TFTC: A Bitcoin Podcast - #324: There is no climate emergency with Tom Nelson

Episode Date: April 18, 2022

Join Marty as he sits down with Tom Nelson to explain why there is no climate emergency. Follow Tom Nelson on Twitter Read everything Tom writes at Tom Nelson and Blogspot Shoutout to our sponsors: Unchained Capital Braiins HodlHodl

What is up, freaks? It's your boy Marty Ben here to introduce this episode of TFTC. Been following this guy for quite some time. Pure signal in an ocean full of noise. A rising, boiling ocean full of noise. Tom Nelson who's one of the front lines

fighting the climate hysteria that persists throughout our society. We had a great conversation. Quick rip. I think we're going to do many more in the future because again, we need to begin changing this narrative and getting people

awake to the fact that they're being duped on a massive scale. He brings a lot of data too. That's what I like about Tom. So enjoy this rip. This rip was brought to you by our good friends

at Unchained Capital. Unchained Capital is here to help you eliminate single points of failure in your Bitcoin security model and to give you financial services so that you can use

your Bitcoin to do cool things. and use it as collateral to get dollar liquidity if you need it. You don't have to sell your Bitcoin, but Bitcoin up as collateral. Good for taxes too that way. They have an IRA product. And of course they have their Volt product.

This is a two-in-three multi-sig collaborative custody model. You hold two keys, excuse me. Unchained holds one. You always have control over your UTXOs in the Volt. Or if you're ever in the pinch, Unchained is there to be the second in the two-in-three multi-sig. quorum. They have a white glove concierge

service. It's going to take you from zero to having that set up with a thousand cuck bucks worth of stats in it. Tell them TFTC sent you. You're going to get $50 off that package. Go to unchained.com. Unchained.com. I need to enunciate. Make sure I'm

driving people to the right websites. Unchained.com. Check out everything they have going on. This room is also brought to you by good friends at I hung out with the Brains team a lot last couple weeks in Houston we had Edward Evenson there BTC Gandalf was there

last week in Miami Edward Everson excuse me, Evenson he doesn't like when I mess up his name intentionally he was there following me around Miami as well he wasn't whipping firmware devs to get the

what's miners out I saw Daniel, the boy Dan Frumps saw Jan as well the brain share behind brains the brains behind brains the man is bringing you the firmware that helps you stack more sets with your hash

if you have an ASIC and it's compatible with BrainsOS plus firmware and you're not using it you're leaving sets on the table it's as simple as that is what the Brains team does it's not just me just saying they actually make shit

they're a team behind Slush Pool they make this firmware they have insights.brains.com that's brains with two I's I-N-S-I-G-H-T-S dot B-R-A-I-I-N-S dot com

is their mining data page everything you need to know about the mining industry is there Brains.com is their regular website. You can learn about Slush Pool.

You can learn about the mining metrics. They have a blog. Of course, you can learn about the firmware. Again, you have an ASIC

that's compatible with this firmware. You're not using it. You're leaving stats on the table. How do you want to increase

the productivity of your mining operation without pouring any more CapEx into it? You simply download the Brains OS Plus firmware. Very simple.

Go check it out. Everything you got going on brains.com this room is also brought to you by our good friends at hodl hodl hodl hodl is here to bring you a no kyc aml lending platform it allows you to use your bitcoin as collateral to get stable coin liquidity you go to lend.hodlhodl.com l-e-n-d.h-o-d-l h-o-d-l.com you put your bitcoin up into a multi-sig astro account you hold one key your counterparty holds a key. HODL, HODL holds the third key. Put your Bitcoin up

as collateral. You get stable coin liquidity. You go spend that however you see fit. As long as you're paying that loan back plus the interest, you're going to get your stats back at the end of the day. And since you have one key in that two or three multi-sig quorum, you have visibility into the escrow

account throughout the duration of the loan. You know that those Bitcoins aren't being re-hypothecated. So you're going to have certainty that your stats are going to be there when you pay back the loan plus the interest at the end of the day and they're going to be

sent back to you. So go check everything that they've gone on at Lend.HodlHodl.com They've also got HodlHodl as a decentralized exchange as well.

OKYC, no AML. They're doing incredible things out of Latvia. Enjoy this trip. It was a good one. A little bit more invigorated after. Love you, Freaks.

OK. you've had a dynamic where money's become freer than free when you talk about a fed just gone nuts all all the central banks going nuts so it's all acting like safe haven i believe that in a world where central bankers are tripping over themselves to devalue their currency bitcoin wins in the world of fiat currencies bitcoin is the victor i mean that's part of the bull case for bitcoin if you're not paying attention you probably should be mr nelson you've been uh you've been on the front lines of fighting fighting climate hysteria for longer than i even imagined 2006 something like that yeah yeah over a decade and a half now

i've enjoyed almost every minute of it yeah well i mean you've seen it evolve pretty insanely over the last 16 years, I imagine. Yeah, something like that. Yeah, I think there are more climate skeptics out now. I enjoy on Twitter seeing new people I never saw on Twitter before that are well-informed as to whether it's getting worse, etc., because it's not getting worse. So, yeah, I think a lot more people understand what's going on than they did 15 years ago. Well, it's getting to a point where believing this narrative is dangerous.

This is leading to policy that is making us less secure from an energy and electricity perspective. And it's scaring the children too, which is one of the saddest things about all this hysteria, whether it be climate change, COVID lockdowns, whatever it may be. You're completely borking the minds of a young generation as they're trying to develop their view of the world and reality, as it may be.

Yeah, I think it's actually evil. You see little kids or you see maybe teenagers holding signs saying that you will die of old age and I will die of climate change. I think people, some of them actually believe that. I think that's evil to try to convince kids that CO2 is going to kill them because it's not going to kill anybody.

Well, CO2 is good. It's plant food. Yeah, it is good. But before we get into dismantling the whole climate hysteria narrative, which i'm very excited to do and i'm very honored that you joined me to do this like i was telling you i've been following you on twitter for i believe five years now and you've just been a beacon of light in a a world drowning in hysteria essentially with no critical thinking but you were describing to me before you have record that you got dragged into this

after debunking a group that believed they had rediscovered an extinct woodpecker? Yeah, yeah. So it was the ivory-billed woodpecker controversy in 2005. And I would say before that, I was a big truster of science. And if people said scientists say something, I would tend to believe it. I was pretty naive back then. But I was a birdwatcher. And in 2005, Cornell came out with this big rediscovery of an extinct bird

called the Ivory-billed woodpecker and had a peer-reviewed paper with 17 authors and it was announced, I think, announced in Washington, D.C. It was a huge deal and NPR made a big deal out of it, etc. But as it turns out, it was all a mistake and it was a mistaken identity. They did not rediscover it. As I mentioned earlier, one of the big pieces of evidence is they had a six-pixel photo of what was supposed to be an ivory-billed woodpecker. So all it was was four black pixels and two white pixels and that was a part of their proof and i was showing that even if you take pictures around in someone's office and you zoom in on the picture you can find six pixel ivory bills all over the place but they had a picture of the woods they found these pixels and it was

just amazing that educated people even ornithologists i believed on that basis that they had found a woodpecker well how did you dismantle that like where was it like how it was on Blogspot back then. I just started posting on Blogspot. And at first, I posted maybe once or twice every few days or something. But a lot of other people started commenting. A lot of ornithologists found my blog, some well-known ornithologists, and they started posting comments there themselves. So there was all these people with all these different perspectives. We were looking at every bit of the evidence very carefully and just ripping it apart in my blog. as i mentioned earlier then jack hit years later of the new york times he wrote a book called a

bunch of amateurs and he talked about my blog and how it was a place that amateurs could log in and they could carefully just dissect every bit of evidence and show that the evidence they had was nothing so it was an example of people from outside the field that were able to uh to show that these what was supposed to be settled science was not correct so then uh go ahead i was gonna So with the ivory bill woodpecker, like why, what was this research team coming out with this quote unquote evidence trying, were they just trying to get the recognition where they honestly think they've rediscovered it or? Yeah, I can't get into people's heads.

I think most of the people thought that they really had rediscovered it. I think hardly anybody was secretly, they knew that they were wrong and they were still pushing it. Maybe later on they started getting doubts themselves. I would think that most of them probably were sincere at first. And I think that's the same deal with maybe the global warming thing, too. I think a lot of the people pushing it probably actually do believe in it and unsure. But I did want to mention, though, that towards the end of this controversy, someone emailed me and he said, you know, this what we're seeing here with this ivory bill controversy, it's very similar to what we're seeing in the global warming controversy, too.

That the data that they have is very weak and there's a lot of groupthink involved. I think in both cases, groupthink was huge, where once people thought that some experts had pronounced the science correct, then all sorts of people believed it without bothering to look at the data. And so you got dragged in to climb and somebody read the ivory-billed woodpecker case that you dissected and they said, hey, come look over here. And you've been looking over here for quite some time now. Yep, yep. And I wouldn't say really that he dragged me into it or made me do anything. But just based on that, I just looked at it and right away, the very first day when I looked into it, I could see that what they were telling me probably wasn't true. And what I love about the global warming controversy is that there's so many different areas where you can check for yourself.

You don't need to be an expert at all. You can look at like our tornadoes getting worse or is the polar bear population getting smaller? There's all sorts of small areas you can look at. And the real world data does not match up at all with the alarmism ever. if you look at any of it it doesn't match up so how would you describe the alarmism what are what are the key points that they hone in on i mean on your um on your blog you have five points yeah they really highlighted that that the climate hysterics really lean into and you explain that none of it is true yeah okay i have them up here uh the earth is currently too hot as one of them that's just an assumption it's just a solid assumption that people uh on the alarmist, I believe that right now the earth is currently too hot, but I think there's nothing to

that. Warm periods on earth have always been better for humans and for life on earth. And there's no reason to believe that the earth that may be a global average temperature is maybe 59 degrees Fahrenheit, something like that. There's no reason to believe that that's too hot. And if earth warms up from here, it's probably going to be better for life because there's all sorts of areas that used to be habitable. There used to be life in Antarctica long enough to go far enough back, there's no reason to believe that life on earth is going to be worse off if it gets warmer from here. That's one of the items right there. And then I'm constantly asking people, if one degree centigrade of cooling, would that benefit life on earth? Would that benefit humans? I think

clearly it would not. I think that would be a bad thing for humans if the global average temperature went back to what it was in 1850. I think the warming since then has made it easier to farm. We've had longer growing seasons. It's been better for humans. Yeah, and aren't there significantly more deaths via cold than via heat? Yeah, there's a Lancet article that came out not too many years ago that said that that figure was 20 times more cold deaths than warm deaths. I've seen other estimates that may be 10 times.

But for sure, cold weather is more dangerous to humans than warm weather. So if you want to save human lives, you probably want to warm the planet. And global cooling would cost us lives. yeah vitamin d is good for you it should be good to get out there be able to take the shirt off soak in the sun shine and work yes exactly yeah it's really weird how this the hysterics have mind warped us into not being able to think logically about this at all like again if they'll argue and we were discussing we had patrick moore on uh last year and so patrick moore for any of you freaks who are listening at home and don't remember that episode or don't

know who he is he was the original founder of greenpeace uh and basically came to the conclusion after many uh a couple decades of running that uh organization that the people who had joined him and that were really not uh their intention was not to save the environment or anything they've been completely co-opted by greedy incentives and they didn't really care about the actual science or the data they just wanted to brute force their their view of the world on on the rest of the world uh but in that episode we talked about glacial melting and like number one like glacier glaciers melt and it provides more land from which uh things can grow and plants can grow and you can you can grow food which is good for people

and it's more habitable you have more habitable landmass for individuals and then one thing he said in that episode that i'd never heard of before is that this is what a lot of climate metastatics will lean into is the glaciers melting is going to rise uh cause the sea levels to rise but he said no it's actually the exact opposite because the weight of the glacier on the land mass sort of sinks sinks it under the ocean so you may actually see like water reseed in a lot of areas because of this yeah i think that's true of the land around juno i believe that juno's been rising i think i believe i've heard that and also i listened to that podcast i enjoyed the fact that He said that people are, the propaganda is that a glacier is a living thing and we should be sad if a glacier is gone.

He says a glacier is just preventing a forest from growing there. And the area that is now Chicago, it was under a mile thick of ice not that long ago in geological terms. And I don't know if we're supposed to mourn the fact that that ice is not there anymore. Do we want the ice to come back? I think it's a great thing that that ice is not there. And now we have animals living there and people and trees and everything. so the whole idea that we should have a funeral for a funeral for a glacier is ridiculous yeah it's again it's nonsensical and yeah and let's go down the list of five points and then

we'll get into like the psychology behind the hysterics i really want to dive into that as well as somebody who's observed it for like 16 years okay yeah the next one on the list is that uh we're supposed to believe that we are currently experiencing a climate crisis so you hear politicians mainstream politicians in the u.s they're just very consistently saying that that it's just an assumption right now we're experiencing a climate crisis and uh quite a few people have said that all you have to do is look out your window and you can see the climate crisis which is completely insane because you can't see a climate crisis out your window uh there's absolutely nothing wrong with the weather or the climate now that wasn't also wrong with it every single other

year in human history so there's absolutely no evidence and i'm constantly asking people that to provide the evidence and people will say oh there was a fire they had fires in australia a couple of years ago, but now they're having too much rain in Australia. So I'm constantly saying if CO2 was able to cause the fires and the drought two years ago there, why wasn't it powerful enough to do the same thing now? Because there's a little more carbon dioxide. So I've been down every rabbit hole and there's absolutely nothing going on anywhere in the world that would indicate that there's a global climate crisis. Just the weather's fluctuating. And one thing is that the weather, if the weather has always been bad, every single year in human history, there's been bad

weather that's just the way it is we're not living in the garden of eden yeah there's this weird psychological underpinning with the word climate climate's changing climate it's like yeah climate changes this is absolutely we live on a a planet that is very complex the things living on it are going to change the conditions are going to change and something as humans we just need to accept And the whole term climate change has never made sense to me. It's like, yeah, no duh, the climate changes. Like we have four, like I'm from Philadelphia. We had four seasons every year.

The climate changed pretty rapidly on a 12 month basis every year. Yeah. A lot of the alarmist thinking is extremely shallow and they think that if they think people like me don't believe that the climate is changing, but Patrick Moore says that to the climate, of course it's always changing. and i don't know of any climate skeptic that doesn't think the climate is changing it's always changing but the whole idea that you can prevent it from changing using taxes that that is totally ridiculous it's yeah it's gonna keep changing yeah there's other terms to climate denier like

are you really going to try and tell me that i'm denying that a climate exists like words have definitions and definitions matter and like climate denier is like one of the speaking of shallow tropes that's that might be the most shallow because you're you're what they're really trying to say is like you don't believe that there's cataclysmic climate change but they just deduce it to climate denier where it's like are you really trying to say that i'm denying that the climate exists i mean i think there is a little effort there to try to link us to holocaust deniers i think there's a little i think there's a little bit of that yeah yeah but not true yeah yeah okay so i can go on to the next one here is uh uh the weather is getting worse that's supposed

to be uh that's just a lot of people believe that the weather is getting worse because they're seeing so much uh reporting around the world that something really bad happened in thailand etc but one reason why people might think the weather is getting worse is that there's so much reporting now and if you lived in 1850 and there was a terrible storm uh thousands of miles away you probably might never know that it happened. But there is enough bad weather happening every single day that if you want to focus on that, you can think, wow, there's something wrong with the weather. But if you look at all the data, and I've spent many, many weeks and hours looking at this, the weather is definitely not any worse now than it's been in any other year in human history.

There's been so much bad weather in the 1930s when the heat waves and the dust bowl, et cetera, in the u.s tons of bad weather then nothing nothing's going on now anyway that we should be alarmed about yeah yeah well and we'll lean into hurricanes too somebody's lived on the east coast yes point to katrina we'll point to the the hurricane season that has been pretty consistent last year wasn't too bad most of the hurricanes veered off the east coast pretty aggressively that's another thing hurricanes getting worse they're getting worse are they getting worse yeah They absolutely are not getting worse. Like the 1950s had tons of major hurricanes in the U.S.

If you start talking about cyclones, I like to post this list of the deadliest cyclones in world history. And there were a lot of them in world history that killed over 100,000 or up to maybe 200,000 or 300,000 people. But they happened a long time ago. Some of them happened in the 1200s or the 1700s. And modern-day hurricanes have not been killing 100,000 people. It's a huge tragedy if a hurricane kills 50 people, of course. But the hurricanes and the cyclones in the past were incredibly bad. And one reason I think that they're killing less people now is that we have better warning systems and people can get out of the way.

And maybe our houses are built a little better. I'm not quite sure. But for whatever reason, the death toll from bad weather is way down. It's down like 98% over the last 100 years. So the whole idea that CO2 is causing bad weather that might kill our grandchildren is just completely not supported by the data at all. yeah there's another thing too the leader that they won't even uh they can't lean into the desk but they'll lean into like the economic destruction but like compared to many decades ago the economic destruction of these storms is is vastly superior to what it was in the past and then again they

try to catch you with like numbers but it's like all right there wasn't as many buildings on the coast back then uh obviously you have crazy inflation since then so like yes the total number is going to be higher than it was 50, 60 years ago, just because there's more things to destroy and more value to destroy in the way. Yeah, yeah. If there's more property in harm's way, it has a better chance of being destroyed. And if the East Coast got hit, the East Coast of the U.S. got hit in the year 1700, it's, of course, in the dollar terms, it's not going to cause nearly as much damage. But if you look at actual objective measures of how intense the hurricanes are and how frequent they are, et cetera, there's no data that backs

up that they're getting worse. And Richard Lindzen actually argues that if the earth warms a little bit via CO2, that the storms might get a little less intense because the difference in temperature between the equator and the poles is a little less. And if there's less difference, then there's, the hurricanes might be less intense. So I wouldn't bank on that either way, but the whole idea, again, that we're going to attack CO2 and make hurricanes less dangerous is just not true uh if we want to uh to fortify our cities against hurricanes or you know preparing for bad weather makes total sense to me as long as you don't go um don't do crazy things and put up sea walls that are ridiculously high etc but preparing makes sense but just trying to prevent the

hurricanes does not make sense yeah i mean think of the hubris like yeah we're gonna stop a hurricane yeah i mean there i i have all these searches running all the time that i'm looking at every day and there's lots of local city councils of some random local city and they're doing stuff that they think is going to affect the global temperature in the year 2050 in some little city council they actually are delusional enough i believe that they think uh you know we're going to do this stuff and we're going to have less hurricanes and less droughts for our grandchildren we're going to make the weather better for our grandchildren and that is very delusional i think i can't believe people actually believe that well let's explain why it's delusional why why is

believing that you can enact policy in a way that that will affect the weather 20 30 years from now okay that gets right to my next item here is the whole assumption is that co2 is the climate control knob that's a whole assumption that via adjusting co2 you're going to make the weather better but that whole basic assumption is wrong because co2 is not the climate control knob so anything you do to crank on co2 to prevent bad weather it's not going to work because you're not cranking on the control knob there's all sorts of natural things going on thousands of natural things going on uh that are causing changes in the weather and climate so no matter what you do you can spend as much money as you want and you're not going to make the weather any better in 2050

yeah what are some of the knobs that actually oh let's see uh one big one is the sun i wanted to mention there's a guy named Nir Shaviv he originally from Israel I believe he's done tons of research about how fluctuations in the sun affect the earth's cloudiness and he thinks that that might be one of the if not the major control knobs in terms of various changes in the sun making earth a little more cloudy and a little less cloudy lately with this current warming period the earth has been a little less cloudy it doesn't take many clouds to affect the whole system quite a bit so anyway he there's some very good youtube videos i've seen him in person also speak and he's pretty convincing but even that is just one thing and then you also have volcanoes

which are a huge deal there's all these undersea volcanoes and there's volcanoes on land and there's just changes in the uh in ocean currents and maybe even in the changes in the earth's magnetic poles people make that claim i'm not sure there but there's all these different things happening and then there's all the interactions between the things and if you're trying to model the earth's climate using Fortran, which they're trying to do, there's just no way, given our current knowledge, to get it right. Because you got to get all the interactions correct. You have to know what all the volcanoes are doing, et cetera. And even if you knew all that stuff about how they're interacting, you'd have to know the correct initial state of all these variables. Even just

the very starting state on right now, when you start your model, you have to know that. And nobody knows the initial state of hardly any of these variables. So you can try to model it all you want but uh at least with our current knowledge you just can't do it it's too complicated they really lean on the models though they do yeah shove the models in your face yeah you got to lean on something and the models have uh predicted a lot more warming than has occurred in the last 30 years they would have expected to be a lot warmer now than it is and uh i did want to mention here at this point there was this hiatus that occurred it was maybe 12 plus years of starting 1996 or so maybe a little right around then there was a hiatus where the earth did not warm as as

expected and there were 66 different excuses as to why the earth didn't warm as much yeah those are documented all these different tons of different excuses lots of papers written about it and finally that hiatus ended but now what is becoming the official explanation for the hiatus is wait for it it didn't happen at all so after all these excuses as to why it happened now they're trying to tell us just kidding it didn't happen at all it's another thing there was no hiatus yeah yeah it's it's incredible well it is incredible because again humans for some reason or another we just get hung up on these models these like models in every asset aspect of life gets us like the covid like the the yes the models that came out of the uk completely

scared everybody in the lockdowns and none of those came true we've seen a lot in finance hedge funds will have models for returns and stuff like that none of that comes true yeah so i think there's tons of people that have this idea that there's super smart people in a computer room someplace and those people actually understand earth's climate and we can just rely on them to tell us what to do and if we make this change in policy that this is what's going to happen to the weather just the uh but it's mostly garbage in and garbage out and that the real world doesn't reflect that at all that that uh people just don't know they don't understand earth's climate and um yeah the modeling is not something that we should place any trust in i

don't think yeah well that's something that most people can't get over it's like it's okay that we don't understand this again it's a complex system it's impossible to understand a system this complex as complex as global climate global weather to think that you can you can go back to hubris i think they could yeah understand this granularly is like a level of hubris that people should reflect on like yeah look think about what you're trying to do you're trying to what's the quote like a butterfly yeah a flap can create a tsunami across the world or something like that like you never know when these volcanoes are going to erupt you never know when there's going to be an earthquake you can't predict those yes yeah how they how they affect the

environment to think that you could model this out is insane it is it is uh one thing i wanted to mention is that there's controversy right now like how much has the earth warmed just in the last five years or what even is the global average temperature right now today there's controversy right now with all of our modern satellites and we have the best technology we've ever had and uh there still is significant amount of error in trying to measure the current temperature but then already they're trying to say that using some tree stumps or tree rings, they can tell us what the global average temperature was a thousand years ago, which is incredibly crazy.

I think too, you're looking at how wide the tree rings are and you're running some calculations on that and you're trying to eventually calculate an entire global average temperature based on that or using proxies like that. The error in actually figuring that out has to be huge. Yeah. Yeah. But how could you disprove that? You can't disprove it.

but what i think you can do is you can look at other pieces of evidence like if you do find that a tree has been growing way north of the current tree line which they have found those there's a current tree line up in canada and they have found old stumps that are maybe 5 000 years old that are way north of the current tree line so that's some pretty solid evidence that if a tree was growing there then it must have been warmer then than it is now so you can make kind of generalizations like that but in order to try to figure out exactly what the global average temperature was 5 000 years ago it's there's a lot of guessing involved i think yeah yeah you can never know you can't know yeah yeah it's but they'll make people believe they know which is insane and going back

to like co2 isn't the control knob yeah like i think this is another fact that most people don't understand like what is the overall makeup like what percentage of the makeup of the atmosphere is co2 it is yeah it's changing it as much as we are even affect anything in the atmosphere material yeah yeah i hear people say that the atmosphere is filling with carbon they like to call carbon dioxide carbon but it really is it's invisible it's colorless it's a co2 and that percentage is about 0.04 percent of the atmosphere is co2 and it's a little over 400 parts per million. Maybe the humans may be added 100 parts per million or a little more. We're not even sure on that for sure exactly how much the humans have added. But anyway, the whole idea that the

atmosphere is full of it is wrong. I think there's more argon in the atmosphere than there is CO2. I'd have to look that up, but it's not very much. It's a small amount of plant food. So it's not the climate control now, but it is good plant food. And that small amount of plant food actually is helping the crops grow better significantly i think it's contributed to a greater leaf area on earth because it doesn't uh control the climate but it is a very important part of photosynthesis yeah well that's the other like the there's like a medium of like desert desertification of the world but when you actually look into the the world has gotten greener over the last absolutely it's gotten it's got measurably greener yeah much greener uh one thing i also

wanted to mention is that in the 1970s, there was a global cooling scare because the earth really did cool from the 1940s to the 1970s. And so some people were looking at that trend and they said, well, if this continues, we're going to go into an ice age. And they're probably right. If that trend had continued long enough, then maybe we would have been headed for an ice age. But they were saying that cooling was going to cause more droughts and more fires and smaller crop fields, et cetera. So it sounds very familiar to what we're hearing now. But then global cooling was going to cause all this bad stuff. And now we're seeing the same list of bad stuff that's going to be caused, but this time it's global warming that's going to cause it. So it's surprising

that no matter which way the temperature goes, we're going to get more droughts. It can't be more droughts no matter what happens, I wouldn't guess. So what do you think's driving this, Daria? Yeah, again, I don't know what's going on in people's heads, but I do think groupthink is a big part of it. I think enormous amounts of people, even scientists, have bought into it because they really trust that some other experts have proved it. So I think a lot of people are probably sincere enough that they trust the experts. And when they go on TV and tell us that there is a climate crisis, they think there really is one.

I think to some extent they believe what they say. But like I was mentioning earlier, I don't think they believe it enough to actually act like they believe it. like people who are selling climate crisis very often do a lot of flying even flying on private planes so their belief doesn't extend far enough that they would not use fossil fuels but they're willing to tell other people not to use fossil fuels exactly so you got to change your life i'm gonna hop on this jet real quick go over to scotland and lecture you about about greening the world um yeah yeah i think i think a lot of elites are uh think that whatever they're doing is so

important that it's okay for them to use private jets because uh the small the little people shouldn't be uh flying but you know they're doing really important stuff so you can make an exception for whatever they're doing yeah that's part of it yeah well it's again it's dangerous it's leading to policy that is making people material materially less the worse off excuse me and it's hindering like we've got a planet of eight billion people right now we've completely bork the uh the henry adams curve we're not producing as much energy as we arguably should and energy production particularly if it stems from from fossil fuels is being demonized at a time when the global self is trying to to pick itself up from its bootstraps and join the

developed world uh here in the united states we're so busy larping about the the green transition that we're making ourselves less energy secure. We're increasing energy prices across the board, which affects the poor the most. Obviously, we've seen in Europe with Germany's transition to green renewables over the last two decades that they have the highest electricity cost per kilowatt hour in the developed world, hovering around 40 cents a kilowatt hour.

and that they're still importing gas from russia but who knows how long that will last considering the the nature of the conflict over there right now i think people are looking at these experts taking what they're saying at face value and then implementing it throughout the economy across the world and it's putting us in a very precarious position as a species yeah yeah this is not just a fun academic debate like who's a better basketball player jordan or lebron etc i don't know if you ever saw the great global warming swindle it's a it's a documentary by martin durkin that came out quite some time ago and he had an example of how poor energy choices make a big difference like there's a clinic in africa that was trying to just be powered by solar panels

and they could either run their refrigerator or their lights but not both at the same time And I think that it's a real important idea that these developing countries, if we want them to just skip over fossil fuels and jump right into trying to run their economies and their hospitals using just wind and solar, that's just a terrible thing. Everyone needs reliable power. And the whole idea that you're trying to do these people a favor by blocking fossil energy for them, you're doing an evil thing in trying to prevent bad weather in Africa if you're And preventing them from running their hospitals and their clinics, you're doing a very bad thing.

So I think a lot of bad things are being done by people who have good intentions. And then going back to like words matter, definitions matter. Like, is there any such thing as quote unquote green or renewable energy? Yeah, I don't know about that. I do think that if you really do think that CO2 is the worst thing ever, that nuclear power would be something you'd want to push for. But there's tons of people who are against both fossil fuels and nuclear power. And the whole idea that we can run our economy, like the U.S. economy, on wind and solar, that's not going to happen. We don't have the technology at all to store that energy so we can keep our lights on at night, et cetera.

Well, that's what's been very dismaying for me is I like to consider, I want all the energy. like it's it's yes the whole hysteric conversation around climate change has forced me into a position where i vehemently defending fossil fuel extraction and usage and been forced to highlight the hypocrisy emanating from the wind and solar psych offense which is uh solar panels are coal panels it takes the same amount of coal yes they're not actually clean their life cycles are short and then you have to recycle them with very toxic chemicals similarly with wind wind farms like the land mass is never taken into consideration they need 3 000 acres of solar farm to produce the same amount of energy that a natural gas plant could produce with 122 acres

like the trade-offs of the different energy sources aren't given their fair shake in the uh debate the discussion around climate change and it's forced me to be like anti-energy certain energy production yeah i'm not anti-winter solar it's just like all right if we're gonna have this conversation let's be open and honest about the trade-offs that exist across the board here yeah i would say just i would like to see them all just compete and if wind and solar can compete in some areas uh possibly it can compete in some areas i'm all for that but uh people are saying to me on Twitter that wind and solar is so much cheaper than fossil fuel. And what my response is always, okay, let's just get rid of all the mandates and subsidies and let them compete

straight up and let the best technology win. I'm all for that. I just, in the last couple of weeks, I went up to my old hometown in Minnesota and the farmland around in my home state area here, there's a lot of solar panels being put up in Minnesota, which is, we're getting pretty far north here i think to be trying to run anything on solar panels because uh our days are so short and there's snow on the solar panels in the wintertime i don't think it makes a lot of sense but um i would say they're putting them up because of subsidies and not because the solar energy makes so much sense here in minnesota yeah it's all a wreck subsidy credit carbon credit game it's which is created on top of this fiat system and yeah it doesn't make any sense up there i

went to college at the university of depaul in chicago my freshman year i'll never forget there was literally 90 straight days where the sun didn't pierce the clouds between december and february yeah not much sense and then warren buffett had a very interesting comment because his berkshire hathaway is one of the biggest uh wind power uh producers in the country and he said that without the subsidies they don't make any sense he said that himself that's a pretty big good mission that uh why are we putting these up to try to prevent bad weather i think um let's i would say let's get rid of the subsidies and let's see if they can compete well that's that's something i get thrown at me a lot i bring up the subsidies like they're super subsidized that's

what's allowing you to say like it's the cheapest on earth it's like no yeah yeah but then they'll be like oil gaskets insane amount of subsidies too which is oil gas does get subsidies but nowhere near the magnitude of wind and solar. Yeah, I don't think that's true, that not real subsidies. I think I've heard that there's LIFO accounting. I forget what type of accounting. Just the regular writing stuff off that an oil company does. That's supposed to be somehow they're counting that as a subsidy.

So it's not like the government is just giving grants to Chevron or to Exxon to produce oil. It's just that they're letting them use the same accounting rules that everybody else uses. I've heard that anyway. Yeah, I was describing the gentleman who's, like, a oil gas producer in California. That's exactly what he said when I asked him that question. He was like, yeah, we're just doing write-offs the way any other business would. They're attacking us and saying that these are subsidies. Yeah, and then I have looked it up.

In some years, the Exxon and Chevron have paid just huge amounts of taxes straight up, tens of billions of dollars in taxes. so you'd have i mean i don't think the subsidies there's no way they exceed those taxes those are real taxes that are being paid so i'm not buying it i think the subsidies in wind and solar are just orders of magnitude higher probably per unit of energy and for oil and gas yeah and and their the rationalization too is like they're aren't they're intermittent intermittent sources of energy they're not reliable they're unreliable the sun doesn't shine sometimes sometimes you get snow in the solar panels sometimes the wind doesn't blow then they always lead up well we're going to have batteries it's always we're going to yes we're going to yeah yeah um i found some

article from about the early 1900s saying that there's a major breakthrough in electric cars and uh our cars are going to be run on batteries from over 100 years ago but that same article said that we've been hearing this story for a long time and it's never come true yet even 100 years ago. This battery technology has been around the corner that long and it's still very hard, I think, to produce a battery that is energy

dense enough to compete with fossil fuel. Fossil fuels are beautiful. Carbon dioxide is beautiful. Again, it's plant food. Imagine, that's why I want to have you on. I'm trying to do this via this platform that I have. I want to shift

the narrative. Carbon dioxide is good. Global warming is good. who doesn't like the beach who doesn't like more food who doesn't like more greenery on earth do you think we can do this or is the the the incumbent hysteric crowd uh so entrenched in the psyche of the masses that we'll never be able to get there yeah i think we can i don't know how long it'll take i think there's tons of kids in school just being force-fed this propaganda over and over but i think even those kids as they grow up and they realize the weather still isn't getting worse. I mean, they're expecting the apocalypse anytime. If we sit around and it

doesn't come, which it's not going to come, I think those kids are going to eventually figure this out. I did want to step back though, and you mentioned how about CO2 is a good thing. There's a guy named Will Happer that talks about CO2 and about how in a cornfield, a growing cornfield in the middle of the summer, that normally the air might have 420 parts per million of co2 but that corn is so hungry for co2 that it'll suck down every bit of it that it can and the co2 level might get down to 200 parts per million as the corn is just sucking down co2 photosynthesis is going on and i think that's pretty amazing that people tell us when we emit co2 it's going to stay up there for thousands of years we had that corn is sucking it down in just

a morning from 420 to 200 right there so this whole idea that co2 resides in the atmosphere here for thousands of years total baloney not true yeah yeah yeah so i think yeah i think it's a very like malthusian anti-human i think there's an agenda out there to uh get rid of the useless eaters if you will and they use this fear-mongering where you can't have children there's a billion of us we can't support anymore uh you need to use uh less part of moving people to insecure and less reliable energy infrastructure is to like quietly increase deaths on the back end because you need to get rid of these useless eaters so i think you had alex epstein on here on your podcast at some point i love his quote about how it's supposed to be the case that uh burning

fossil fuel has taken a safe climate and made it dangerous but he says burning fossil fuel has done the opposite he's taken what is a dangerous climate and has made it safer for us i think that's that really distills it down he's got it absolutely right but that's one reason why we're much safer than we were 100 years ago is we're using fossil energies uh intelligently to to make the climate less likely to kill us or bad weather less likely to kill us yeah everybody wants to save the climate but the climate hates you the environment is dangerous it's yes yeah you hear you hear the phrase it's a dog eat dog world the environment is vicious it does not care about absolutely is yeah yeah yeah you think hurricanes know that you exist i don't think they care

about local city councils yeah no yeah that's it should i go to the next one uh climate science is basic physics that's another one that well i'm i've had uh supposedly uh informed people tell me that many times climate science is just basic physics and if you don't understand that co2 makes the weather worse you don't understand basic physics but that's completely insane too i mean one guy who was a great climate skeptic was freeman dyston somebody he has been had been compared to einstein he's super decorated guy and um he he was a physicist and he was saying some of the same stuff that skeptics are saying now that co2 is not uh causing bad weather etc and the whole idea that you can just use a basic physics equation and try to calculate what the earth's climate is

going to do is just crazy because it's way more complicated than that um there there is a greenhouse effect i believe and i think everything else being equal if you have twice as much co2 up there then twice as much it's going to be a little warmer i think that's as far as the real scientific consensus goes but once you start going on to is there a climate crisis and all this way more alarmist stuff then there is not a consensus among scientists that any of that stuff is true a lot of controversy well it's very nefarious how they try to make you believe that there is a quote-unquote consensus between the scientists as well there's a lot so somebody who's been following the space for 16 years how do they typically manipulate either reports or quote

unquote consensus uh to then go out in public and chill this narrative ad nauseum it's very interesting that as people compare it to a game of telephone where you have a kid on one end saying something and you pass it from child to child and at the other end you get a totally different answer or different statement i think there's a lot of that even in the ipcc reports and Underlying papers, they'll say one thing, and as they move it up the chain a little bit, as they write the summary for policymakers, they change the narrative quite a bit. They rewrite it in their own terms, but it's more alarmist. And a big example in the recent IPCC report is they had the underlying papers, and then they had all sorts of people get together in a room, government negotiators, and negotiate the science, which is kind of crazy that government bureaucrats are negotiating wording of what's scientific truth. So then they produced that summary for policymakers. And they had the head of the UN saying that what we have here is a code red for humanity. So that was reported all over the place in the papers that look, the scientists say it's code red for humanity, but they never said that. Only he said that. And he's the former president of Socialist International, I believe, current head of the UN.

yeah so the whole idea that he says code red for humanity that's not a scientific statement that's just one guy saying something the scientists did not say that so i do think that there's a lot of that type of thing the amount of people who hopped in my mentions on twitter with that ipc ippc report ipcc yeah ipcc yeah is there's it's like you're irresponsible you're irresponsible for saying there's no climate emergency look at this ipcc report that are like that but it like makes you like question yourself it's like oh am i wrong yeah am i wrong but if you look at the reports they absolutely don't say whatever what the alarmists think they say like i have a slide here someplace where the ipcc did a special report on extreme

weather and they said okay we're looking at floods and the ipcc said on a global basis we don't even know the sign of the changes in floods they don't even know floods are going up or down because they're fluctuating everywhere. The whole idea, constantly we're told that there's been a flood, CO2 must have caused it. The IPCC doesn't agree with that. They don't even know the sign of the changes. IPCC on drought says, in some places in the last 30 years, droughts have gotten worse, which they have. In other places, they've gotten better. And if we watch another 30 years, though, I would guess they might fluctuate back the other way and the places that were getting worse will get better, et cetera. Anyway, the IPCC does not have anything that says, look,

the world uh with higher co2 is going to have greater global droughts they don't say that same with cyclones they can't see the signal and frequency and intensity of cyclone so the whole idea is the ipcc is telling us there's a climate crisis they're not other people are telling us but the ipcc is not saying that yeah yeah how come the ipcc doesn't come out and be like hey people are misrepresenting our data yeah i don't know i mean a lot of people who are part of the IPCC are alarmists, so they would love the IPCC to say that there's a climate crisis. I don't know what's going on in these meetings. There's always closed-door meetings when they negotiate the important summary for policymakers. It's very interesting. I think in this day and age, why

don't they have that webcast? Why can't we all watch as they negotiate the science? It's pretty weird that they close the doors and they go through everything line by line. I would like to know what they're saying behind those doors and what sort of arguments are they having. I think that would uh really blow their case out of the water if they let us actually watch as they negotiate the science instead of just telling us at the end what's the uh what what got negotiated yeah they're in there just like how can we scare everybody i don't know what they're doing well that's another thing that i've i've always been curious about like i really want to push this into the public sphere as well as like all right let's pick one deadline

or prediction and use that like alright if this doesn't come true we're going to completely we're going to completely change the conversation around this because it's obvious that the hysteric side may not be right and I think

the line in the sand we have to do is go back to the dates where Greta said in 12 years the world is going to be under the ocean and at the 12 year mark we go back to Greta and say Greta this didn't come true do you have anything to say here yeah yeah there's been some really embarrassing predictions like al gore around 2007 i think he said that the arctic would be ice free

here uh would be ice free by 2014 i believe he said so that's now eight years ago that has absolutely not happened so whenever they predict anything that's a short time period away they've been embarrassed every single time so i think they're learning from that and now it's more common for them to say by the year 2100 something bad's going to happen so they got to pick a date when they're going to be safely dead so they don't have to worry about that date coming up and being embarrassed but uh yeah al was saying that the snows of filimanjaro would be would be gone soon that didn't happen all sorts of uh james hansen said that parts of manhattan would be underwater by i don't know what 2000 i forget but maybe 10 years ago now or something again uh

didn't happen so uh but what is happening is that they're using these these lines again they're changing policy and again we have this what 2030 2050 net zero policy it doesn't even make sense you can't have net zero carbon carbon dioxide makes no sense i think there's so much money to be made in carbon credits huge amounts of money and uh to pay people to not cut down trees that on land they own it's all just a huge scam and um yeah the whole idea that you're going to prevent bad weather by trillions of dollars changing hands for uh for no good reason is is uh it's a big mess that's for sure well yeah it's a big mess is it yeah people are profiting off of yes yeah this insanely idiotic policy that again is making the common man many of whom believe that that have

been scared into a corner to believe that there is a climate disaster on the horizon they're just getting screwed over at the end of the year tax dollars are just going into somebody's pocket that's benefiting from this financially scaring you spit credit carbon credit markets i mean we in the bitcoin mining industry like i was telling you before we hit record like i got dragged into this via bitcoin mining because bitcoin mining uses a lot of energy and people try to paint us as like some environment destroyers that are they're hell-bent on boiling the oceans and i've just been so inundated with the nonsense for the last four years specifically it's a i feel for you somebody's been doing it for 16 years like i it again you make you want to pinch

yourself like how can this many people be this dismayed and led astray from actual critical thinking and reality yeah it's pretty amazing um i don't know though how much time the ordinary person spends thinking about this in their daily life i look at a lot of polling on that because when i just uh when i uh go out with people etc i never almost never bring it up that what i do i just wait for them to bring it up it almost never comes up i don't know if you i guess maybe in your line of work it comes up a lot more often but i don't think joe public is spending enormous amounts of time necessarily uh worrying about this no he's he or she certainly doesn't worry about it but they a lot of uh uh joe the common man they just have it like as a checkbox like oh yeah

i'm worried about the climate disaster like if they have to bring it up yeah talk so yeah i'll say that yeah but in terms of like gas prices as i think uh high gas prices are not something people are willing to pay at all to try to prevent bad weather yeah people are like drill baby drill let's get what the hell's going on i don't want an eight dollar uh gallon of gas up in san francisco it's like for plus down here in texas and austin it's manipulative too how the gas station does it usually like plus is only like 10 cents or 30 cents more than your than your regular at least in my experience but here it's like a dollar dollar 20 more um okay yeah it's like 470 here jeez a gallop in texas like the energy capital of the world

so you think there are more people coming to our side of the argument i do i do think that i i like i said before i'm really encouraged that there's so many people i have never heard of before on twitter that are coming uh in my replies are coming up with really good uh graphs or uh different stuff i haven't seen before that they're all looking at it uh from different angles and coming up with uh more climate realistic realist stuff that i enjoy so that makes me happy yeah We need to destroy this narrative that there's a climate disaster on the horizon. Again, think of all the waste. We're just talking about carbon credit markets and about the subsidies of wind and solar.

Think about how much capital has been disallocated because of this narrative of people going down with it. It is actually an extreme detriment to human well-being that this has permeated a mass psychosis because we are literally printing trillions of dollars, misallocating it away from things that are probably worthwhile, like pulling the global south out of poverty, bringing them to the developed world by allowing them to tap into fossil fuels. Yeah, there's, I don't know if you know James Dellingpole. He's a good climate skeptic over in the UK. And he doesn't, he's the person who does not like the eco crucifixes, he calls the wind turbines that are destroying the scenery and they're killing bats and birds, etc. And I think a lot of those wind farms are going to rust in place, and then eventually it's going to cost a lot to get rid of them. There's already been some of that in past iterations of wind power, for instance, where it doesn't pay to fix them. And then it takes so much cement and so much copper, et cetera, to put them up. And then once they're decommissioned, you've got to somehow take them down. So that's a problem.

One other thing I wanted to mention is that we're talking about carbon credits. And it drives me crazy that there are so many companies like Apple that say proudly that our data centers are running 100% on carbon-free energy. I don't know if you've seen that claim a lot. It's absolutely not true. I'm pretty sure they're just buying these carbon credits. They're pretending that they're using different electricity than everybody else is in their same city, etc. But they're connected to the same grid and they're using the same fossil energy. So it's just an accounting trick.

It's not true. but i wish i would see more uh more pushback against that i've seen alex epstein push back against those claims but almost everybody just lets them stand and acts like it's true when it's not yeah i mean you need to get into the bitcoin mining space because we're we've been out here many of us not all of us there's many in the bitcoin mining industry who were bending the knee to esg and all these green hysterics like no we're no more renewables oh yeah it's it's sad to see it's really sad to see it's like come on have some self-respect like we're supposed to bitcoin is a technology rooted in objective truth the way the ledger

works it provides objective truth to the world you can prove it with cryptography and seeing others in the industry just try to cater to the green movement because they're afraid of of being villainized is sad that's the thing it's gotten to the point where at the government level like many industries feel forced to bend the knee and and quote-unquote agree that there is a climate disaster and then they change the way they act again it wastes a bunch of time and money yes but how do we get out of this vicious cycle of like yeah i think it's a good point you make about bending the knee i think we need a lot more people to not bend the knee and push back i think every little bit of pushback helps so anybody even on twitter i think anything you can do to push back

i think it all helps i think we can get the snowball rolling in the other direction if people stand up to it and uh don't just pretend to believe in it just to get along even in your personal life maybe people bring it up maybe instead of just uh just a nod in your head just stop pushing back i think pushback's important i i completely agree yeah that's one thing again another thing humans have been psyoped into our crazy clown world modern days i i can't i can't speak because i was just on a panel at a conference there was publicly traded i sit on the board of a publicly traded bitcoin miner and there was two public ceos on the panel with me and they were like

i was saying like stop ending the need esg like these people are wrong you should not be catering to them and they both were like that's not the way it works like you have to you have to operate a certain way you have to play the game it's like no you don't you can stand up and just say no i'm not playing this bullshit game anymore like i'm gonna speak the truth yeah i have the truth on my side like i do not need to play a stupid game i will not belittle my intelligence by playing this stupid game and but that's not the way public markets work you're not gonna be able to get capital it's like no there are smart capital allocators out there who understand that this is bullshit and you can find them and you can change the regulatory landscape too like

the governments are supposed to represent us like all we have to do is call out the bullshit and eventually if the government works the way it's supposed to the regulation should should change to reflect reality yeah good for you this makes me very happy to hear you talk like that the idea of more pushback is fantastic i'm loving it well and there is a lot more pushback than there was when i started 16 years ago it seemed like back then i felt like i was kind of alone there are a few skeptics but uh i am happy i feel a lot less alone now that's good yeah so how has the landscape changed again so like broadly speaking over the last 16 years and what have been some of the uh catalysts for for chain what do you think what do you think is pushing more

people to be bolder about this that's a good question i'm not sure i was thinking back one major thing that happened in about 2007 there was a a big time uh intelligence squared debate they had a three-on-three very formal debate about whether we should be alarmed by the climate or not. That was fantastic. And they polled the audience before and after. And afterwards, they found that the audience had been moved in a skeptical direction. That was something great that happened back then. But it has never happened since then. There's never been a public debate like that. There's been a few one-on-one debates, et cetera. But I think that the alarmist lost so badly that time that they weren't willing to even try to defend themselves in a public debate,

because the data is not on their side. So that was a good thing that happened then.