The Tucker Carlson Show - Dr. Willie Soon

Episode Date: January 9, 2024

If fossil fuels come from fossils, why have scientists found them on one of Saturn’s moons? A lot of what you’ve heard about energy is false. Dr. Willie Soon explains. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In the United States, we often refer to our main sources of energy as fossil fuels. Oil, natural gas, coal, they're fossil fuels because they come from fossils, ancient organic material, forests, jungles, plankton, dinosaurs. Held under the ground for millennia, they transform into oil, gas, and coal. Everybody thinks that's true. On the other hand, there's evidence that maybe it's not the whole story. If that's where fossil fuels come from, if that's how hydrocarbons are made, then how come they're found so deep under the oceans and at the top of the Earth? How come one of Saturn's moons, according to scientists, has more oil and natural gas than Earth? Were there dinosaurs and planktons and forests at one point on one of Saturn's moons?

Probably not. So if all hydrocarbons aren't from fossils, where are they from? And why isn't this commonly known? And what are the implications of it? And what does it tell us about our modern climate change policy? These are not just esoteric questions, they're central questions, actually, as we chart the future of energy usage in the world. Willie Soon has been thinking about this for a long time. He's an astrophysicist, a geoscientist. He spent 31 years at Harvard. He recently left, and he joins us here.

Dr. Soon, thank you so much. Thank you, Tucker. I appreciate it. It's a blessing to be able to come on your show. Well, it's a blessing to have you. And this is such an interesting question with so many implications. Yes. And I want to spend most of our time talking about the implications. But just to the strict question of where hydrocarbons come from,

it sounds like they're not necessarily all from ancient forests or plankton or dinosaurs, are they? Yes. The story can be a bit long, so give me a few minutes to explain. You are certainly right, but most important to clarify is that the information that is found on the largest moon on Saturn, which is called Titan, is actually results from NASA, European Space Agency, and the Italian Space Agency, who built this spacecraft called Cassini and Huygen. Actually, one of my thesis advisor committee

is actually built the UV spectrometer. But the one that they used to discover this, basically the ocean liquid, liquid form of methane, which is in ethane form, which is much more complicated than hydrocarbon. It's whole ocean of it. Because Titan is in such a way

that it's very cold, by the way. So it's minus 290 degree Fahrenheit. Yes. Hint, hint, hint. Where's the global warming there, right? If it's full of methane there, right? That's another problem because it's far away from the sun.

That's what it is. Yes. And clearly that the question of abiogenic method, which means no need of any biology, is true. Because we know, actually one experimental experiment was done in 2009. It was done in Swedish Royal Academy, one of those groups. But it's done by one Russian leader.

He was able to show that if you squeeze methane, CH4 in chemical formula, so four hydrogen, one carbon, squeeze them in a form in which they simulate the condition of the earth mantle, which is 1,800 miles deep, kind of below the surface, because the earth is deeper, right? And it's within this, but basically the condition that is only about 40 to 150 miles in, that you actually can form complex hydrocarbon. You've got benzene, you've got ethane,

you've got all these other stuff forming. So that proves beyond doubt that you have such a way to make this. Plus that Titan proved beyond doubt. You actually see methane also. In all the atmosphere, Jupiter, you know, you even find benzene in the rocks of Mars. And then for me, astrophysicist, I can tell you even more. You find this complex hydrocarbon called polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon.

It's another one of those, complex hydrocarbon. Then actually you found it in interstellar space, which is space within stars, intergalactic space. These are everywhere. Because temperature, they are cold, and probably the right pressure condition,

all this complex hydrocarbons. Well, it's kind of incredible because all of us, including myself until very recently, assumed that all of our main energy sources are these so-called fossil fuels,

and of course their existence is going to be limited fuels. And of course, their existence is going to be limited by the amount of fossils, by the amount of decaying organic material. Not so. So if that's not so, then we need to rethink a lot of things. A lot. I think this one fit into a paradigm of a famous economist that I like very much. His name is Simon. Do you know about this guy named Simon? Julian Simon. Julian Simon, yeah. The key guy.

University of Illinois and then Maryland. He was the guy who said that the ultimate resource of humanity or earth is actually not all this material thing like uranium gold. Because uranium, there are far more uranium in the oceans than on the land, right? You have 4.5 billion tons of uranium in the ocean. You have only 17 million tons of it.

Gold, copper, what do you want on the ocean? It's all there except they're in very dilute form, clearly. So the ultimate resource actually is not that, it's the human mind. It's the innovation part of it. I think I like that principle a lot. It fits very well in terms of saying that it's all matter of cost, even oil. Most, I don't know if any of you know, the audience know that 50 to 60 percent of the, actually all the oil that you already drilled, the drill hole, you can only pull out 40 to 50% of it.

60% of that remains in it simply because there's not enough pressure to get it out. This is why the idea of abiogenic oil is interesting, it's true, clearly true. It's all a matter of cost, really. Because this thing has to form

way inside the earth, the mantle, which is 50 to 100 miles, right? Human, how deep have we ever drilled? Only the earth, the mantle, which is 50 to 100 miles, right? Human, how deep have we ever drilled? Only the skin, which is only 5 miles maximum, 5 to 6 miles basically.

That's at most that we can drill. And then all this stuff had to permeate into the reservoir. I got this information from the top. People that physically have to look for oil every day. One of my friends,

Joseph Leimkuhler from Beacon Energy, Offshore Energy. Those are the guys who work day in and day out to bring us the energy, actually, the oil that we need. So why don't most people know this? Why do most people think that the gasoline in their car was by definition... Have to be limited, yeah. Yeah, that there's just a tiny amount and it's going away, we'll never find more.

The world is full of untruth and half-truth, right? That's the whole problem, right? That's why for so long, even the idea that we are not limited and bounded by availability of, let's say, gasoline, petroleum or coal. Coal now, they won't allow us to use, right? As you know, in COP meeting in Dubai

that just ended a day ago, they just physically declared themselves that we should stop using fossil fuel, basically petroleum, natural gas, and even coal. I mean, these people are insane now, really insane. I think they're going to harm more people with their own delusion. Plus, they always remember these are people who actually don't represent the majority. Since when are these put up to work? It's always about this minority, the tyranny of the few, always robbing the whole census, the good census of the good people. This is part of the reason why as a scientist, I also speak out, feel, I mean, not afraid of anything except for just telling the truth. And I'm glad to have this opportunity to say such thing in your show.

So, I mean, if we haven't been told the truth about where hydrocarbons come from, and we haven't, I mean, I've never met a single person in my life who said, wait a second, they're not all fossil fuels. Then we keep hearing there's a scientific consensus on climate change. Every scientist believes the same thing about it,

believes Al Gore and John Kerry. Maybe that's not true either? Oh, that I can tell you, please. Thank you for asking that question, Tucker. I've been working on this subject of CO2 causing climate change or what other factors we can ask that cause climate to change. For close to, as long as since my postdoctoral year 1991, right? So it's about 30 to 31 years, 32 years. And on this question, I think we have a very

definitive answer. What we know now is CO2 ain't going to cost nothing. It's not going to change much of the climatic system, which means it won't change the speed of the hurricane, it won't change how fast or how frequent tornadoes form, it won't even actually make any difference to the polar bear population. It's all conservation issue, right, on polar bear. It won't even cause how much fish you don't catch or catch, you know. It won't even cause what they call ocean acidification. It won't even cause this problem that they claim. It's all artificial. Everything they do, it's all dream from their model and the tyranny of the few again. That those few people just dream up this scary story

that it just ain't true. And then when you come down to the most responsible group for this kind of bad stuff, I was reminded by my colleague, Dr. Ronan Connolly and Michael Connolly, my two co-workers with me on my group, is to say that since I work so carefully and I have about more than 100 scientists last three years alone working with me, so I don't speak on behalf of them, I speak on behalf of myself.

My view is that the UNIPCC, United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is one of the primary problems, which means they have been misleading people. They've been using authority of science, which is not true, right? It's all governmental hackers, basically, right? People like John Kerry, who I guess can barely take a proper physics class,

who keep claiming that greenhouse effect is so simple, right? And then he refused to explain how does it work right i mean he did all of that that is very terrible that really embarrassing to america he did that in bali and indonesia several years back that is just so embarrassed do you think he can explain how it works no i don't think so even el gore who claimed to be know something about science, I challenged Al Gore. I did some of that in his face, actually.

I was lucky enough to be in one of those Wall Street Journal, ECO conference, and I was giving, you know, setting up with all the UC Santa Barbara students. Please make sure when the question comes up, give me the mic. I was making friends with them the night before. I explain now my details of my work. So I got the mic and asked questions about Algor. Because one of the primary sad things

that they refuse to recognize, that I know you know that in even great school sciences, CO2 is a gas of life. When you have more CO2, the plant kingdom, the whole ecology, even the oceans gonna have more,

basically, ability, more fishes, more everything. More life. More life, essentially. That's why it's called gas of life. And these people want to demonize it

as some gas that can cause global warming, can cause hurricane to run faster or weaker. I don't know what they want. To have more rain, more droughts, and all these other nonsense that they claim. All of that, it just ain't so. That's the problem. By the way, this is how serious I am. I check everything they say.

I check. As a scientist, you cannot just dismiss them. You cannot laugh at them. You cannot, you know, chide them. You cannot just make joke of them. You check everything. So as a very serious scientist, and I published scientific paper refuting all of these arguments. Scientific papers maybe mean nothing to the average people, but it's really important.

It's like a document, that you have the document, and then put out the proper scientific arguments about what is right, what is wrong. So that's what we have been doing at my particular center called series-sign.com. So anybody who wants more information about this, please go to the website, right? And study what we do there because we are the one that is truly independent from any funding agency, any money that you could possibly give me, like Bill Gates, please don't give me money, thank you. And Al Gore, please don't give me money. Don't give me any money if you tell me what to do. You know, even some of your money, I might not want it. But the point is that I want to be independent, just like you. In the media, I want to be fearless. I just set my own agenda. You don't tell me what to research either. I research what I want to research. So we've been researching on many, many topics. So on the climate change issue, I'm fully convinced.

After all these years, even though we may not know exactly what is causing climate change, we suspect it's the sun. We have a lot of evidence to show that it's probably the sun. Very high percentage, you know, I would say 90% were sure, but not 100%.

But we know carbon dioxide is not the gas, it's not what you call your thermometer in your room, can adjust up and down that you can set the temperature to be whatever level you want it. First of all, they can never tell us what temperature do they want it at. What is the temperature you want to set the global temperature? Al Gore has not been able to answer that. John Kerry has not been able to answer that. Because Kerry has not been able to answer that. Because we know the temperature from the coldest in Siberia to the desert in Sahara.

I mean, these are huge, at least 100 degrees or more kind of differences. Yes. I mean, who are you to tell me which temperature is the correct temperature? Well, you guys are talking like that. They are talking as if they are pseudo-God, they are God themselves. I mean, you guys are talking like that. They are talking as if they are pseudo-God, they are God themselves.

I mean, these people are so ambitious that in some sense, I think we have to keep their ambition down a little bit. I mean, these people are not contented just like what you put out there. You cannot be ambitious when you are contented. But these people are so out of their mind in some sense

that I think it's misleading. And somebody had to speak out against them. I think you are one of those who consistently point out their hypocrisy, right? And I really find that the whole problem of this global warming is a complete nothing, which means we should do nothing about it. Just go on and live life and adapt to it, right?

It's one of the saddest things about this country. The country is getting sicker despite all of our wealth and technology. Americans aren't doing well overall. Obesity, heart disease, autoimmune conditions, all kinds of horrible chronic illnesses, weird cancers are all on the rise. Probably a lot of reasons for this, but one of them definitely is Americans don't eat very well anymore. They don't eat real food. Instead, they eat industrial substitutes, and it's not good.

It's time for something new, and that's where masa chips come in. Masas decide to revive real food by creating snacks how they used to be made, how they're supposed to be made. A masa chip has just three simple ingredients, not 117. Three. No seed oils, no artificial additives, just real delicious food. And I know this because we eat a ton of them in my house. And by the way, I feel great. So you can still continue to snack, but you can do it in a healthy way with chips without feeling guilty about it. Masa chips are delicious.

They taste how a tortilla chip is supposed to taste. But the thing is, you can hit them really, really hard, and I have, and not feel bloated or sluggish after. You feel like you've done something decent for your body. You don't feel like you've got a head injury or you don't feel filled with guilt you feel light and energetic it's the kind of snack your grandparents ate worth bringing back so you can go to masa chips.com masa's masa by the way masa chips.com slash tucker to start snacking get 25 off we enjoy them you will too so what i here's of course i agree completely but here's what I don't understand. Global temperatures have dramatically fluctuated within the period that humans left records. I mean, not that long ago. I mean, there are cities underwater because sea levels have risen within recorded history.

The signs of the glaciers are all around us. So that was all before the internal combustion engine. How do they explain that? This is the problem. They admitted, a lot of them admitted, they willingly admitted. You can read all. You can't deny it. I mean, we had glaciers and then they melted because of global warming. They are forced to confess. I mean, these are the confession time. It's the sun, actually, that does a lot of this. The glacier, like there's a period called Little Ice Age, from about 1300 to 1900, you know, very cold. And then there's a medieval warm period from 880 to about 1200. You know, it was warm.

I mean, you can grow wine in England, right? And now you cannot grow wine, right? Things like that. I mean, Greenland was green back then. But now it's full of glaciers. Ice is coming in. So what are you talking about exactly? And it was the sun, actually.

The sun fit quite well. As far as we know, in terms of deduct, deducing the information of how does the sun, how bright was it, how dim was it, basically just like that.

Just the amount of light coming out from the sun. Very tiny percentage, by the way. Very small. It's on the order of less than a percent. But it's more than enough because there's another effect that is very, very important. It's basically because the sun, the Earth is forced to go around the sun. And then the orbit changed ever so slightly because of perturbation from all the other planets.

Yes. You know, Jupiter, Saturn, and even Venus and Mars, they're actually controlling what we do. And the moon, of course, is very important. But that other factors, the orbits, plus the changes of the sun by itself, between how bright, how dim it is, these two factors can explain just about everything that we know.

All the data that I have, actually. So I've been studying. This is why I was so fascinated in studying this issue. I spent my whole life actually studying this. Nothing but doing just this. And the more I understand, the more I think that, wow, it's just a gap to be filled in. We have too much information. And then these people come along, say that CO2 is causing everything. I check. I check. Oh, maybe they're right. I check. As a scientist, I have to check them. But then it's not even close. I mean, these people are talking about things that is, I mean, there's a famous phrase by a very famous Wisconsin meteorologist. His name is Professor Reed Bryson. He's one of the fathers of climatology,

really. He just said that you go out and then you could might as well, if you think CO2 is so, you might as well spit into the air and see what happened to the airflow. He was just basically saying that CO2 is nothing. Cannot cause the climate to change or anything. It doesn't change anything, actually.

It's the sun. Why you think the most important things that you should talk about, they never talk about that. They always want to average the data. The most important thing they should talk about, you know what, it's the season. No two winters are the same, no two summers are the same. And they never explain that. It's actually the orbits, with the sun changing it ever so slightly. I am not talking. I have published papers, papers and papers and papers like that, on all this to show and document why and how. That's

what the fun part of doing science is not only chatting, hand-waving like crazy. You have to be. Even though I may look like one now, but I am always very calm when you write down. You know, like every time I have to write a paper, I always tell my wife, please don't disturb me for a few days.

I'll be back. Things like that. Of course, working at home, but I'll be back. So is there any way to predict what climate change will be based on the sun? Actually, you can

because of the orbit. The only thing we don't know is how to predict the sun changes by itself because the magnetism, you know, just the magnetic field on the sun

is too complicated. The sun is the magnetized ball, right? It's a gas, hot gas. It's about, you know, the magnetic field is so strong. It's 10,000 times stronger than the Earth. The Earth is also a magnet's a gas, hot gas. It's about, you know, the magnetic field is so strong, it's 10,000 times stronger than the Earth. The Earth is also a magnet, a bar magnet basically. It's one gauss, we have 10,000 gauss at least on the sun. So it's a very different property

and it works very differently because it's heated by basically a thermonuclear reaction inside the sun. So it created all kinds of hot gas behavior that is very difficult to try to master or even to model using mathematical equations. Actually, it's much easier to study the earth than to do the sun. So that's part of the problem in scientific tasks, the physics tasks. They're very difficult.

But then we learn a lot. We learn a lot through just watching the sun. I mean, Galileo Galilei, right? He pointed his telescope. He was smart enough. First he pointed to Jupiter, the moon. Jupiter, then he saw the moon. He saw four moons around it.

And then he's smart that he go the next day to watch it again. He watched and then he started to move. By the way, the famous story of Galileo Galilei, we'll talk about it someday. When he wrote that down, initially it was in Italian. When he realized he discovered something so unique, he changed the language to Latin. The next day, yeah, you know, I got it, man, the good one. You know, so he started writing in Latin, precise language, okay? But anyway, for the son, it's really so complicated that actually

I've been studying this actually as long as you know me. I mean, I studied this for so long. We know a lot. I even wrote a popular book actually to try to explain why that during a period of the sunspot, so Galileo Galilei start in 1609, 1610 or so. So we have about now 413 years of data.

But there's a period that deep inside the little ice age, 1645 to 1715, it's called the Monde Minimum. Because during that period, the sunspots almost all disappeared, especially in the Northern Hemisphere. It disappeared completely. Nobody knew why. And that's why the French astronomer, famous people like Cassini,

the one that the Cassini spacecraft, he was observing at that time. He said, man, this Galileo guy must be either drinking too much or lying or things like that. He said there's a lot of sunspots, but when we observe at this time,

we didn't see nothing. What's wrong? But it's an actual phenomenon. Right? My friend, my good friend, which is the number one world sunspot historian,

he just wrote email to me, Douglas Hoy. He actually was the master of this, collecting all the sunspot data, going back to all the major libraries, you know, from Galileo first point all the way to present point. Basically found that this phenomenon is true because during that period, the sunspot was not there, not because nobody was watching, it was at least observed 80% of the time during the 70 years. You see, it's so unique that period. But now we're beginning to try to learn what happened there. So during that period, we really think that the sun was so much dimmer, was substantially dimmer. This is why you have this little ice age phenomenon. All the Thames River were froze. You know, we have the Thames River in England

Well known and then all the ice skating thing, you know the in Holland all the yes all the different culture And then these are all real actual phenomenon and at this day They're trying to say that maybe little ice age is not little ice age. They even try to change that in scientific field actually So this was very very puzzling for me. Why would they try and change that? Oh, I don't know because they want to say the co2 is controlling everything So this was very, very puzzling for me. Why would they try and change that? Oh, I don't know, because they want to say that CO2 is controlling everything. They kind of want to have CO2 as the prime driver of everything. This is part of the problem that I find.

Well, that's not science. That's lying. Ah, it's bad. It's bad in science. This is why in science now I'd rather say this thing outright. I'd rather have questions that cannot be answered than answers that cannot be questioned. Because these people are just offering you the answer and then you should just shut up like you say. Don't ask any questions. Don't criticize.

Don't even bother to think. Just accept what we say. I mean, you may have known that actually if you want to get there, I can talk about this because this is rather famous because the other person is still around. He's the one who's shouting up and down these last two days to say that, oh, we must stop

fossil fuel. GOP is so evil. We must stop all of them because we are the... GOP are the evil political bodies in America that causes all this fossil fuel to be... We are using fossil fuel and all that. His name is Professor Michael Mann. He's at University of Pennsylvania. He created a paper.

We call it the hockey shtick. Yes, the hockey shtick. He basically said that the temperature history, first of all, the true temperature history looked like this. It was very warm from 800 AD, let's say warm, warm, and then it cools down.

About 1300 started to go down, cool. And then since about 1900 century, it started to warm back up. Way, way before CO2 is important, okay? That's another puzzle that they never want to explain. That look like this. That's the real story. Michael Mann came along,

say that, well, he used mathematical algorithm, okay? You can use fancy words, but believe me, it's just mathematical algorithm, that he produced a stick for 880 to about 1980, it's all flat, because it changed, it changed very tiny amount, so small that actually it doesn't mean anything, 0.1 or 0.2 degrees Celsius, so small, it doesn't mean, the one that I talk about that changes one degree at least, you know, to five, six times bigger than what he said. And he just said it like this, and then it warmed up because of the blade,

which is the warming because of rising carbon dioxide. But he forgot to explain to you, this warming of the temperature started way before even the human part of the atmospheric carbon dioxide could be anything meaningful. This is part of the problem. It's all been crazy from day one. When this thing was published in 1999, I was the first field guy who raised a hand at the back of the class and said, excuse me, Professor Man, he used to be my friend, by the way. Now he will never answer me. He used to exchange email with me because,

you know, we more or less share the same passion, want to understand things. Now he just says that his story is the only one that is correct. But it's not bared out by any data that we know. That's the problem. It's all mathematical products. This is how scary the whole world can be. And United Nations, the IPCC group that I mentioned, promoted his work,

turning it into a major hero because he has solved one of these old puzzle problem that climatologists over millennia has been trying to solve since the day of the Greeks to try to understand how climate change. And this guy come along, say that it look like this, only CO2 does it. And that's the problem. So, I mean, it just ain't so. What you're I mean, some of this is very complex, but in the way you're describing it, if he's saying the warming period began before there was a meaningful addition of CO2 into the atmosphere caused by humans, even I can understand that.

Yes, that's the truth. So the people trying to wreck our civilization want you to be passive. They want you weak so they can control you. Weakness is their goal. No thanks. Our friends at Beam, a proud American company, understand that our country can only be great if its people are strong. And that's why they've created a new creatine product to help listeners like you stay mentally sharp and physically fit. People like to mock creatine. CNN doesn't like creatine at all. People buy it because it works. Beams creatine can help you improve your strength, your brain health, your longevity. It's completely free of sugar and synthetic garbage that's in

almost everything else that you eat. Of course, you don't hear about it too much because again, a population that is strong, clear-minded, and physically capable is a threat to tyrants. That's why they want you playing video games. To celebrate American strength, actual American strength, Beam is offering up to 30% off their best-selling creatine for the next 48 hours. Go to shopbeam.com slash tucker. Use the code tucker at checkout. That's shopbeam.com slash tucker. Use the code tucker for up to 30% off. It's built on core values, integrity, results, no BS, beam. We strongly recommend it. So I would assume that lots of scientists who do this for a living might be asking the same question. Why don't they speak up? This is the problem.

The whole problem in science these days is related to funding, how science is funded. That philosophy, I wish to not get too much into it. This is part of the reason why I want to be totally independent. I get out of this whole system, right? But it's how science is about funding. Even if you don't get money directly, it will influence the graduate students and on and on and so forth.

All these other related effects, you know? And many people are afraid to speak up. But I tell you, if you really put all the scientists to an honest kind of polling, but science is not about polling too. All it takes is one to be correct. Yes. That's the problem, right?

Einstein used, when he formulated the famous general relativity or special relativity actually, that was criticized. That basically talk about speed of light is constant. So time and space are relative. Yes. Right?

Time can be dilated. Space is also slightly different because the speed of light is constant. Special relativity is based on that concept. Then 100 of these Berlin academicians tried to wrote a pamphlet, say that Einstein is wrong, but never offer

why. What is the details that is wrong? And then Einstein indeed answered like this. Why would you need 100? You know, if I were to be wrong, one would suffice. I mean, that's the theme of the science. Science is so bad because

it's so totally upside down, inside out. COVID is another case, you know. So let's stick to climate stuff. People are afraid to speak up. I don't know why, actually. I was young. I had to worry about my three kids,

where they eat and all that stuff. You know, buffet all the time. Just kidding. The greatest American invention. This is truly entrepreneur, by the way. Anyway, we have enough food, no problem. That's why food, I don't think it's also a problem in this world. Even material resources, right? All you think is have to think like Julian Simon type, you know, we can generate everything. The only problem we have is lack of imagination, narrow-mindedness, and all this anti-America sentiment, put it this way. America is among the best hope for humanity, you know, to put forward. We have the foundation document,

the constitution, for God's sake. That is the most beautiful thing that we could ever imagine, and why don't we use it properly, people just trashing on it every day right anyway i digress anyway so yes i i think science is a problem now because of funding structure people won't speak out i don't know why i think it's natural for people to be afraid but you can also be afraid for so long for me i was frustrated because I was not afraid ever since I was in science. Because I'm in science because I love science. This is why, from my own perspective, I'm just very sad to see that science is being trampled by all these other non-science forces, you know. That's why when I look at COVID also, I cannot stand by and say nothing. On COVID-19, there's so many things wrong with it. That's why I want to pre-advertise. With my group, series.sign.com,

we work with a bunch of people. One of the good guests for you, potential, will be Professor Harvey Rich. He said he's been interviewed by you twice. Even guys like Bob Malone, we work together, produce a paper. So when the paper comes out, hopefully we can have them on your show

so that you can tell more stories. We want to provide the medical community or even the world to document this episode of dark ages in medical sciences. Something went terribly wrong. The mask never really worked. The vaccine never really worked. All of this doesn't work.

The lockdown doesn't work. And why are we doing this? Now they are trying to scare with another new scare. All over the world now. Newspaper. This morning, I just got one newspaper from my sister who has to start, oh, they start masking up

in Malaysia now because cases start to increase. The usual story. I laugh in a serious way because I see this as another one of those attempts again

to try to scare people. So, I do digress now. Science is just so complicated now that every aspect of the science that I look at has become very unhappy. Science is no longer able to do where science leads. This is the theme of my series, that's science.com. With few only colleagues, I don't have enough funding. I just

hope to get as many donations, by the way. Donate, but don't tell us anything. Do anything. Trust us because we are decent scientists. You can look at our publication record that we are able to produce the most interesting and pure work. Like IPCC, they have to reply to us. Two years ago, we published a very important paper. One of my journalist friend, a colleague, wrote a paper, newspaper article, and then he go and ask IPCC, why are you guys not signing this paper?

They use the excuse to say that, oh, these people publish late. We have a deadline here, red line. Oh, if you don't publish before some date, like 2021, like January or 2021, then we won't include your work. So we publish in August, so they won't

include my work. But they forgot to say that they claim themselves, they proclaim, UN, IPCC proclaim themselves to be the best of the scientific world, produce the most updated and all that. But immediately, their report came out, they already outdated because they haven't included my work, which is the most comprehensive review of how the sun affects the climate. That's the work we did. So this year, just two months ago, we published two more papers convincingly showing that even the thermometer data that they show you is not what it is.

It's actually not measuring climate. It's measuring urban heat island changes. Something that I think everybody can understand. If you go to the inner part of the big city, like TC is one of the best examples. I have graph to show that. You go there, inner city is much warmer than outside because of concrete retaining all the heat or you change all the surfaces or the surface become impervious between there's no breathing, no water going in and out, things like that. And what we show is that it's not a phenomenon just on local science. You average over this, you can see the effect all over the northern hemisphere. This is very powerful new work that we spend.

So concrete and asphalt raise the temperatures more than CO2. And that's what they're measuring. And then they tell you this is global temperature. And then we provide an alternative. We say, why don't we go look at rural station that is available? And guess what our result found? Completely different story from the picture, the narrative that's coming out from this data set, thermometer data that show, that combine urban and rural.

Okay? We show rural only. We can tell you that you can immediately offer a different answer. For example, it's the sun that does it. We show that. But we don't know that is the answer. For example, it's the sun that does it. We show that. But we don't know that is the answer. We just simply show you that the IPCC and all these so-called scientists from NASA, NOAA and all of them are not doing their due diligence. They are putting you very bad

quality data product. Not only that, they hide it. Some of them is so difficult to get the data. But it should never be difficult to get the data. Okay? But it should never be difficult to get data. I'm sorry, Tucker. This is how the problem in science now is so many serious. But I thought transparency of data was science. I was hoping.

I always believe in that. That's why everything that we publish is there. Because we got it from somewhere. Here's the data. Use it. Check us. If we're wrong, tell us we're wrong. That is one thing that I can always promise you.

I'm not here to try to gain favor or anything. If I'm wrong and I don't know, I tell you I don't know, Tucker. A lot of these things, I'm really under a lot of careful consideration. Really a lot of deep meditation, thinking about this topic. What I think is very problematic, I'm so glad to have this opportunity

to go this far to be able to talk for this long now, is that really the IPCC product is actually substandard. Of course, they have a different mandate. Their mandate is political, right, to provide policy. We understand that. But how many people really understand that pure science doesn't support anything they say? I mean, in the beginning of this COP28 meeting, the chairman, this guy from UAE, United Arab Emirates, the chairman, I don't know his name, Sultan Al-Jabir or something,

he was saying that there's no scientific reasoning to say that we should face up for security. He's right. But then he back off because of all this. Everybody's hurt mentality. Everybody's doing the mad thing. Science is not about that. They all agree now.

They all agree to face out, right? For some kind of agreement. You know, that everybody declare that they're going to do that. That they're going to face out. I don't even know how, actually. Why? Why are you doing this? And then one of the claims is that

they're going to triple the amount of solar and wind power. That is a sad story. You know, of the amount that we spend that we can document, some $3.6 trillion, they spent almost $2 trillion on solar and wind power over the last, I don't know, 5, 10 years or so. And then what they did is that they spent more of the money, $2 trillion on solar and wind. And solar and wind can only account for only 3% of the world power, 85% from fossil fuel, as you can see, hydropower and nuclear. Nuclear is another puzzle.

I checked with all my nuclear expert friends that have been working for years on nuclear power. Nuclear power is one of the saddest stories. I believe that we actually have almost a solution in hand. Not the fusion, of course. It's the fast reactor or the good generation of nuclear power. Peaceful use of that won't even generate nuclear weapon. We can do all of that technology. The only thing barrier is red tapes, environmentally scared of radiation. All these are the problems. We almost have all of that in hand. The power can last. One estimate shows that if we were to use it at the demand of that by 2050, we can have enough power for

2,700 years. That's far more than any other force of view can promise. And we're still not doing it. We're not doing it. America is so far behind now. We just made one in Georgia, one of the nuclear plants, that is so over-cost because of all the red tape. That is so embarrassing. There are numbers. I mean, it's costing a thousand or two thousand times

even more than what Korea, and even Korea now is is a major Guy who make this nuclear power plant for for different any country who wants to do it, right? I mean Korea India and they are making a much cheaper cost and The design French design are the best right French They are doing that and we're not doing it China, of course left and right doing that but we're not doing it. China, of course, left and right doing that. But we're not doing anything. Oh, we tried to tell you that we're going to shut off fossil fuel, increase solar and wind. Are you joking? Even three times more will be 9%. I don't know. Can you turn on your light? Only 9% of them. You should shut all this light off now. You're overusing it. And it destroys the actual environment.

Exactly. Wind farms, solar farms. This is a kind of a very bad incentive that they don't realize. It's about this kind of people that is so out of their mind, in my view, that they really should be cautious. Somebody should just ping on their head. Guys, don't keep saying those things. You better think twice or consult somebody that knows something that is honest, you know? You spent 31 years at Harvard. Would you be able to say this out loud at Harvard? Actually, back then, I also didn't care. But most of the time, I get called into the director's office, this and that. They're always trying to tell, oh, why are you saying that? Why are you

saying this? I say, well, I'm a scientist. I should say whatever I want to say. Not only that the problem in when i was at harvard part of the reason i quit as i tried to explain is about jab requirement but another one is a bit of censorship i can only do certain things i cannot do certain things like i would never be able to write paper on govind 19 i would never be able to work work uh on's say, environmental air pollution issues, you know, like so-called NOx or SOx and all these other things, or mercury and things like that. I study a lot on those issues because I personally are concerned, so I dig into the literature one thing after another,

basically because I sleep very little, so I really do a lot of things. I flip every rock, pebbles, anything you want. So I study a lot. I produce a result that is good enough that can be making a lot of things. I flip every rock, pebbles, anything you want. So I study a lot and produce a result that is good enough that can be making a lot of scientific, but I never publish them because they simply won't allow. They wouldn't allow you? Yes. It's about a matter

of allowing because they say it doesn't fit the theme of the Center for Astrophysics. So I don't want to talk bad about the institution, but it is the finest astrophysics institution in the world in terms of instrument building, in terms of technology, we can produce the best. You know, you often look at the X-ray picture of the sun.

Those are from very fine camera that we built that with multi-coding layers because the X-ray, they come in very slowly and then they're going to diffuse, come out, but we make very fine way to catch them so they can come out, so the image are crystal clear. You can see all the structure on the sun. It's made by my center.

They are good scientists, except that when it comes down to a larger picture of science, shh, shh, don't say this, don't say that, this and that, and then all of that. This is why even at Harvard, I quit taking money from NASA and NSF, all these other places in 2004 because I'm beginning to think that science being so unaccountable, funded by taxpayers, that all these people, it's so unconscionable. So I personally chose that. That is nobody to blame but myself. But I chose to take only from foundation who are willing to give me

money, right? So I wrote those kind of proposal and then got to go through the director's office, this and that. I have a very, very happy and fruitful career. Everybody can look up my publication list, it's very long. And not only that, it's not the number that counts, it's the quality of the paper. I always want to remind people, I don't like talking about how many thousands of paper you write, this and that. It's not important. Which paper

that is really important for certain issues? That's important that if you are able to show that, that's good. That's what I mean. All my papers are basically under a lot of this serious, serious thinking and serious evaluation, checking and rechecking before I would care to write about anything. Because you don't want to write anything

that's wrong tomorrow. You want something that can write but science is basically garbage can now these scientific papers i categorically would even make this statement i would make the statement that about 80 to 90 percent of the paper published in so-called climate science today should not be published but everybody have nsf grant everybody have all this grant you see how the inflation goes you know just like the other day you hear that yale university you know a large part of it large most of the student on on 2022 or something all got grade a grade you know grade

a they diluted the grade but harvey rich assured me that in medical sciences and heart sciences harvey rich is the professor at Yale University. He teach in the medical school. So he say, no, not true. So he tried to assure me he has quality, maybe not in his class, but Harvey, not in any other class. Right. Anyway, so I want to ask you, this is a kind of last topic, which is not related to this, but we talked about it off the air. And I think it's really interesting. You were telling me that you see God or evidence of God in math. Well, can you explain what you were saying? And maybe I misread what you were saying. No, no, no, no, you did not. I mean, I have been closer and closer to God in the sense that because it takes me a long time, I'm rather rebellious.

You know, I have to say, damn it, God, you got to prove it to me. because it takes me a long time, I'm rather rebellious. You know, I have to say, damn it, God, you got to prove it to me. Show it to me, buddy. Just kidding. I'm sorry to anybody. No, no. No offense. But I really say it in that way. You know, you talk to yourself in a sense.

But in many, many moments in history of physics or mathematics, things come out. You see, mathematics, you know, is this very pure world that it seems to have no connection to real world physics. Yes, that's right. It's true. It's complex number is one of them, but it appears in quantum mechanics, right? It's so beautiful. But one of the things that sometimes you see in equation is so amazing. When you formulate, maybe it's not right. Maybe it's this and that. You know, you doubt yourself. But one of the most beautiful equation was the one that

derived by Paul Dirul direct it's a professor at cambridge university but he retired in florida by the way he died in florida talahasi i mean it's a refuge for him because he doesn't like to talk he will sit there for five days don't talk one day all of a sudden he talked but anyway he formulated he's a beautiful man he you know paul direct he formulated this relativistic equation for electrons. But in one of the equations, the solution comes out to be a negative sign. Not only that, there's a square root

involved, so there's strange behavior. There's a negative sign involved. But it has the exact property. Like an electron and all that stuff. How come? Everybody says you're crazy, you're stupid, this and that, right? He's not even way, he didn't, no sweat, buddy. He just say, I am right. Many years later,

few years later, it is shown in Caltech by Carl Anderson to show there's actually such a thing called positron. You know, the opposite, the brothers of electron electrons that's such a thing and then if you ask yourself how is it possible right there's something this is out of out of nowhere where does this thing come from and then in mathematical sciences there's a lot of things like this like geometry there's a even more famous thing about in geometry it's called calabi-yao manifold that related to string theory this This thing was basically a revisit of Einstein's general relativity equation, asking itself whether is it possible

to have close curvature in space-time that you actually don't require even gravity to be there. And they show that Calabi was trying to prove this Yao, Xing Dong Yao, is one of the great mathematicians, right? He's at Harvard, but he retired. Now he go to China, right?

He was the one who tried to disprove this thing, but he turns out to be true. That is true that you can have close curvature in space-time that without gravity even. So that added even more reach in this world. That from mathematics to real world, we already have enough hard time understanding Einstein. This guy added even more rich in this world. That from mathematics to real world, we already have enough hard time understanding Einstein. This guy added even more.

And his discovery was in the 70s and things like that. So there are so many examples and incidents like this. Just have to tell you that you have to bow down. You have to occasionally take a deep breath. There may be some ever-present of these forces, these forces that allow us to illuminate our life. And I tell you,

God has given us all this light that tells us that we have to follow the light and do the best we can. Rather than everyday devouring planet Earth, saying that we are the Satan,

we are the evil people. You know, these people are constantly trying to, you know, make all of us a lesser human being. I would never allow them anyway. So, good luck.

You know, for those people like Al Gore and all that who think that they're high and mighty, right? And trying to always, always lecture us on, gotta cut down on fossil fuel because we're gonna hurt the planet Earth. I say, Al Gore,

do you ever think twice? Who are you to think that you can actually try to save the planet Earth even? Because they always use the word, I'm trying to save the planet Earth. I don't know who gives them the right to save the planet Earth. Same with this experiment

that they're trying to do, by the way. The experiment to say that we must cut down CO2 emission. I told you CO2 is good for, you know, for life. Because I asked Algor, indeed, when I asked Algor the question in UC Santa Barbara,

is what? Is that CO2 is gas of life? Who give you the audacity to cut down this? Then aren't you, are you going to be responsible for the ecological and humanitarian, all this crisis? Even, we know, rising CO2 affect even plants, especially food production, right? Maybe not exact number we know,

but it does positively, right? We have technology to help it, better seed, better all this fertilization, all this other thing. But who give them the idea to do that, to cut down because it's generally going to be good for life because you have to push them around because nobody should give them the idea to do that, to cut down? Because it's generally going to be good for life. Because you have to push them around.

Because nobody should give them the authority. So far, I don't think anyone can answer that question for me. So I tell them to please bow down to God. Really answer to that question first before you do anything else. Because it's ridiculous for them to keep, to claim that they have the upper moral and ethical high ground to try to prescribe everybody to live in certain condition that they have the upper moral and ethical high ground to try to prescribe everybody to live in certain conditions that they choose.

But they themselves don't follow the rules. They tell us to take a bus. Elgar always tells, he even tells people to take a bus, Elgar. My God, I say, Elgar, you take a bus from Tennessee to Massachusetts, I'll be waiting for you down there. Please. I mean, this guy is just out of the, out of the, for you down there. Please. I mean, this guy is just out of the

out of this world, man. I'm sorry, Algon, but you can still call me. Can you Willie Soon, thank you. But before you go, last thing, for viewers who want to know more about what you do, can you say once again where they can read it?

Please, I hope that I don't disappoint anyone, but please come to series-sign.com and I want to make one plug for my good friend Hal Shurtleff. As I get older and older, including my own kids, my own kids, three kids, have been going to the CAM constitution at New Hampshire and we also wanted to invite Tucker Carlson to come because Vivek Ravaswamy came last summer. And because we are a very, very small group, we are a tiny little group called Camp Constitution.

So campconstitution.net. We offer basically family, kind of a Christian kind of a background, but we don't talk about Christ all the time, but we talk about Bibles, we talk about Constitution, we talk about science. So I'm

the science instructor. I've been doing that for almost six, seven years now. So I've been doing every year, I will give one or two classes, depends on how many, whatever they want me to do, I'll do. And my own kids came to those things. And then, you know, we play music, we have campfire. It's a family event. Used to be that's focused on kids, but this day. I'm sorry too many adults started to come So we have even people like my good friend a lot Christopher Monkton from England. He spoke twice So small little group But if anybody who thinks that you know you have the time and even come and learn what we do here and emulate in your Own city and towns and all that you know people from Wisconsin, please come. People from California, please come.

You know, we have it in New Hampshire every year. Every summer, we have this camp, and it's a very good thing. So campconstitution.net, okay? And I talked to your friend, Vince Allison, from Maryland. I also called him before I came. He's one of the good guys, right?

Yeah. Amazing. Willie Soon, that was the most interesting conversation i've heard in a long time well thank you for your time i appreciate it thank you thanks