to invite people to debate, we've had plenty of people to debate on this site, from the other side, no one wants to do it. For a year and a half, we've been trying this, no one's enough, you know anybody.

That's an influencer, and as Andy Pozing said, and is willing to debate, I'm sure you wouldn't mind having to debate with them, we'll host the debate right here. If you know anybody, then you'd like to see this debate. Well, you two keep it on those, the question. If it's a debate, they'll keep it on, because they get Alan Dershowitz and Robert Kennedy.

Well, I would like to see around to debate with Mark. Brother, thanks for coming out. This was great. Thank you. Take care, everybody. By the way, no podcast Thursday. We'll be back next week, I'm out of the country. Take care, guys.

Bye-bye.