TFTC: A Bitcoin Podcast - #538: Dissecting The Carbon Narrative with Chris Martz

Episode Date: September 18, 2024

Marty sits down with Chris Martz to discuss falsehoods and data manipulation surrounding climate change. Chris on Twitter: https://x.com/ChrisMartzWX CFACT: https://www.cfact.org/ 0:00 - Intro 1:32 - Chris’s background 5:28 - “97% of experts” 15:42 - River & Unchained 16:57 - Feedback loops 21:58 - Incentives for certain conclusions 26:65 - Gradually, Then Suddenly & Zaprite 28:33 - How Smokey Bear’s plan backfired 32:14 - Hurricane data 37:32 - Improvements in data collection tech 41:53 - Insurance propaganda 47:22 - Things are largely better 57:13 - Environmentalism beyond carbon panic 1:03:04 - Urban heat island effect and measurement foolishness 1:15:44 - Does the narrative serve an agenda 1:26:41 - Are people catching on? 1:31:12 - How it’s going for Chris Shoutout to our sponsors: River https://river.com/tftc Unchained https://unchained.com/concierge/ Zaprite https://zaprite.com/tftc Gradually, Then Suddenly https://thesaifhouse.com/gradually TFTC Merch is Available Shop Now: https://merch.tftc.io Join the TFTC Movement: Main YT Channel https://www.youtube.com/c/TFTC21/videos Clips YT Channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUQcW3jxfQfEUS8kqR5pJtQ Website https://tftc.io/ Twitter https://twitter.com/tftc21 Instagram https://www.instagram.com/tftc.io/ Follow Marty Bent: Twitter https://twitter.com/martybent Newsletter https://tftc.io/martys-bent/ Podcast https://tftc.io/podcasts/

They want to make all the currency digital. They want to have a cashless society. If you go over your carbon credit limit, for example, they can shut off your credit card or your debit card. You're given a monthly allowance of how much CO2 you're allowed to emit, how much you dry, what food you can eat. The Big Mac is causing global warming. It has a high carbon footprint.

They use this as justification to regulate the food industry. And insurance companies also probably want to make profits. They will probably increase perceived risk rather than actual risk. They say climate change is killing people, even if it were, it's not evident in the data. So the human condition has never been better than it is. Actually, I heard a story recently. They said that trees are bad.

Arctic ice free during the summer, periodically between 10,000, 6,000 years ago. How did that happen? So why was it? Why is it a crisis now? But it wasn't. This rip of TFTC was brought to you by River. It's the best place to buy Bitcoin. Go to river.com slash TFTC and enjoy this episode.

You've had a dynamic where money has become freer than free. When you talk about a Fed just gone nuts, 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 and we're live chris martz welcome to the show big fan thanks for having me on

uh i'm happy we're able to do it i was i was uh hoping we're going to be able to do it in person but life gets in the way we're doing it remotely like i was just saying big fan of your work been following you on twitter for a couple years maybe a few years i forget why i initially followed you i think it was like to follow a storm or something um a couple years ago and uh you're a man after my own heart a young youth on the front lines of fighting climate hysteria this is a topic i've been very passionate about for years on this show particularly because i work in the bitcoin mining industry and all the climate zealots attack bitcoin mining for for using too much energy and and polluting the earth and i thought it would be great to get you on as somebody who is fighting

back against this nonsense not only that but going through university to learn about meteorology and weather um particularly the climate and so like with that in mind like how did you get into meteorology to start and when did you begin to realize that a lot of the propaganda around climate change is just that propaganda Thanks for having me again, Mark. Marty, it's great to be here. What's interesting about this question, it's one of my favorite questions people ask me, and it's an interesting story.

So I always wanted to be an engineer. That's what I wanted to do. And then I kind of had a – when I took classes in high school, my teacher kind of turned me off from it. But I found interesting weather during the blizzard of 2016. It was on my birthday. we had like 36 inches of snow and just before the blizzard we had a record warm or near record warm december that year it was 20 december 2015. i remember sitting in church on christmas eve for

the candlelight service and it was 75 degrees and just from i don't know maybe it was the christmas movies or this distorted perception of you know my memory what i thought was the case i always thought it was cold and snowy around Christmas. And it was never, we'd never had mild Christmases like this before. And I kind of was a little concerned about it. And then, of course, I got the blizzard after that. And then we had Hurricane Harvey in 2017. We had a bad hurricane season. And I thought that was unprecedented. I was never really a climate activist. I was more of a casual, I kind of just went along with what I was told by mainstream climate scientists, mainstream media, based on what my teachers told me in k-12 education and it wasn't until

some of these doomsday predictions weren't really adding up and i decided to look more into it and i came across a guy by the name of joe pastore he's a meteorologist uh he's been a meteorologist for over 40 years and he worked at accuweather for over 30 years and he's now in the private sector he the job started posts all sorts of weather history facts hurricanes he does what hurricane happen on what date in what year and he was giving me a perspective as well as tony heller on his youtube channel when i came across their his channel and also his twitter page they gave me a perspective of extreme weather events and how it was just as extreme in the past if not more extreme in many cases in terms of the weather that it is today and once i realized

that i wasn't being told the full story it kind of it got the wheels turning in my mind i became really interested in it why why wasn't i being told the full truth uh why was the media leaving out certain statistics or why were they cherry picking starting dates on on graphs and i began to start questioning some of the things i was told and i became so passionate about it and interested i decided to pursue a meteorology degree and i'm a senior this year so i'll be graduating in may congrat pre congrats grad the uh the what in your mind like a big fan of tony heller real climate um science channel is particularly fascinating because he does an incredible job of diving into how the data is manipulated and i think starting there

like with the hysteria the doomsday predictions and um all the numbers that are thrown at people when you look into it whether it's tony heller who does a really good job or i've had steve coonan on the show a couple years ago now at this point you dive into the data and you realize it's being completely manipulated so let's educate the listeners who may not be aware of how the data is manipulated and how the manipulated data is weaponized against the public uh so what do you how do you want to attack this like what uh what question would you ask me to kind of jump this well there's yeah there's like 97 out of 100 climate scientists agree that we have cataclysmic

climates uh change uh in front of us and then there's just like the pure data manipulation of noaa going back and either changing old data or manipulating old data up and then another topic that i'm passionate about is the fact that we're collecting more data particularly in city centers which skews the data one way or another so with all that my i think i mean there's many ways in is manipulated so whatever you're most passionate about maybe we start there and then all right uh we can probably touch on all of those things uh i think they're great i think starting with the 97 consensus is probably a good start so you always hear this claim that 97 of experts agree well the first question that somebody should and this is any time this is invoked anytime there's

a you have a discussion with a climate change alarmist or climate change activist they say say, well, you're wrong because 97% of experts agree. So the first question that I would ask and return to that is, what is it that 97% of experts agree on? It's a very ambiguous statement. Do 97% of climate scientists, and I'm going to use that term broadly, do they agree that the Earth is warming? Yeah, probably 100% of them agree with that.

I mean, that data shows that. That's a fact. The planet has been warming for the last several decades. Of course, if you go back tens of millions of years, the planet's been cooling, but it depends on what time scale you look at. Do 97% of experts agree, or over 95%, let's say 95%, do they agree that carbon dioxide emissions have increased? Well, yeah.

Do they agree that mankind's fossil fuel combustion is the primary reason for that? Probably. But that 97% consensus does not tell you, if you use that statistic, it doesn't tell you how many scientists think climate change is an existential threat to humanity or life on Earth. It doesn't mean that they all agree that warming is catastrophic, it just means that they agree that there is at least in some capacity global warming and that there is an anthropogenic element to it, whether that's through fossil fuel combustion or urban heat island effects

or land use change or a combination of all three. It's a very broad statement meant to put down debate and discourage it, but when you actually look at the nuts and bolts of this claim at 97, or sometimes they'll even say 99, not 0.5% of experts agree, there's two studies that these come from. The 97% consensus statistic comes from Linus et al., or no, comes from Cook et al. 2013, and that was published in the Academic Journal Environmental Research Letters. that study they examined eleven thousand nine hundred and forty four climate abstracts they looked at studies from published between 1991 and 2011 for a

20-year period and they read the abstract just the very first part of the study to these and they were all climate related studies and they looked at whether or not they endorsed anthropogenic global warming or not or a or ascribed a cause to the warming over the last 100 years or 50 years. Now, 66.4% of those studies had no position whatsoever on the cause or causes of climate change. So they just discarded over half the studies from their analysis, and they looked at the studies that did take a position on climate change causes. And of those remaining papers, 97.1% of them endorsed human-caused global warming.

So if you actually do the statistics, if you include the 66.4% of studies that the authors just completely tossed aside, it's more like a 32.6% consensus from that academic paper alone. but again this doesn't mean and this isn't as scientific this isn't a consensus of scientists this is a consent this is a scientific consensus there's a difference consensus of scientists as we're just kind of opinion-pulling scientists the AMS did that in record illogical society they found in a 2016 study that they did a little over 50% to make your 60% of members thought that all or most of the warming has been made and a little over 50% I think said I don't remember that exact number they said that the warming has been primarily

harmful so that's nowhere near 97% of scientists agree from from the AMS American Meteorological Society but this latest paper it doesn't quantify it doesn't tell you that warming is catastrophic they just say that 97% of papers agree or endorse a anthropogenic global warming position that's not actually, that doesn't mean it's catastrophic. The other study that they cite for this claim is the Linus et al. 2021 study, which they say, well, the consensus has grown. It's 99.5% consensus of scientists. Again, it's not an opinion polling of scientists. It's a survey of papers. So it's a scientific consensus, not a consensus of scientists. There's a difference. Either way, none of them

really give you argument credits. An argument is based on data and evidence, being able to present that it's not based on consensus that's a that's a that's political terminology it's not science but that's that's a whole other can of worms but the point i want to make in that the line i said ultimately 21 studies that they did the same exact thing they ignored a whole chunk of the studies i don't remember exact statistic off the top of my head and they just looked at the studies that made a position of the climate studies and climate change studies that they looked definitely looked at studies that endorsed a position or the other without consult without looking at the rest of the the papers. They just tossed what was inconvenient to their narratives. There's no, we're even close

to a 97% consensus. When it comes to what scientists generally, if you were to just go around and ask a scientist in the field, whether it's oceanography or meteorology, atmospheric science, atmospheric chemistry, physics, mathematics, data science, the people that study climate, if you went and asked them what their positions were, there's a general agreement that global temperatures have risen since 1850 by about 1.2 degrees Celsius. There's obviously uncertainty in that especially because the further back you go the less reliable the global temperature variables. There's huge error bars. But that's kind of generally agreed upon. It's warmer now than it was during the end of the Little

Ice Age. By how much? Who knows? But it's warmer. We know that from proxy data. We know that from a bunch of different sources. It's also widely agreed upon that carbon dioxide concentrations have increased by about 51% since the pre-industrial average. But that, and it's agreed that fossil fuel and combustion, the burning of coal, natural gas is the primary cause for that. And there's agreement that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas due to its physical structure. It's not a homonuclear diatomic molecule like oxygen or nitrogen, which is why they're not

able to intercept photons of infrared radiation and emit it back down carbon dioxide uh like methane and water vapor generates dipole moments which allows it to absorb and emit infrared radiation and it reduces the rate at which earth cools to space it doesn't trap they say it's like that the alarmists say that it's heat trapping gases that's not what they do they don't trap heat that means to physically prevent it just reduces the rate of radiation loss so the earth cools slightly less because of their presence so and it's primarily water vapor that's the big component here so that's what's kind of agreed upon what's not agreed upon is the most consequential things exactly how much the warming has been mandated and if all of it has been man-made then how much

is due to urbanization and land use change versus greenhouse gas emissions we don't know and the reason being because the biggest greenhouse gas signal should be warming in the tropical upper troposphere about 300 millibars pressure level. That's not happening. Most of the warming is at the surface which if you look at what climate models project versus observations that should be that's more of a signal over heat island effects. We also don't know if warming is a net benefit or a net drawback to humanity and our economy and life on earth in general. Generally, historically speaking, it's good but too much warming would be bad

probably just like too much cooling would be too bad so we don't know whether global warming is good or bad and if it's bad we don't know what the best solution is to mitigate its impacts so those are the biggest in the most consequential impacts or issues relating to climate change or there's a lot of dispute there's no consensus on the most important facets of this issue this episode was presented by river rivers the best most secure place to buy bitcoin in the united states go to river.com tftc set up an account today you'll be able to dca into bitcoin without paying any fees you'll be able to give people bitcoin via river links you'll be able

to send and receive bitcoin over the lightning network and you'll be able to set limit orders if you want to buy bitcoin at a particular price below or above where it is now you can set orders to buy bitcoin when it hits that price go to river.com tftc and set up your account today This rep was also brought to you by our good friends at Unchained. Unchained is building a financial services platform for a Bitcoin standard. They have over 7,000 clients that are securing over 90,000 Bitcoin with 12,000 keys on their platform. Their platform leverages Bitcoin's native multi-sig properties.

Their cornerstone product is their Volt product, a two or three multi-sig Volt, which allows you to hold two of three keys in a multi-sig quorum. That gives you full control over your Bitcoin. They also have an IRA product, a lending desk, and they're rolling out a bunch of other products, including an inheritance protocol and sound advisory. So go to Unchained.com, set up a call with their concierge onboarding team today, tell them that TFTC sent you and use the promo code TFTC at checkout. Unchained.com. Do you have an opinion on what the most important facet of this issue is? Well, I agree that there's been man-made global warming to some extent.

I mean, the physics of the laws of radiative transfer, thermodynamics, they all makes, in theory, all else being equal, if you double the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from any level, whether it's four parts per million, which we would all be dead if that was the case, or say that you double it from 400, which we're about, we're a little over 400 now, 4 to 23, double that to 800, 800 to 1600. So each doubling, it's kind of a logarithmic effect. It takes longer and longer to double concentrations. each doubling of carbon dioxide it enhances earth's greenhouse effect natural greenhouse effect by about 1% and that results by itself about a 7 tenths every degree Celsius global average temperature rise that's not at all significant and if it weren't for measurement nobody would even know nobody knows it's it's it's it's it's not it's not it's not at all

consequential the difference is where you get these rapid warming scenarios of like two to four degrees celsius in the ipcc is because they tack on a bunch of positive feedback loops that amplify warming but we know that negative feedback dominates even the mainstream scientists admit it they just say it's slightly less negative let's let's dive into that what's a positive what would a positive feedback loop and a negative feedback loop look like so a positive feedback loop is say you whatever the cause you warm the you warm the earth temperature by a degree. What happens is is you get a bunch of reactions so you get say less snow color and snow being like a lot of snowpack or a lot of ice in the

polar regions snow was it's because it's white it reflects radiation it's a very good reflector of incoming solar radiation like just like clouds are so it would you get less snow cover you reduce the Earth's albedo and that means Earth can't cool as efficiently, radiatively speaking, and so that amplifies the warming effect. Similarly if you were, if Earth were to cool and you get more snow cover, more glacial ice, more sea ice covered, you would actually increase the cooling and it would be a positive feedback loop that amplifies the cooling. negative feedback dampens effects it kind of keeps earth roughly around some

sort of balance it's the energies budgets never in balance there's always imbalances this is the problem with climate change alarmists that they click they think that the earth's always in this delicate balanced state that's not the case there's always energy imbalances and that happens naturally without or input but negative feedback dominates if positive feedback dominated earth would have been a permanent hot house or a ice box eons ago negative feedback dominated so when you get a little temperature upward a little rise in temperature you get feedback mechanisms such as increased cloud coverage more evaporation more cloud cover

and that reduces the incoming radiation from the Sun so you end up kind of trying to keep the temperature down instead of going up and the same thing can happen if you try and get the temperature down you get positive feedback that or not positive feedback you get negative feedback that tries to reduce the cooling so it keeps it around kind of a quasi-steady state for time periods on border multi-decadal even geological time periods we have we've been we've been through ice ages we've been taking racial cycles we're currently an interglacial period still in an ice age with interglacial period but it earth it goes kind of just oscillates these cycles because negative feedback dominates we're not seeing these huge

swings which would be more of a characteristic of positive feedback that amplifies things but these positive feedbacks in climate models they produce these rapid warming scenarios because they think they don't really account for clouds very well they assume that you increase warming increase evaporation so there's more water vapor and water vapor being the most greenhouse gas well that warms especially the polar regions where it's cold and dry the most the problem with that assumption is that they don't look at clouds

and you increase yeah you increase evaporation increase the humidity but you also increase cloud cover so you reduce the radiation coming in clouds are very powerful and they have significant impact on the global radiation which keeps increased cloud cover you're actually going to cool the planet or you're going to have a negative feedback that doesn't make it warm as much this is why climate models produce too much warming they even observation show that's what uh called the cloud thermostat hypothesis is something that dr william gray the late dr william gray from colorado state university uh and also he is postulated as well as dr roy spencer at university of holland school well this seems like something that particularly the cloud cover and the negative feedback loop

that would materialize if something gets out of balance in one direction it should be it seems like a rudimentary fact of how climate actually works that these scientists should understand and factor into the models which begs the question i mean we've seen this particularly in like pharma industry um economics industries computer science as well where we do have this uh misaligned incentive to produce papers that come to a certain include conclusion due to um who's giving out the funding for a particular research does that exist in the the climate world as well absolutely absolutely um it's kind of it's kind of more nuanced in how this works in that when when there's announcements for opportunities of research grants funding agents they'll they'll

posted on whatever website whatever organization is funding this research a lot of times it's the national science foundation that's and there's our taxpayer funded grants government they say government funded but it's let's be honest it's taxpayer funded and so they'll announce an opportunity to for scientists at academic institutions or you know the government researchers or anybody really to apply for a grant and so when you submit your in these in these research proposals that these funding agents agents that they put out on those some websites they have very specific guidelines that you have to adhere to so if they want you to investigate for example wildfires the

impact of greenhouse gas emissions on wildfire act the impacts of anthropogenic climate change on wildfires in Mediterranean California and they want you to look at how reducing greenhouse gas emissions is a focal should be a focal point of policy in reducing that disaster risk in the next few decades or by 2100 they want you to adhere to that they don't want you'd look in that. Well, let's see how forest management is playing a role in this. Or maybe we could reduce risk by putting power lines underground, or having better zoning codes, maybe not building stuff in these forests where there are tinderbox. If you if you if you when

you submit your proposal, you submit your form, you kind of have to outline your, you know, why you want this grant, what your intentions are, why you think you should have this grant, what your data methods are going to be, and how you're going to go about this research. Obviously, you're not going to come, you're not going to state your conclusion in the grant, but you're going to say, well, I'm going to look at this and that, and I'm going to do this method and that method, and then you submit it, and they review it, and if they like your outline, which are your proposal, you're likely to get the grant. So in the case of the example I provided, if you go in and you say, well, I don't necessarily want to look at how climate change is impacting wildfire activity or greenhouse gas emissions.

I want to look at better. I want to look at forest management policies. I want to look at such as such as prescribed burns, increasing those to reduce risk, increasing mechanical thinning to clear out underbrush, looking at better zoning codes and putting power lines underground. because a lot of times toppled power lines and Santa high wind events the Santa Ana winds they topple power lines and they get they broke they they break they spark a fire if you would you say that in your proposal you're likely to get funded because they want you to adhere to their guidelines but if you stayed on the other hand well okay I'll look at you know what the importance of CO2 in emissions, and why the fire risk is increasing because of that, then you're likely

to be fired. That's how this whole thing works. And a lot of times, I mean, there's very little research proposals out there. A lot of climate research now focuses on conveying catastrophic harm to the planet. They want you to think that the world's ending. I'm exaggerating a little bit, but they want you to the research climate research now focuses on impacts and primarily being negative it doesn't focus on actually understanding what's going on not the climate dynamics there's little there's some there's some research that is conducted but a lot of times it doesn't get published in the more prestigious academic journals like nature or science magazine it might be in some more some other open access journal and not one of the distinct quick break

care freaks this rip is brought to you by gradually then suddenly a framework for understanding bitcoin is money by parker lewis i wrote the foreword to the book i'm honored to have done so because it's the best zero to one primer if you're looking for a logical explanation of why bitcoin obsoletes all other money buy one for yourself and maybe a few for your friends go to the safehouse.com slash gradually that's the safehouse.com safe spelled s-a-i-f the safehouse.com slash gradually. Use the promo code TFTC for $5 off at checkout. Buy it now, freaks. The price of Bitcoin is going up. You need to understand it. This is the best zero to one primer. This rip was also brought to you by good friends at Zapparite. If you're a Bitcoiner and run a

business or an independent contractor, you should be accepting Bitcoin as payment. If not you, then who? If we believe that fiat is systemically fragile and is a risk, the rails that that currency runs on our risk as well you need to begin accepting bitcoin as soon as possible invest in the future of your business create a redundant rail by accepting bitcoin as payment using zap rate and reduce risk for your business i've done this for my business here at tftc we use zap rate it allows you to easily create invoices payment links or connect e-commerce stores connect your wallets or custodial accounts and be set up in minutes we can also connect our bank accounts our Stripe accounts, our Square accounts to accept fiat as well. The time is now, freaks.

The fiat system is fragile. Invest in the infrastructure that de-risks the future. Invest in yourself. Bitcoin payments with ZapRite. Go to zaprite.com slash TFTC to get $40 off their annual subscription. Zaprite.com slash TFTC, $40 off. Thinking of like burn control, like Australia, what was it, two or three years ago when they had those insane wildfires and they tried to blame it on uh on climate change but it was like no you stopped allowing controlled burns to happen like a decade ago and you let all this underbrush build up and yeah of course you're gonna have insane wildfires and that's like and it's happening in canada too as well right yeah it's happening primarily in the western northern in western canada northwestern canada uh the rockies and

the mountains and the forests out in the just western north america in general california oregon washington british columbia alberta all those states and provinces uh that's a big problem it's also a problem in australia as you mentioned now this isn't the case everywhere actually in a lot if you actually look at global wildfire burn acreage uh there's been reconstructions that have been done going back the last few centuries uh even with the recent increases which are due to poor forest management the fact that we had fire suppression for so many decades actually has reduced fires to considerably from what they were in western North America in the 1700s 1800s when we started adopting the fire

suppression practices in the early 20th century the US Forest Service the hundred percent you know stuff out every fire that you see they actually reduced fires for a long period of time but eventually that has allowed forests become under are grown uh in the a lot of when it gets during the dry season during the summer so in california for example uh it's very that's their dry season and it doesn't take much for that stuff to dry out every year whether they're in drought or not it's just always dry and when you get these this accumulation of fuel especially small diameter of one to ten hour fuels uh that burn a drought very quickly when weather conditions change and be like on a dime they're highly become highly

flammable uh and uh there's been a huge increase about the forest floor and that is that is a significant component to why we've had increased fires because there's all this dead stuff that's dry laying on the forest floor because it wasn't it wasn't burned through prescribed burning like it used like the native americans used to do and we don't have mechanical thinning of the forest They just let the forest become overgrown. This is a big problem. We see this again in Australia as well But generally speaking if you look at a global picture Even though there's regional increases in North America, Australia The other places overall global fire activities actually declined over the last 30 40 years from satellite records

There's several studies that discuss this Mediterranean they're down significantly Europe. They're down significantly Asia. They're down significantly We don't see nearly as much wildfire as we did. The Copernicus ECMWF, they have an assimilation system where they calculate, they use satellite data since 2003 to calculate the global fire radiative power. And to do that, they look at the carbon dioxide emissions from wildfires, so higher CO2 emissions from fires generally means it has a very strong correlation with vegetation area burn and that last year was pretty high but it wasn't the highest on record in the last 21 years

but it's actually declined quite significantly over the last two decades believe it or not yeah and they have the gall to say that it's increasing in intensity and frequency not only that things like hurricanes which i'm pretty sure have been falling in severity and frequency over the last century um i'm not sure about typhoons obviously there's just a big one in asia but there's would you consider them overt lies are they manipulating statistics in their favor data in their favor when it comes to this i mean this is a lot of stuff like tony heller dives into yeah well a lot of the interesting thing about and that's actually a good good question with With regard to hurricanes, the typhoons and hurricanes are the same thing.

In the Northwest Pacific, they're just called typhoons. Each basin, they're called something different. In the East Pacific, they're called hurricanes as well. Atlantic, they're called hurricanes. North Atlantic, South Atlantic, East Pacific, hurricanes. But West Pacific, they're called typhoons. And then the Australian region, I think they're called severe tropical cyclones or something like that. I get the names confused, but they are typhoons.

It's the same thing, the same type of storm. If you look at the number, and this is from data from Colorado State University, Dr. Phil Klotzbach maintains this archive on the website. It's the Colorado State Department of Atmosphere and Science. They have basin archives for each ocean basin going back to 1980. Now, her satellite era goes back to 1966, actually. But prior to 1980, there was limited coverage, it was spotty coverage in the southern hemisphere. And some of the intensity data estimated from cloud tops, the IR satellite images, all the

beautiful colors you see, that's the IR, the temperature of the cloud tops, the browner, the redder it is, the higher the cloud tops are, the colder they are, they're usually more intense, the more convection, the more intense the hurricane. So you can kind of estimate hurricane intensity from those observations. Prior to 1980, it's kind of spotty in the southern hemisphere, especially in the South Pacific, so in the South Indian Ocean. So you can't really get a full global picture going back to 1966. So 1980 is when we have really good adequate satellite coverage of tropical cyclone activity across the entire world. And if you look at the actual annual number of hurricane-strength tropical cyclones since 1980, they have actually declined significantly, statistically speaking, over the last 40 years.

And in fact, they reached an all-time record low count globally in 2021. So there are more storms. That's not happening. And you look at the number of major hurricanes, Category 3 or higher, on the Saffir-Simpson wind scale. If you look at the hurricane, the equivalents and the other basins to that, there's been no trend. There's been no increase in major hurricanes since 1908. This is all from the Colorado State University website.

This was actually discussed in NUTSA Not All 2019, a study published in the American Meteorological Society Journal, and then they had class back at all 2022 where they looked at this data since 1990, because of consistent observational practices with microwave sensors for some of the more short-lived named storms and weaker systems. They came to the same conclusion as what I'm saying right here. Anybody watching can go look this up themselves. But the IPCC, where it gets at the inception of statistics,

in AR6, the Sixth Scientific Assessment Report, IPCC AR6WG1, the physical science basis, in chapter 11 where they discuss these changes in meteorological extremes. What they state is that the proportion of major hurricanes have increased in the last 30, 40 years. They state this, and the way that they frame this is to be deceptive, to try and make you think that hurricanes are getting more extreme, but they're actually not. You actually look at the data, which I just showed you, but I just told you, the number of major hurricanes are going down or number of hurricanes total are going down the

major ones are staying steady so if you set it up as a ratio of hurricanes to major hurricanes well the ratio of major hurricanes is increasing even though total hurricanes have gone down major hurricanes and remain constant so if you set it up as a proportion you're going to you can frame it very in a very misleading way to suggest that hurricanes are becoming more intense they're getting stronger because the proportion of major hurricanes is increased, but the actual number of them are not. The only reason this trend exists is because total hurricanes are going down. Now, the other thing they say is that, well, hurricanes are rapidly intensifying, or rapid intensification is where a tropical cyclone's maximum sustained wind speed increases by at least 35 knots within,

or 35, at least 30 knots within, or 35 miles an hour within at least 24 hours. And the number of rapid intensification events globally have not changed since 1990, according to Klotz back at all 2022. It was a record high in 2015. We had a very active typhoon season. So that was part of the reason for that. But overall, there's no trend in rapid intensification events in any way. Yeah, I was not aware of that proportion.

And that is a classic manipulation of data to push a narrative. How much of this do you think is due to the fact that we just have better data around this and the fact that we're more connected than we ever have been as a human society we can actually see things that were maybe imperceptible to people in different parts of the world just decades ago well yeah i mean there's been a huge increase in the number of short-lived less than two day named storms tropical cyclones tropical storms but less than two day named storms the short-lived ones there's been a pretty significant increase in every basin of those since 1908 and climate alarmists will always say well this look we're seeing more named storms now

the reasons for that if you actually read uh lancy et al 2010 nuts and et al 2019 and then you read just look up any paper on this they're going to tell you practically the same thing even i think the ipc even mentions this um there's been improved microwave sensors and satellite uh equipped to satellites in the last few decades so we're able to actually detect wind speeds and measure them better we have more aircraft reconnaissance missions where you get the drop suns they're like the hurricane hunters they fly into the hurricanes and they uh drop these these radius kind of like radius on weather balloons with their drop suns they drop them into the hurricane to measure wind speeds and stuff so those are it's very interesting uh but it's all

due to the fact that there's just more technology we can be able to have better detection and also another in factor for increased named storms that's often overlooked is that in 2002 noaa decided that they would start classifying or naming rather subtropical cyclones so they don't they didn't name subtropical cyclones before 2002 so those aren't counted and they didn't go back to the historical record and adjust for that any subtropical subtropical cyclone uh was not was not named back then and they didn't go back and account for that so they've always named tropical cyclones they they've all since 1950 40 late 40s around 1950 but they um don't even before then they still collect they still count tropical cyclones they don't count subtropical so that also has

factored in kind of a step function increase in the number of these events and you look at the atlantic the atlantic ocean basin the north atlantic we have hurricane records going back back to 1851. However, if you look at the seasonal track maps from say 19, one of the most active, probably arguably the most active hurricane season in the Atlantic was 1933. But if you look at the seasonal track map, most of the storms are clustered in the Gulf or right off the Atlantic coast. You don't see a whole lot of the Cape Verde hurricanes coming off Africa or developing the atlantic development region you don't see a lot of alta sea storms you just see a lot of close to land tracks and a lot of them but there was no satellites and in any storm that didn't

pass by the quote-unquote observation ship the ship-based observation network it would have been missed in the historical record because nobody saw it so prior to satellite data we missed a lot of storms. But if you go back, if you look at the actual number of U.S. hurricane landfalls, this is a great metric. You look at the number of U.S. hurricane landfalls, they've actually decreased over the last 175 years, slightly. So the decrease in hurricane strike fraction, but the increase in the number of hurricanes and named storms in the Atlantic over that same period, just shows that we didn't have, well, we were able to detect the ones that were out to sea that were missed by ships or didn't hit land.

And so, Lancey et al, or Vecchi et al, 2021, which is co-authored by National Hurricane Center scientist Dr. Chris Lancey, who I am an acquaintance with. He, in this study, they homogenized hurricane counts going back to 1851. And if you account for those changes in observing platforms, rather, there's no trend. There's no trend in hurricane counts,

maybe even a slight decrease because of the decrease in U.S. hurricane strike fraction. But they're getting worse and they're going to destroy the planet. And then the other thing too, like I come from an economics background and the other data that they love to cite

is the cumulative dollar damage that's done. And they completely neglect the fact that these urban environments have been built up over the course of decades in the past of a lot of these major hurricanes, whether that's New Orleans, Miami, any other coastal city in the u.s and they say look at all the economic damage it's going up insurance rates are going up it's like well yes because you built large urban environments in the

paths of a lot of these hurricanes exactly and i love that's my favorite thing and actually this kind of ties into a recent it actually ties into the presidential debate last night where they had the they always have the climate change question and the vice president harris was asked uh about climate change now thankfully trump didn't answer the question that they went on some other rambling because trump you know he's great with a lot of things you know foreign policy sure economic sure but his science is very weak and i think his intentions are probably in the right place but he needs to be better informed with the statistics and he just he took clean air clean water we gotta have clean water right clean water to my trump impression and yes i agree with

but that's not really climate related that's more environmental um if he was equipped with like me or some others somebody steve coonan there's a great easy somebody like that somebody that will happen or tony heller or roy spence any judith curry any any one of these people could give him the stats on that i think he'd be better prepared to answer a question so thankfully they didn't he didn't have time to answer that question they just kind of went on but harris regurgitated that as we mentioned the insurance industry prop again uh while we're seeing more insured losses and and they we have to raise insurance premiums on our homeowners policies monthly deductibles uh this is obviously evidence of climate change i i love love love this argument

from climate alarmists because they think that the oil industry the oil executives are evil and they're for profit and they're destroyed they're intentionally destroying the planet because they want to make record profits they're increasing they're in control of the gas prices so they want They want to increase their profits at the expense of your dollar, making you suffer. So they claim that corporations are evil, and all of a sudden, in these big companies, and all of a sudden, they're in bed with the insurance industry. They think the insurance industry is holier than thou, and they have no incentive to want to raise premiums. Now, in a lot of cases, insurance companies, especially the smaller ones, have had to cancel homeowners insurance policies in certain states because of the fact that they're losing money.

But that's due to a number of factors, such as inflation and the cost of repairs. Your house gets damaged by a fallen tree from a severe windstorm, or you get storm surge damage from flooding, a hurricane, or you get hail damage on your solar farm, like we saw at that facility down in Texas near Houston back in March, I think it was, March or April. Yeah, if I'm an insurance company, I don't want to pay for that. it's going to cost me more i'm going to be losing money especially with the cost of repairing these things going on due to inflation uh we also have increased especially on the coastlines we have increased coastal assets you have more stuff that's in mother nature's path a category five hurricane hitting miami beach in 1926 or well we had a cat for 1926 actually was very devastating

and if you actually adjust for normalized damage for adjust for cpi and you adjust for It changes in exposure due to placement of wealth in the path. Actually, 1926 Miami hurricanes, the costliest in U.S. history. But my point is that a Category 5 hurricane or four or five hurricane hitting Miami in the 1920s would be less devastating economically and with loss of life. Well, maybe not loss of life, but definitely economically than a Category 2 or 3 hurricane hitting Miami today because there's just more stuff to destroy. The plains, just more stuff in the path of tornadoes. Tornadoes aren't getting more frequent or severe. In fact, the number of violent tornadoes are down 50% since 1954 when near real-time observing practices began in the Storm Prediction Center database.

It's just more stuff to destroy. It's not climate change. And insurance companies also probably want to make profits. They want to make money too. So they will probably increase perceived risk rather than actual risk to, you know, buff up their profits a little bit. It's business. The insurance industry, I think they're claiming that they're having to face climate change, and it's not really the case. There's just more assets that they have to cover.

There's more stuff that they have insured properties in high-risk regions, and they don't want to insure that necessarily. I can't blame them because they have to remain profitable. But they also use climate change as an excuse to raise premiums even higher. It's either climate change or Haitian immigrants being imported into your city that are going to increase your insurance premiums. um yeah it's it's so it's frustrating for me because i uh like to think of myself as a first principles thinker and you know particularly for these ideas and really didn't get dragged into it i got dragged into it in college actually because i took a climate elective class and actually had actually had like a professor who was like the climate change stuff is all bullshit and like

walked us through a lot of this data and i was like oh shit so i've been in the back of my mind But then getting into the Bitcoin mining industry and how demonized it's been over the last decade in North America, Canada first, and the United States more recently, it's just insane how confidently ignorant people talk about this stuff. And when it comes to the concept of cataclysmic climate change broadly, everybody is speaking out of their ass. If you actually dive into the data and intricacies and understand how data is being manipulated and emotions are being catered to. And it is having a detrimental effect on the global economy, not just here in the United States. I mean, Germany is the perfect example. They fell hook, line, and sinker for this at the turn of the century and wound down all their coal and nuclear power plants in favor of wind and solar. And now they're basically in a severe position of weakness as the war between Ukraine and Russia continues.

And their politicians are positioning like they're doing something virtuous and good at the end of the day. But one can make a very strong argument that this is actually the exact opposite. what they're doing is detrimental to human flourishing and quality of life overall for not only germans but western europeans specifically absolutely yeah the whole net zero it's interesting because they claim that the whole idea the whole climate crisis distinction revolves around the impact or supposed negative impact of of uh of man-made climate change on humans uh on human civilization and which i word my thoughts here the whole yeah the whole definition the whole premise of climate the climate crisis revolves

around there there being negative impacts to society and the overall state of human welfare but if you look at the data i mean the number of the human condition has never been better than it is today in spite of warming or maybe in part in some cases because of it global crop yields are at all-time record highs since the data began in 19 since data collection began in 1961. uh they've been ultimate highs in the last five ten years and they claim that climate change is is harming crops is causing widespread crop failures and famine but where is it you know Locally, there's certainly cases, but globally, crop yields are higher than ever. Now, some of that, you know, climate skeptics will say that that's due to CO2 fertilization.

And some of it is. Even the EPA actually used to have a page before the Biden administration came in that actually admitted that. But you can find it on the web archive. But most of this increase is due to high genetic engineering and creating, developing high-yield crop varieties, better irrigation, the better farming practices in general is the main culprit here for that. But if climate change doesn't have a negative impact on it, it's not evident in the data because crop fuels have increased despite whatever impacts climate change supposedly has had on crop

production in the agricultural industry. You look at the share of the population that's malnourished due to famine or whatever. It's on all-time record lows. You look at life expectancy because of our burning of fossil fuels primarily, which enables just everything. It enables everything. It enables the development of life-saving technologies, medical equipment, vaccines.

It runs your AC, it runs your heating, your cooling, all of it. Everything, our entire society exists because of, all the stuff that we have today exists because of fossil fuels, or just about everything. And so all of this has allowed life expectancy to more than double since the 1850s. And every continent on earth, even in Africa,

where the greens largely deprive them of access to fossil fuels. And that's a whole other ethical issue. But you look at things like the number of disaster-related deaths, they're down 92% since the 1920s. The number of people dying from meteorological-related disasters,

floods, droughts, heat waves, cold waves, floods, fires, all of these things, They're down 92%. Now a lot of that's because of warning coordination technologies. The Galveston hurricane in 1900 killed 8 to 12,000 people. That's because nobody knew what was coming. We have that technology today to warn people in advance.

We don't see death tolls of 10,000 people from a weather event anymore. We may see a few hundred, at worst a thousand, maybe over in China or Japan or somewhere where that gets hit by a devastating typhoon. You might where there's really a high concentrated population. might see death tolls occasionally top a thousand for some of these events but in

the United States you might see even a category 5 hurricane you might have maybe 100 deaths at most today than you would have had 30 or 50 to 100 years ago but either way they say climate change is killing people it's not evident even if even if it were it's not evident in the data and so the human condition has never been better than it is today and but the only thing there's no actual relevant data metric that exists that proves that we're in climate crisis uh they say well look at the arctic the sea ice is melting in the arctic okay well how is that bad why is that bad they can't and what's what's the correct amount of sea ice that there should be and why was the arctic ice free during

the summer uh periodically between ten thousand six thousand years ago how did that happen um So, why is it a crisis now but it wasn't then? So, the climate crisis distinction only exists, they always fixate on global average temperature as if that's the control of the human condition and our state of well-being. But there's no indication that global temperature controls the amount of extreme weather or the number of how deadly a storm is. still indication that global average temperature really sets the is the control of the human condition arguably you want to we could argue if it does it would be warmer periods that are

better that's why warmer periods have historically been called optimals but even then you know it's not really the control model of things especially now with our technologies we're a very adaptive species we can mitigate and overcome all sorts of challenges with technologies yes it's so bad want to live in a world of mega fauna mega flora that'd be that'd be bad i don't yeah you look at the you know the the you know we have deforestation is a major issue for example but uh in some areas but overall it was actually greener than it was at 30 40 years ago uh which a lot of people don't know and some of that is actually due to co2 fertilization some of it's due to environmental regulations and stuff as well right you know why is why is that and even nasa admits that so why

is that why is that a bad you know why is that a bad thing actually i heard a story recently they said that trees are bad i saw it was something related to climb out remember what the full context was oh it was in relation to the retreating of of of glacial ice in the polar regions there was some headline and it was i think it might have been based on a new study and they stated that there's more there's more trees growing in the higher latitudes because of receding sea ice or it's not sea ice or fleeting receding glaciers so we have in parts of canada and europe there's more trees there's farther north up in sweden norway you know for example in alaska more trees and that's making earth um a better absorber of radiation because trees don't i guess they don't

reflect sunlight because they're not like snow they don't have that albedo what you talked about at the beginning and so it actually increases warming it's like a positive feedback loop and that's so that it shows trees are the more trees are bad uh now so it's it's almost like they're trying they've they've made a conclusion and they're trying to uh make any data point point towards that collusion conclusion um you can look up look up climate change and you just type in google one day if you're just bored and type in climate change and Just let the search results fill out or just hit the enter button after climate change, and you're going to find a bunch of studies. I saw an article from Fox News, and they said bread causes global warming.

Bread? Yes. The yeast is emitting too much? It's insanity. And yet, yours and my taxpayer dollars are largely funded, are largely apportioned to the National Science Foundation or other agencies to fund this research, to bankroll these academics to publish this pretty much useless research. And it's far done. And that's the not only is that frustrating, but the more frustrating thing is that all this attention to this hysteria and catering to the hysterics is really not only leaked into our economy via increased taxes, whether that's via the Inflation Reduction Act, which Biden overtly admitted was a veiled climate act. you just had to name something else uh you look at esg initiatives at the corporate level which

are failing terribly which is good to see failing uh incredibly well actually not terribly they're failing well um and it seems like that trends out the way but we've had this distraction and incredible misallocation of capital particularly over the last two decades due to this problem that's the frustrating thing because there are low-hanging fruit that we could like i i'm an environmentalist i'm a surfer i'm a big cleaner beach guy leave the beach cleaner than when you showed up like i my family has a perky we drink clean water we're very health conscious and environmentally conscious um in terms of how we treat our environment and what we put in our bodies and things like that and there's the over indexing on catering to the climate hysterics has

really led to a neglect of environmental things that we should be doing but aren't doing because he's focused on this broader climate hysteria and i think this is a good point to bring up something that we didn't touch on but i think it's very important that we do which is a great example this is like urban heat islands like what are some things uh what are some of the ramifications of the urban environments that have been built up over the last five decades uh across the united states and across the world like how is that affecting measurements in particular areas and going back to clouds and ice being white like one low-hanging fruit that i've always been passionate about like why don't we ever do this like why don't we just all paint our our roofs

white um to to have that like reflective thing like there's like low-hanging fruits from environmental like we want to use less electricity i think we should be as efficient as possible with electricity i don't think we should be wasteful at all like there's low-hanging fruit like paint your white your roof white and you'll your house will be cooler naturally so you don't have to turn your aca as much i thought that they i think that they wanted to try that in los angeles and actually they even went as far as saying they wanted to paint the roads white to do i don't know if they've actually done any of that or not but i thought it was interesting and i don't think it's necessarily a bad idea especially in an urban heat island area where they retain heat um but before i go

into that i i actually wanted to elaborate a little on the environmental issue yeah i mean A lot of this hysteria over climate, that's where most of this taxpayer dollar, the research fund, goes into is climate research and publishing a lot of these pretty much useless studies. It's not going to advance science by any measure. These people just seek notoriety and fame, and they want to keep their career. You look at a lot of these people, these scientists, there's no really climate science. in a climate science degree is very a new construct most of the big well-known climate scientists out there uh you know they don't have degrees in climate science they have degrees in meteorology they might have degrees in physics usually it's usually physics or mathematics

mathematicians who were able to unable to find work in their own fields and they they just were not either somebody was far smarter than they were and they couldn't advance in mathematics and physics, so they're like, oh, let's go to climate science because it uses physics and it uses math. So a lot of subpar physicists and subpar mathematicians have come into climate science, which historically was a field dominated by geologists and meteorologists. You also see people in data science. Now, climate's a multifaceted issue.

It involves a lot of interactions between the Earth system and the atmosphere. It involves components of chemistry and biology and math and data science. it involves all of those things so you can't just have a climate scientist you have to have people from all sorts of backgrounds but it's always funny when you talk to a climate alarmist like you're not a climate scientist most climate scientists climate scientists by trade um dr you know dr william happer is a physicist but they claim that he's not credible uh even that he was a science advisor to presidents trump bush hw bush and then clinton until al gore had and fire. Will Happer is a well-known physicist, and he's in recent years focused on climate during

his more, you know, retired years, a later career, but before that he was primarily focused on physics, but other scientists have, you know, Michael Mann, for example, at UPenn, he's a geologist, a mathematician, and a physicist by trade. He has all sorts of degrees, I mean, And, you know, because kudos to him for doing that education. But Michael Mann is like the, he is the face of climate science. He is the face of climate science. And he's treated as an authority on it. And, you know, as he, and I will give him this, rightfully should be,

because he's had a lot of research published. And, you know, yes, he's known for the hockey stick graph, but, you know, he's been successful and I got to hand it to him. but he's no more qualified to speak about climate change than Dr. William Happer or Dr. Steve Koonin. Both of them are physicists as well, but because they don't go with the strided messaging, they're not considered climate scientists by the activist group.

But what I wanted to touch on, back to your point about urban heat island effects, Really switching gears here. This is a major problem. I mean, when we first started the observational network of temperature monitoring, the COOP stations, which are now integrated into the NOAA United States or NOAA Global Historical Climatology Network daily, the data set, the GHC and D stations. And these stations were propped up randomly at random towns across the United States and the world as well, but primarily concentrated in the U.S., was the data is they were just there to provide weather information. They weren't they weren't supposed to be used for climate monitoring because they're not spatially distributed evenly. And over time, some of these stations have had the city built up around them.

Some of them were moved to airports, and then eventually the airport, the city had grown around the airport, like Las Vegas and Phoenix, for example. Washington, D.C. is another great example. And you look at that, and it has significant impacts, because most of our temperature data comes from airport stations that were moved to airports. Now, the reason they were moved to airports in the 1920s, 30s, and 40s is because pilots and air traffic controllers needed real-time weather information on site to have safe landings and safe takeoffs, as well as to divert flights, you know, hey, weather conditions here are

not ideal for landing. You might want to circle around for a little bit or land at this airport instead if weather conditions were unfavorable. So they needed real-time weather information. That's why they removed the airports. These stations were never intended to serve as a network for monitoring, monitoring global climate, yet that's what they have become. Because of this, there's a whole host of issues.

The computer models try and do a spatial area weighted mean to account for where they do interpolation where there's missing data, and that's largely guesswork at best. Once you're outside the United States, this becomes a major, major problem. There's practically no data in South America prior to World War II.

There's no data in Africa. Even Africa lacks data today on this. There's no data in Antarctica prior to the 1940s. There's barely any data in the Arctic for any time period. You've got a few stations in southern Greenland, a few stations in northern Alaska and Russia, other than Siberia, and maybe in Norway, Sweden, Finland. But there's very few stations in a lot of the regions.

And so they just use computer models to kind of guess what the temperature is in a lot of places. And even another big problem is that a lot of station counts have dropped. A lot of stations have seized operation. NOAA still reports data for those stations, but they mark that box with an E for estimated. So they don't actually have measurements from a lot of stations, even in the United States. There's been a significant drop in station coverage since the 1990s for the long-term measuring sites. So where those sites are ghost stations, NOAA still reports data, but they just fill it in with an E for estimated

because they use computer models to just guess what the temperature was. And if you're off by a degree or two, that has significant impacts. If this happens at a lot of stations and you have a warm bias to it, which tends to be the case, you're going to get an artificial warming trend. And they also know it will also adjust the data for the supposed time of observation bias. And I've seen conflicting things on that. I see legitimate reasons for it, and I also see why it's suspicious. Essentially, the time of observation bias, what happens with that is when, say you take

the temperature measurement once per day at 3 p.m. and you look at the maximum temperature on the min-max thermometer and you look at it at, say, 3 p.m. one day and it's 95 degrees and then you reset it. Well, say the cold front comes through at 6 p.m. and the temperature falls to 45 degrees by the next day, well, you go out at 3 p.m. again, maybe the temperature might have only got to 60, but the thermometer will read 95 degrees because you reset it at 3 p.m. rather than before you went to bed.

So if you do the opposite in the morning, you have the same effects, but it actually induces the cooling bias for overnight loads. But NOAA also mandated that people measure prior to the 1970s, and they changed to more automated weather stations rather than min-max thermometers. NOAA mandated that they had to report once at 3 p.m. The hottest point of the day. Yeah, well, the MEAC thermometer actually registers the temperature.

It actually registers, it locks in what the height is. So if you go out, say if you reset the thermometer at 7 a.m. and it's at 45 degrees and you go out in the afternoon and you go out at, say, 9 a.m. and it's 54 degrees. The thermometer will read 54, but say at 10 a.m. it drops to 53, the max thermometer will still say, there's two thermometers, it's a min-max thermometer. They measure the daily maximum and minimum, so you don't have to monitor it every hour. So it locks in what the high temperature was. So if it goes down, the temperature goes down to say 53, it's still going to register 54 until the temperature goes up again.

So then it goes to 55, and then it locks in. So if you go away for a few hours, you can come back and say, oh, that was the high temperature for that 24-hour period. But NOAA mandated and required people to measure only once per day at about 3 p.m. in the afternoon. And the station observers weren't allowed to reset the thermometer more than once per day, and they weren't able to reset it at a certain time to ensure the reading. So they claim that hot days were over-counted back then. So you might have had two 95-degree days. And so that's why they adjust temperatures in the past downward and present temperatures upward.

That's how they get this big warming trend that doesn't exist in the raw data. The problem I had with that though was that this was obviously a major problem. Anybody that operated a min-max thermometer would be able to notice that this was a problem right away within a few days of using it. So just because they weren't allowed to reset the thermometer, you know, at a certain time or they're only allowed to reset it at a certain time and once per day prior to the 1970s when they were replaced automated weather service stations they doesn't mean that they did they followed those guidelines they wouldn't be was that nobody was

able to you know go and see all well if they didn't have security cameras they didn't you weren't monitoring oh well he reset the thermometer they didn't have no way of knowing whether they reset it in maximum so people but they figured it out they might have just done it against the guidelines I don't know there's no nobody nobody knows the other thing with this is that they claim that you well you might have had the 95 degree day and then you double counted it because you reset it at 3 p.m but you didn't but the temperature the next day was only up to 65 but you set it at 3 p.m and it still registered 95 degrees for the high because you reset it in the afternoon rather than in the morning as well

the problem with that is that if you actually look at individual state and i've done a lot of this for just my own analyses if you actually look at an individual weather station you look at this you pull up the monthly data for the daily maximum and daily minimum seldom will you ever see two back-to-back 95 degree days so that to me that indicates that the operation operators knew what they were doing and maybe they didn't necessarily follow noah guidelines i don't know and i see both cases for why you need those adjustments it's a legitimate concern but i'm not convinced it was actually a problem this sounds completely stupid to me like and it's probably because i'm ignorant and don't know like why can't they just have these thermometers like every five minutes

send temperature data like why do you have to do well back before the 1970s they didn't have the ability to do this yeah just mercury glass thermometers now we have automated weather stations so it just it does send data like every it's either every i don't know what it is whether every five minutes or not okay station at my university is every five minutes we provide observations but um some of the noah ones maybe only reported i don't know so you're talking about what what it was like decades ago yeah decades ago yes they had a mercury in glass min max thermometers they were two by side by side and you had to reset them so it would record the daily minimum and it would lock in what the minimum temperature was so even if the temperature

changed it would still show you the minimum levels same thing with the high but the problem is is that if you had a just looking at the maximum temperature which is the bigger concern here if you reset it at three if it reached 95 degrees say on this afternoon and you've the maximum amount of recorded it registered 95 degrees if you go out and reset the thermometer it and this is back in the old days at 3 p.m and you go just to about your day The max thermometer will probably be 95 degrees for the next 24-hour observation period for the following day, which is not accurate, especially if you have a cold front come through and it drops the temperature by 30 degrees. You go out at 3 p.m. the next day, it'll say the maximum for tomorrow. At 3 p.m. on Monday, you flip it off and on.

It's going to be 95 degrees. Then you go to 3 p.m. the next day, you have this cold front, like the max, and it drops to 70 degrees. like even though you still have a 95 degree reading yep yeah and so like 12 a.m tuesday to 3 p.m that the max size probably something like 75 and it doesn't register that yeah yeah it registers too high because you reset it before the cold front came through so a lot of these things it is a legitimate concern and so that's the reason that they claim that they need to adjust the data down in the past that you get this larger warming trend

but I'm not necessarily convinced I haven't seen enough compelling evidence to suggest that this was actually, even though NOAA required people and we were allowed to only do it at 3pm once per day or in the morning, you could do it in the morning or you could do it

at 7am or 3am you could just do it once per day at one time or the other don't quote me on that But I'm pretty sure that's what the mandate was. But that doesn't mean they actually followed those guidelines because in 1930, they didn't have security cameras to make sure that you're using the equipment properly. But any station observer that has an IQ higher than a turnip would understand that, okay, this is a problem. And maybe, yeah, no one tells me that I'm not allowed to reset the thermometer twice per day, but I'm going to do it anyway.

So, again, we don't know what people did. so it's just it's largely just an assumption you know but if it were a real problem then it would justify why they adjust the past down and then make the present but the problem with this pairwise harmonization is that it tries to eliminate urban heat island effects but it doesn't really do a good job at that and they try to account for station moves because if you move a station the change in elevation make a big difference in what the temperature is because temperature decreases there's a lot of problems with this entire temperature network long term especially on a worldwide basis so you have to have huge error bars in your global temperature

data sets they don't do that um yes is the earth overall warmer than it was probably even the 1930s yes but again there's a huge range of uncertainty and they just make these arbitrary adjustments their documentation is not it's not well documented you start asking questions about it like why did you adjust this temperature down this much by for that month for that station and you only did it for this amount for the next one uh it's a very and then you start asking for details on it and people like nasa giss nasa giss got it for space studies they get very they get kind of angry when you start pressing about that now i'm not accusing them of anything but what they what they're doing could be certainly legitimate and and and necessary but i just find it suspicious that

they don't really want to answer questions when you press them that begs the question do you think they have a an agenda you think uh this is pure hubris people just being like i'm the scientist here what i say goes or do you think there is an agenda because if you look at the ramifications of the propaganda around cataclysmic climate change it as we discussed briefly earlier it does have material effects on what humans are allowed to do in terms of building energy infrastructure certain types of combustion engines and cars and now you have lake lead certification with housing there's talk of taking natural gas stoves out of out of houses in california and apartment buildings in new york like this has real effects on the quality of

life and access to goods and services throughout the economy and i've been of the purview that they're like they don't really care about the climate at the end of the day they need to force this data and fear monger people into acting a certain way so that they can control them work more granularly um if you energy is the most important tool that we use in the world allows us to be more productive and if you uh decrease the quality of um the energy utilization tools that people can use then you can easily more easily control them and then conversations about carbon credits and social credit scores and central bank digital currencies and you can see how it could all fit together where they're able to fear monger and cater to people's emotions to

get them to do certain things then cattle herd them into this dystopian digital future and then have more control over what humans can do yeah you know i think that um you mentioned earlier that about how you're an environmentalist right and a real environmentalist is somebody who actually legitimately cares about the environment somebody that's out there cleaning up plastic out of the streams and rivers off the beach you know of your case people that are making you know health conscious environmentally conscious decisions with you know making sure they're not littering making sure that they're you know using you know not wasting water or stuff the fake environmentalists are the people out there with

picket signs protesting but they don't know what they're protesting for or the people that are sitting online lecturing you about how you need to reduce your carbon footprint um and how the crypto bros need to reduce their carbon footprint but they're the ones on their online throwing a you know temper tantrum which also has a large carbon footprint and they don't want to ever none of these people want to give up the lifestyles that they want to force they don't want to give up their comfortable lifestyles they don't want to live the net zero lifestyle that they want to force everybody else and when it comes to the whole whether or not there's an

agenda behind all of this um the united nations environment program and in the 1980s uh they saw global warming as this emerging scientific issue now again it has a legitimate scientific basis which we discussed at the beginning of this podcast uh this interview there's a legitimate scientific basis behind global warming the problem is is that ipcc ipcc has a bunch of unelected bureaucrats who have a very – they have a globalist policy agenda. They want to influence policy, energy policy, all sorts of policy, foreign policy, diplomacy, everything from a centralized point of view. They want to have kind of a one-world government.

They have a very anti-capitalist, anti-corporation motive behind a lot of their policies. And they saw climate change as a perfect scientific issue where, oh, well, this is a way that we can start regulating private companies. If we can put together a panel of scientific experts, scientists, to look for evidence of human-induced climate change, and we can then, through fossil fuel emissions, we can tie carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel burning to climate change to global warming. And if we can convey this as problematic, as bad, then they can use that as a crutch, use the scientific community as a crutch to justify regulating oil companies, regulating energy companies, regulating just the supply and distribution of energy. and then they now talk about how we need to change our diets to be community lab growing beats we need to abandon steak because our hamburgers because it's because the Big Mac is causing global warming they used in from you know it has a high carbon footprint they use this as justification to regulate down

the food industry they haven't they want to have government control over private corporations, private enterprises, they don't want individual liberty, individual personal choice. They want government regulated energy. They can tell you how much energy you can use. It's a part of the whole carbon credit system that they want to implement. You're given a monthly allowance for how much CO2 you're allowed to emit through, how much you drive, where you can drive, how much you can travel by airplane, what food you can eat. mean in canada parts of canada i think they even tax you on like food they have a carbon tax on food like pizza and and it's just a way to regulate so if you go over that if you have a

carbon credit system you go over your monthly allowance then they you can buy more carbon credits and you can they can pollute more quote unquote and it's a it's a way to and if you If you don't buy more, then they want to make all the currency digital. They want to have a cashless society so that if you go over your carbon credit limit, for example, and you don't buy more credits, you don't pay the government money. I sinned. I had a carbon sin. Give me some credits. I'll pay you to forgive my carbon sins. Then they can shut off your credit card or your debit card. They shut off any financial transactions, so you can't purchase anything.

They want to control the type of stove you can have in your house, the type of refrigerator, heat pump. They want to control – they want to get rid of hot water heaters. I just saw an article on that. They want to regulate – it's where they want to micromanage everything about your life. So the United Nations, this is their entire agenda. They're a globalist organization. That's their purpose. and they saw climate change as a as a way to kind of jog the policy card along

if we can begin we can tie the observed warming trend somehow to climb to carbon dioxide emissions then we can regulate energy and then that gives us control over everything else the very body and it's a very anti capitalist organization so when this keeping this came along they tell the IPCC in 1989 1990 because 1990 is when the first assessment report came out they got a bunch of experts together to conduct science to investigate and specifically the i even in the founding documents the ipcc specifically states that they are tasked scientists with looking for evidence of human cause climate change and its impacts on society so they don't they don't they're not look they're

not and while they do make mention of it and even in detail and in some cases natural variability That's not their focus. They're not tasking scientists to write the physical science basis, the WG1 report, which is the most credible part of the report because you have the adaptation mitigation policy report. You have the WD2 and WG3 reports. Well, they don't task scientists looking for benefits of global warming or natural causes of global warming. They're specifically supposed to find evidence of that warming is man-made due to fossil fuel emissions and that it's bad and harmful to society. And then they kind of can have a little bit of leeway on policy solutions that are quote-unquote nonpartisan. And the IPCC was specifically founded to build the case from a scientific community to regulate emissions. there wasn't and if you say that you're considered a conspiracy theorist which is which is nonsense uh there's been bureaucrats who worked for the united nations who have admitted that

to people like dr roy spencer uh one of the people who was who was who was in charge one of the one of the key bureaucrats that was involved in the first organizational structure of the ipcc actually admitted to dr roy spencer himself um in private conversation that they that was the reason the IPCC was created by the United Nations Environment Program was to do that very specific thing. So there was no, and if somebody

comes back at you with, well, you're a conspiracy theorist for saying that because the climate scientists who are in bed with this report, these reports, it'll be wrong. The physical science basis is okay. It has an okay fairly balanced

assessment of the issue without being alarmist in tone or partisan. uh there's still issues to pick with which i discussed earlier with the hurricane proportions but a good comeback a good follow-up to when you're accused of that being a conspiracy theorist suggesting that is why would there be a need for an ivcc we already have the med office in the uk with the bureau meteorology in australia we have the danish meteorological institute you have no one you have nasa you have the national center for atmospheric research and all these organizations in the united states and you have

academics and universities all around the world that are looking at this issue they can call each other on the phone they can go i plane ticket or they can travel they can travel meet up together to collaborate you don't need the united nations of your bureaucratically politically driven scientific working group to investigate climate change there's no need for an ipcc when you have all these other organizations working on it already and have been for decades so the ipcc is purely for political motivations and with anti-capitalist undertones yeah it's a communist marxist movement they want to control you and it's uh do you think the the pendulum swing there do you think people enough people are

getting uh or becoming wise to the manipulation and the the trickery of foot like what's your experience like going through the meteorology program in college or is so i studied economics in college and i was indoctrinated with the keynesian view of the world and later um i mean not later but i knew enough about the austrian view to sort of check what i was being taught versus what i believe to be true um is that a similar experience in climate related degrees these days for you thankfully in my atmospheric science program we don't there's not a whole lot of discussion around climate change and um my professors that i have do not necessarily agree with me on everything some of them don't agree with me on just about anything that i say

regarding the issue um some of them probably agree with some things i say or don't agree but none of them are really engaged in you know cancel culture they understand that i my position that i have is scientifically defensible and they understand that i back my statements up with evidence and data and that i'm not just talking out of my rear and there's been people attacks from outside and I'm trying to get me kicked out of the program but my professors value freedom of speech and they have and most of them have been a safe haven for me and they've defended my right to free speech and they encourage rigorous but civil scientific debate and dialogue

But because it's a meteorology program, we're more focused on just the weather and weather forecasting and the dynamics that govern the atmosphere, which is critical to climate, by extension. We don't focus as much on climate, it's not a climate focused degree, it's more weather focused degree. But you can't understand climate if you don't understand the weather, I think that's the first part. And then you also have to understand the oceans, that's why oceanography, taking courses in

that which I think I wish I had done is also essential so that is one regret I have about my college experience is that I didn't I didn't have time and I just didn't take oceanography course because that's also very important but you have the geology aspects and stuff as far as the student body goes a lot of students agree with what I say you know in private some still like my posts on social media but a lot of them agree with me not all of them do but for the most part everybody's just kind of civil about it where we find other stuff to talk about it's actually I don't know how it is at other universities I'm sure

it's worse but where I go it's it's actually been pretty it's been actually for the most part a smooth ride with me being an outspoken voice that doesn't toe the line of some of the mainstream narrative aspects of the issue another Another thing I want to point out is that, you know, as long as you can defend your position scientifically with data and evidence, then you're okay. We do take a course in climate dynamics, actually I'm taking that right now, and my professor is fantastic, she's wonderful. She doesn't necessarily share my views on things, but I've given presentations, and

I get hundreds on them, and she gives a very fair and balanced kind of take on this. It's just, what does the data show? And you can quibble about the data methods and why this data set is misleading or something like that, but there's not really an agenda behind it. It's just educating the students as students should be educated, not indoctrinated. So I cannot, for me personally, I cannot speak highly enough. i love my professors i love my peers everybody's fantastic

and i don't it's probably not the case everywhere in every academic institution i know it's certainly not for faculty um but at least for me it's it's been it's been it's been okay that's very encouraging to hear that's what you want rigorous academic debate backed by facts and competing views putting them out there um and that's like that's why i really uh outside of the universe that's why i mean i've been like i said i've been a fan of yours for years on twitter because you get into it with a bunch of the uh the hysterics and as you mentioned they come after you personally and try to um affect your personal life so what's that been like developing this social media presence and putting up with all these hysterics from around the world

I have a lot of people that, there's certain individuals out there who have a weird obsession with me. I don't know what it is. It's like they are determined to bring me down, but I'm not worried about it. I'm not worried about my career. I'm not worried about anything. I have everything lined up that I need to once I graduate. And in a lot of cases, actually it's a better job that you could probably get a lot of traditional

meteorology. I always told people, you know, people like, they expect me, the people that hate me, they want me to, they think that in order to have a legitimate job, I need to go into academia or I need to go into the government or operational forecasting or something. But not everybody who goes through meteorology does that. Some of my friends, one of my buddies is still working at Walmart. He's just having a hard time finding a job. I know people that are doing, becoming pilots, you know, that have graduated with meteorology

degree so they're becoming air traffic controllers they're doing aviation stuff they're not necessarily doing meteorology um you know or they're not doing necessarily the traditional meteorology i told people my you know in my followers a long time ago that i wanted to do something i wanted to stand out i wanted to do my own thing because you cannot be a leader if you are a follower you're doing what everybody else is doing i've taken a lot of risks doing what i'm being outspoken the way I am, but I've been able to build up a platform where I'm kind of immune from, you know, being kind of, I guess, quote, unquote, canceled. You know, because I have such a large following, I've cultivated a large fan base.

I get a lot of interview requests, a lot of media coverage, you know, in the blaze. Sometimes I get, you know, I actually have an article for the Daily Wire I'm writing coming out soon um and you know it prominent you know i got celebrities even that follow me larry the cable guy and dean kane and um so that's pretty cool rob schneider has even retweeted me a couple times and i got congressmen that follow me and other really esteemed scientists that love what i do in private i get emails all the time from people that know uh people at other academic institutions other universities a lot of a lot of people on a lot of tv meteorologists who on the down low love what i do and encourage me to keep up and while i might have closed i

certainly have certainly shut doors on some traditional meteorology jobs i want to do what i want to do i want to do things my way in my way only and i want to be able to be to be a leader and and and carve my own path i don't want to do it everybody i don't want to be a cookie cutter so you can criticize me and say that i don't have a legitimate i won't have a legitimate job in meteorology but i don't care i have a i probably have a better i'll probably what i'm doing will probably be a better paying job than most the field field and i'll have fun doing what i'm doing now with that but you know getting paid full time for it and the people that i work with that i've done my internship with which is the full-time job offer there's a great working

environment i love everybody we're fantastic we have fun it's not actually it's just an extension to what i do for my free time basically but you get paid to do it and so i'm not worried about blowback from people in the outside world they can hate me all they want but i'm not going to be liked by everybody don't seek to be liked by everybody i have 82 000 people on twitter who love what i do and 17 000 people on facebook who love what i do and to me it's the fans and what they you know their input that matters more to me than my critics just like in the music industry um the music critics the credential music critics are always trying to bring upcoming and even established artists down for the music that they put out they say well

that's you can't put out that music or that music's not you know a case like travis trip country music icon travis trip he was considered too outlaw country for the 90s but he did things his way and his way only, which is advice Waylon Jennings gave him. And he carved his own path and ended up having many, many hits and won a lot of awards and is still pretty relevant today, you know, it's by touring standards and social media browsers. And people told him, the critics told him that you can't do this outlaw country, you don't fit in, but he carved his own path.

People tell me that I'm never, I would never go to college, that I would never be accepted into a program, that I would never graduate, that I'd never find a job. and yet time and time again my critics are being critical so i'd like doing things my way and i don't care what my haters say to me it's my fans that i've cultivated their input matters most and i'm not going to stop doing what i'm doing just because somebody hates me online yeah that's the way to do it be a leader not a follower that's the uh it's the one line my mom beat into our heads growing up and that's the thing you'll find the followers or that's what the critics are typically as followers who are uh a bit personally pissed off that they didn't have the courage to

lead and they got to drag the leaders down exactly exactly that's a good that's a good advice that your mom gave you that's a that's really what's the best advice you can give someone i tell the freshman freshman meteorology majors that come into my program that they say what's the best advice i say should i get involved with this club or that club i said yeah you should that if you want to really stand out do your own thing oh and so what do you what is uh your own thing post graduation do you know yet or uh i have this organization uh it's a it's a i did an internship with them um c-fact a committee for constructive tomorrow uh mark morano is he was he's a really well-known guy uh he's kind of our key media person and uh i got a full-time job

offer with them and basically we're sort of like greenpeace but we actually take the environment seriously and we you know we actually advocate for preserving the natural world as it is and not littering it with solar and wind farms uh we're fans of nuclear power we want to see more nuclear power because that's that's a great clean energy source that's essentially you know quote quote-unquote carbon-free and so we advocate for those solutions and we advocate for free market solutions less government control over our lives and they like my data analysis and so they want me to come on board for a time I might decide to pursue grad school first but we'll cross that bridge when we get

there I don't know what I'm doing yet 100% but you know right out of college but we'll figure it out and several other organizations have asked me they want me for similar things several prominent organizations that want me you know to do very similar things so we'll see what happens but that's kind of my goals right now but nothing nothing set in stone just yet yeah I don't think have anything to worry about chris i think uh you're blazing your own path and i don't know yeah another thing is all these people that are hating me from inside my own industry you know most of them are people outside the industry they don't really they're not in meteorology

some of them are why would i want to work with people who hate me you know i'll go where i'm where i'm needed and where i can be effective and and have fun so i'm not i'm not the haters are going to hate and they can hate i'm still going to be here living rent free in their heads yeah well keep having fun because it's uh bring a lot of fun to my life too i love your uh love your takes on the uh the school you have to be you have to be i tell people that you have to go on the offense yep you cannot either people every time every time skeptics or lukewarmers or whoever people in team reality take defense they box themselves into a corner kind of like trump did last night at the debate he just boxed himself into a corner let him get under their skin if you

fight fire with fire you go back at them and mock them and laugh at them for just their dumb arguments then you make them madder than a midget in a yo-yo contest playing offense is how you win and that's the messaging that i want to give out to people that are on our side that are on team reality play offense yeah no that's um it was funny because my foray into the bitcoin mining industry was uh off-grid oil and gas mining we did flare mitigation on upstream oil and gas well pads and it was funny uh straying into that industry just because they had cheap energy to mine bitcoin with um and getting to know people in the oil and gas industry they were dejected after decades of getting beaten down by climate hysterics csg

mandates and what have you and that's something we've been fighting i mean bitcoiners i've been in bitcoin for 11 years now and we're trying to replace the reserve currency of the world with this crazy digital internet money so we've been getting made fun of and uh cast aside for for almost two decades now and i think that's one thing we were able to bring to the oil and gas industry great american mining specifically was like we've been through this and when it comes to bitcoin versus fiat or gold whatever you got to own the frame do not work within the frame that these hysterics put in front of you whether they're fiat hysterics or climate hysterics like own the frame energy is good uh we need to be as energy efficient as possible the world is not

going to end because the weather's changing or or it's getting hotter as you mentioned could be a good thing for us like we need to make sure that humans are flourishing that we're utilizing all the resources at our fingertips as best as we can and we need to get these kleptocratic central planners out of the way own the frame don't let people box you into a corner like you said just be confident and ridicule is effective uh it does get under people's skin like you said kamala trump had trump had the ability to come down with a hammer and come all kamala had to do is say yeah people were leaving your rallies and he got all distracted and pissed off she owned the frame in that and beat him in that particular point um and that's what we got to do whether it's

like Bitcoin, uh, what you're doing in the, in the realm of climate, uh, own the frame, be confident because, um, we have data, we have truth on our side at the end of the day. Absolutely agree. Any, uh, any final thoughts you want to wrap up with? It seems like, uh, are you in a restaurant? It seems like it's getting busy in there. I'm at a hotel. Hotel.

Yeah. um i just uh if you're listening and uh you want to follow me on my twitter page it's chris march wx and you can find me there that's where i usually post um also on facebook same username chris march it's chris march weather um you can also find my blog chrismarchweather.com and uh that's where i uh do a lot of my in-depth blog postings it's very time consuming so i don't a lot of time to do them anymore in college but when i get the time it's that they're really good articles i've done on hurricanes and tornadoes and fires and ice melt and stuff like that so i encourage you to go check out chrismarchweather.com and also visit my where i'm doing my internship

this summer i do an internship this summer visit to us on the web at cfact.org that is c-f-a-c-t awesome chris keep crushing it brother hopefully we can do this again at some point in the future maybe in person yeah we'd love to do it in person um i'll try and get down there to uh i'll get down there to texas we'll do this some other time but thanks for having me on it's really fun doing this and a really good interview so thanks for having me yeah anytime dude peace and love freaks