Dr. Roy Spencer, former NASA climate scientist and University of Alabama researcher, challenges mainstream warming claims by arguing natural cycles explain at least half of observed temperature rises since 1979, despite satellite data aligning with surface records after corrections. He bet $1,000 with Hansen that 2015 won’t surpass 2005’s warmth, citing feedback model uncertainties and dismissing Arctic ice loss as proof. Callers debate water vapor’s dominance over CO₂, medieval climate shifts, and censorship—like Canada’s alleged ban after a witch interview—while some tie warming to solar minima or Schumann resonances. Spencer warns emission cuts may harm economies but backs "clean coal" and solar towers, urging a Manhattan Project-style energy R&D push. The episode blends climate skepticism with fringe theories, from Yellowstone’s volcanic "hell" claims to airport blindness linked to Bell’s voice, questioning both science and the supernatural’s role in Earth’s changes. [Automatically generated summary]
In fact, before I knew that Dr. Spencer was going to be on this evening, I had a question for you concerning the environmental situation, kind of an overall question that I'm going to ask in open lines whenever we get to that, and we will.
But this was way, way too good an opportunity to pass up.
So at the last moment, Dr. Spencer became available, and we grabbed him.
Now.
George, thank you for a nice night to fill in.
Hope you enjoy the time off.
And good evening, everybody.
Roy Spencer, Dr. Spencer, is a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.
He has been senior scientist for climate studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama.
He directs research into the development and application of satellites' passive microwave remote sensing techniques for measuring global temperature, water vapor, and precipitation.
Dr. Spencer is the recipient of NASA's Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement and the American Meteorological Society Special Award for his satellite-based temperature monitoring work.
He is the author of numerous scientific articles that have appeared in Science, Nature, Journal of Climate, Monthly Weather Review, Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology, Journal of Climate and Applied Meteorology, Remote Sensing Reviews, Advances in Space Research, and Climate Change.
Dr. Spencer received his Ph.D. in meteorology from the University of Wisconsin in 1981.
I've got a really nice, long article here on the dust up that Dr. Hansen just had, and you all have heard about, with Dr. Hansen, who's been warning about global warming now for, in an alarming way, for some time, much to the displeasure, I might add, of NASA.
And so what an opportunity to have Dr. Spencer here.
You're allowed to, but you're supposed to go through channels, through management chain, and make Public Affairs Office aware of what you're doing and get the material cleared, which is what I always had to do, especially if you're testifying for Congress, which Jim and I have both done, Jim Hansen and I. Right, okay, understandable.
But if you have made requests and they've not been fully granted or in a way that satisfies you and you're not able to speak out and the issue is so damn big, I mean, how do you weigh that out?
Well, I think, okay, on Jim's side, I would say that if I were in his position and believed as he does, I probably would have done exactly what he's doing.
When I worked for NASA, and the rules are still the same now, you are allowed to speak authoritatively as a NASA employee on the science that you study.
If you have opinions related to what the policy should be, you have to make it very clear that you're saying those things as a private citizen and not as an expert.
Now, for a lot of years, Jim Hansen was able to basically not worry too much about NASA rules because the things he was saying were in line with what NASA wanted to hear or have told to Congress anyway.
I mean, let's face it, organizations like NASA and NOAA depend on Congress for a large part of their funding through these climate change appropriations bills where they get a lot of money to build instruments, put them into space, study what's going on in the climate.
In other words, you know, there's a whole machinery going on in the federal government that's related to climate change.
And the more you can make it look like these are important things to be done, the more money you can get and the bigger your program grows.
So for a lot of years, Jim Hansen basically was singing the tune that NASA wanted him to sing anyway, even though they knew that he was sort of going off and sometimes ignoring, I think, the channels that he was supposed to go through.
Now, it could be that what's happened lately is it may well have been, and I don't know, it may well have been that the administration came in and said, hey, we want you to start forcing Jim to abide by these rules, which have always been in place.
But to him, it feels like pressure because now all of a sudden he's being asked to abide by rules that in the past you could just sort of get by with without worrying too much about them.
But like I said, if I believed as Jim does, that it's as serious of a problem as he thinks global warming is, and I don't think it is, and he believes that there are certain policy solutions that we can implement to fix the problem, which I don't think there are, but I'm saying if I was in his position, I might well have done exactly what he's done.
He's got a lot of political power.
I mean, he's worked in this area since the 60s, or worked for NASA since, I think, the late 60s.
He's Mr. Climate Change as far as NASA's concerned.
He's a great scientist.
And like I said, if I was in his shoes, I may well have done exactly the same thing he did.
Well, there's a lot in what you just said to explore.
But it's my understanding that some years ago, as a result of speaking out, there was some wrath that came down in the form of cut budgets in his department.
And so he went through a pretty rough period because of that earlier, didn't he?
Okay, basically what Jim believes, I mean, I hate to speak for him, but I always try to be able to present the other side as well as I can.
I think basically what Jim Hansen believes is that the current warm period we're in, the warming that we've seen in the last hundred years, can largely be explained, especially let's say since the 1940s, through both aerosols that have been produced by mankind through pollution,
which causes a cooling, and then now we don't have so much aerosols anymore, but we have more and more carbon dioxide, which causes warming.
And Jim has put together a quantitative explanation for how the global temperature has changed in the last however many decades that is based mostly on mankind.
I think it is one possible explanation.
I think that he's ignoring other possible explanations, which includes a combination of natural influences and mankind.
And in fact, I'm probably not phrasing this well enough.
He would probably object and say he does have natural influences in there.
And he does.
What I'm saying is he thinks that the warming effect of extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, he thinks that that is a larger effect than I think it is on global temperatures and on global climate.
I mean, if you take a natural cycle that might go to some point that we can't define right now, and then you enhance it by half with the addition of mankind, I mean, that's 50% of the process.
Yeah, I'm willing to admit that there's a good chance that mankind is a significant part of the warmth that we're experiencing right now.
The big question is, well, there's a number of big questions, but so what?
How much is it going to warm in the future?
What are we going to be using for fuels in 30 or 40 years with technological process?
And even, or progress, but even if we don't have any technological progress that can get us past fossil fuels in the next 50 years, what can we do about it anyway?
If you get into the policy and look at alternative fuels and the direction humanity is going, especially the developing parts of the world like India and China, I just don't see any way to keep from having this upward trend in increasing carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere.
It's very messy early on because countries that go through this process aren't that concerned about pollution early on.
And then as they build wealth, they can start to afford to clean up after themselves more, which we've been doing for quite a while now.
And also now, to the extent that we can transfer technology, the things that we've learned to the developing countries so that they can do things more cleanly than we did 100 years ago, that's a big benefit, too.
And that's one of the things I think that is part of Bush's plan is it's sort of technology-based.
I had an opportunity to go to Bangkok once as well.
And there, about 40% of the policemen who direct traffic in the street have lung disease.
Lung disease.
Lung disease.
About 40% or better.
That's incredible.
And so, you know, many of these countries that you're talking about really are going to contribute very, very heavily.
And as you point out, we've become a little better.
I mean, California is a little cleaner.
Some of our lakes and our water is cleaned up a little bit.
And things are generally, I would say, admittedly better here.
But then you've got Eastern Europe, you've got all of Asia, you've got all these emerging technological nations.
And so I guess what we all want to know is, if you take that natural cycle and then you're 50% of man's hand and you look at the possibilities, know the probabilities with climate modeling or whatever, do you and Dr. Hansen disagree on the probable outcome, the effects for mankind if we continue on the same path, which obviously you believe we will?
I think he believes that the climate system is more sensitive to extra CO2 than I believe it is.
Probably by, I'm guessing, but let's say maybe at least a factor of two.
And of course, then you've got people who think that there are these tipping points where the system is really sensitive beyond some point and it warms uncontrollably.
I basically do not believe in that theory.
But then this is an area of science that we don't have perfect knowledge of.
One of the examples of feedback that they give is if you look at the North Pole right now and you look at it 40 years ago, it's frightening.
I mean, a lot of it's already gone, and the Navy's plotting ways to navigate what's going to be an ocean after the ice is all gone.
Now, the ice is sort of white and sort of reflects sunlight, right?
So as the ice melts, it's my understanding that the water, which is then dark, absorbs heat, and the white doesn't reflect it anymore, and so more melts and more and more and more.
Is that the feedback kind of thing that we're talking about?
Well, there's no doubt there is a positive feedback.
The question is, why has it warmed up there?
You see, there's in the climate system, you've got a whole bunch of weights on springs.
You've got fluctuations up and down, back and forth, and they're all interacting in complicated, nonlinear ways, but they're still constrained like a weight on a spring.
It will only go so far down, and then it pops back up, and then it pops up higher than its equilibrium position, and then it falls back down.
So what I'm saying is, one of the theories is that the current warmth we're in is at least half due to natural cycles.
For instance, if you look at how the ice in the Arctic has changed in the last 40 years, it tracks almost perfectly a large planetary scale northern hemispheric natural circulation shift that has also changed in the last 40 years that happens with or without mankind.
It's like the whole hurricane thing in the Atlantic.
You know, it wasn't that all of a sudden there was a bunch of hurricanes on the Earth last year.
It was about a normal year.
It just is there were hardly, you know, there were very few in the Pacific, and we had a whole bunch in the Atlantic.
It's a regional shift that we know happens.
It's been warned about for 20 years.
So again, we're getting back to this issue of how much of what we've seen is due to natural cycles versus mankind.
So, Doctor, if I were to ask you why the temperature at the North Pole and even Alaska, for example, is disproportionately increasing compared to a lot of the rest of the world, your answer would be a natural cycle.
Well, to some degree, but I mean, the fact that it is increasing at a faster rate there than, for example, here, if we have one degree, they have got three degrees.
Oh, well, this is more just to, you know, point out that we scientists can predict all we want, but we really don't lose anything if we're wrong, you know?
Now, Matt from Phoenix, I get these computer messages as we go along.
It really does ask a good question.
Why isn't it possible to construct some kind of lab test, some kind of smaller but on-scale environment to test the effects of CO2 emissions on our environment?
In fact, I looked at a lab apparatus just to look at the infrared absorption by carbon dioxide just to show, you know, just to actually measure how much infrared absorption that's, you know, that's what a greenhouse gas does, is it absorbs infrared or heat radiation.
And basically the effect you're looking for can't be measured really in the laboratory.
You have to have a distance like through the depth of the atmosphere in order to actually observe what's going on.
It's a very complex process.
It can only be it's the Earth is our only laboratory for this.
There's really nothing you can do in the lab to address this.
And it's too bad.
It's a one-of-a-kind of experiment that we're involved in now, and we don't have complete control over it.
And that's one reason why there's so many uncertainties.
All of the things involved, like the effect of water, I mean, the effects of water, both in terms of how it warms the climate and cools the climate, is just so profound.
And that means rain systems, and in order to build rain systems, they have to extend up through miles of the atmosphere.
Otherwise, they don't occur.
You know, you just can't do it on a smaller scale.
Well, I know you worked in the oceanic area a little bit.
And so while we're on the subject of ocean currents, there is this theory.
Actually, it's a bit more than a theory now, that this current which warms Europe or keeps Europe relatively temperate is beginning to splinter and slow up.
Now, again, this could, of course, be a natural cycle or something, but if it were to stop, then I guess Europe would be about like Labrador.
Well, you know, if the current were to stop, yeah, there would be huge changes.
I'm one of the people that believes that that's simply not possible, partly because the fluid of the atmosphere and ocean is a gigantic heat engine, and one of the functions of this heat engine is to take excess energy that's built up in the tropics from the extra sunlight in the tropics and transport it to the poles.
And as long as the Earth keeps turning, and as long as the tropics keep getting more sunlight than the poles, I just don't see any way to stop that.
Now, that's not to say that there can't be changes in all of these currents, all of the little, smaller structures that are occurring, like the Labrador current.
There's all these different currents that are part of the ocean circulation.
And those can meander and change on all kinds of time scales, weeks, months, years, even decades.
Well, we all watched this last hurricane season with some horror.
Some amazing things happened, actually, during that hurricane season, and I guess we're about to get into another one.
But boy, oh, boy, oh, boy, I watched some of those hurricanes go from, you know, tropical storms to category five hurricanes in just like, I don't know, a couple of days or two days, I think, I saw one.
You know, they're called rapiding, deepening, deepening cycles and rapid deepening cycles.
And, you know, the whole time I've been in this business, you know, 20 years or so, 25 years, that's been happening.
I think that one of the things that's lost about this hurricane season is the fact that the National Hurricane Center directors have been warning year after year for about 15 or 20 years now that we were in a lull and that we're building up the coastlines.
People keep moving to the coast.
We keep building infrastructure there.
And one of these days, it's all going to change and these hurricanes are going to come back.
I don't think anybody could have predicted how dramatically they came back.
Is there any way to predict how long the cycle of back, as you put it, will all they can tell is like just from this past century, we really only have statistics for let's say the last hundred years.
So there's like two cycles in there of hurricane activity, two at the most that are like 25, 35 years long.
So all they can do is just sort of take a guess that there's probably this 20 to 40 year cycle and we're in the upswing of it now, and we're going to have higher than normal activity.
That doesn't mean we couldn't have a year with below normal activity, just that, you know, on average, year after year, we should be above normal now for quite a few years.
Well, if you were in front of the Senate testifying and they were to ask you about the advisability of rebuilding New Orleans at the same location and not getting the levees past the protection point where they failed in this last large hurricane, and you were to speak to them from a scientific point of view, what would you tell them?
I guess I would say that if they didn't change the levee system at all, that they may well be safe for another 20 or 30 years.
Or it may be it gets destroyed again in another one or two years.
You don't know.
But eventually it's going to happen again.
But they've known for years that this was a possibility.
In fact, just less than a year before this all happened, the Times-Picayou newspaper down there ran a series of articles which were almost like foretelling of the future.
Because all the things that they warned about, and they talked to all the experts and weather and how much New Orleans has sunk and hurricane cycles and stuff, and the stuff they laid out in that series of newspaper articles, you know, of what could happen, you know, sounded like fear-mongering, and it's like a lot of it happened.
Now, the difference between yourself and Dr. Hansen, clearly one of the differences is that you think there's not really a whole hell of a lot we can do about it.
Okay, well, if I'm right, I think we're going to see some modest warming in the coming decades.
And I would hate to say anything beyond a few decades because I don't think we know what energy source we're going to be using in 30 years.
But I would predict modest warming enough that we could, little enough to where mankind is basically going to be able to adapt to it, although there will be negative effects in some areas, a net negative effect in some areas.
If Jim Hansen's right, it's going to just keep warming, and in another 50 or 60 years, we're going to have some serious problems coping with the change in climate, with the rising sea levels.
It's going to get to the point where some man-made structures along the coasts, the low-lying areas, will have to be abandoned.
But this is something that's going to be occurring, even if it does happen, over a long period of time.
I mean, when you're talking about, say, I don't know, 40 or 50 years, that seems like a lot of time to a mortal man because we don't last that long.
But in the wider sort of whole Earth-type picture, I mean, you think of things happening in tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions of years.
Well, yeah, there's no question that if this were to happen, if this does happen, if Jim Hansen is right, it is happening faster than the Earth has ever, let's say the Earth has ever seen it before.
I'm pretty skeptical of what we know has happened in the past.
I think we have a hard enough time trying to figure out how the heck the climate system works in the last hundred years, let alone figuring out what happened 10,000 years ago based on sediments in some remote part of the Earth.
I think it's possible that when you get down through the lower layers of the ice where these layers that they're measuring become very thin, I think it starts blurring the distinction between what they think is annual layers, Things laid down by season versus individual storms, which would really reduce the time scale of the events they find down there.
Well, if they look back, I guess, in ice cores in certain places, they can see when something apparently hit the Earth, an asteroid and probably wiped out the dinosaurs, some scientists remotely.
What satellites really help us do, and this is with a bunch of different satellite instruments, is to understand processes on a global basis, because it's the only way we can get truly global measurements.
And to understand the Earth, you really got to have global measurements.
Satellites are really the only way to do it.
So they provide some really unique measurements.
They can't do what you can do from the ground, like they can't provide the detail that you can get from a weather balloon, but at least you've got the measurements everywhere on the Earth.
So they really help us improve our understanding of how the climate system works.
I don't think they're that good at telling us how much it's warmed or not, partly because it's only 26 years.
And as it is, what the satellites are telling us now is roughly consistent with the surface thermometers.
That's a finding that's going to come out in the coming few months that you'll be hearing about in the news when it comes out.
For a long time there's been this issue that the satellites have supposedly disagreed with the surface thermometer data.
Yes.
And the conclusion from a panel of people that are working on this, and I can't say too much, is basically going to back off on that quite a bit and say that it is consistent.
Yeah, well, to within our ability to measure these things.
There's errors in every kind of measurement, whether it's the service thermometers or satellite data.
So within our ability to measure these things, they're probably not inconsistent.
Okay, the argument was that the way we understand the atmosphere to work on monthly or longer time scales over big areas, if the surface warms, the troposphere, the lowest part of the atmosphere, let's say the bottom 10 kilometers, should warm at least that much.
In other words, the warming gets amplified with height in the atmosphere.
And what we were seeing was the opposite.
If we took the thermometer data and the satellite data at face value, it looked like the satellite was warming much less than the thermometer data.
And we were the only ones for a long time, John and I, that did this global temperature monitoring.
It was a kind of thing that was too important for only to have only one group work on it.
So there's a group of researchers out in California that we know very well that have also worked on it.
And in the last eight years or so, they've found two errors in how we did adjustments on the satellite data.
And we've corrected for those errors.
They've come up with their corrections.
We both get answers that aren't too terribly different from each other and sufficiently close to what the thermometers get to where you really can't say that there's any kind of stark disagreement between them that would suggest that we really don't understand the theory of how the warming at the surface should be amplified with height.
But I was never one to buy into that being a huge discrepancy in our knowledge anyway.
It was more people that were really into the, you know, finding whatever argument they could against global warming theory kind of latched onto the satellite data.
Well, you know, I'm not going to say what the specific conclusion is, and I don't want to go any farther than just saying that it's not going to be, you know, it's not going to be that, oh, we still have this huge discrepancy.
It's not going to be like that.
It's going to have a more resolved flavor to it when it all finally comes out.
These models reveal a miserable situation at present, referring to the universe of the climate, but a dire one in the years ahead.
In his December speech to the Geophysical Union, he noted that carbon dioxide emissions are now, quote, surging well above, end quote, the point where damage to the Planet might be limited.
Speaking to a reporter from the Washington Post, he put it bluntly: having raised the Earth's temperature one degree Fahrenheit in the past three years, three decades, I'm sorry, we're facing another increase of four degrees over the next century.
That would imply changes, listen carefully, that constitute practically a different planet.
The technical terms for those changes include drought, famine, pestilence, and flood.
I think when he finally put together a model explanation that basically highlights carbon dioxide as the prime, if not the only, reason we've warmed in the last 50 to 100 years.
So as I mentioned before, he's come up with a theoretical explanation, which I think is one possible explanation for the current warmth.
And then also based on these feedbacks, remember we discussed feedback.
He assumes there are certain positive feedbacks going on in the climate system.
And then you run these models out into the future to see how much it's going to warm.
Well, depending on what you put in for the feedbacks, you can get warming from anywhere from 2 degrees Fahrenheit to 12 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of this century.
Okay, the most important feedback in the climate system is the positive water vapor feedback, which we're all, in a sense, familiar with, that the warmer it gets, the more water is evaporated from the surface.
It would be a fog-enveloped planet, and that doesn't happen.
And that's because precipitation systems are constantly removing water vapor through precipitation processes.
Well, we really don't know hardly anything about how these precipitation systems behave as the atmosphere warms, except that we do know, at least qualitatively, that precipitation systems in the tropics are more efficient at removing water from the atmosphere than at high latitudes.
So this is one of the feedbacks that I think is overstated in climate models, is this positive water vapor feedback effect.
And in a way, it's hard to separate any of these feedbacks from each other because they're all interrelated.
It's like you can't talk about just one of them without getting into the other.
So, you know, clouds, clouds, on the average, cool the climate.
But we really don't have a good feeling for how they're going to change with warming.
Are they going to change in such a way to screen out some sunlight and cancel out some of the warming, keeping the Earth more at a constant temperature?
Or will they change in such a way with a positive feedback to amplify the warming?
And for that, climate models are kind of all over the map of what they predict for clouds, because we really don't understand clouds at all.
So do you think that he objectively believes that this climate model that we're talking about, the one that has him speaking out like this, obviously he must have quite a bit of faith in it for some reason.
The trouble is that we've had some up and down temperature fluctuations in the last hundred years.
Just a few.
They can be explained in probably an infinite number of ways.
But since we really don't know the natural variability, what we do is we use the tools that we have, which is basically increasing carbon dioxide, changes in aerosols, either man-made aerosols or volcanic aerosols, and a few other processes that we think we understand.
And if you put them together in a certain way, you can pretty much explain what's happened in the last hundred years globally for the global average temperature fluctuations.
Now, is that really what caused it?
We don't know.
You know, you come up with one possible explanation, But the system is, the climate system, I think, is so complex, I don't have a whole lot of faith that that is what's going on.
Also, and even if it is, it could be that in the future, once we warm up a certain amount more, that some unknown feedback kicks in and brings us back toward equilibrium.
Well, it kind of referred to what you said, though.
It really means there is no actual intelligence saying, look, I've got to correct this.
It's just a system, as you put it, of feedback that once something is out of balance in one way, I guess the climate finds a way to reverse that process.
But I recall watching who I thought was a very good meteorologist on CNN, though somewhat temperamental, but very good.
And he was just astounded at the rapid pressure drop, in fact, down at one point to a pressure that had never been measured before, and how quickly it got there.
He was just shaking his head going, oh my God, and it's aimed right at this warm water ahead of it and so forth and so on.
There's been, you know, that's where the biggest hurricanes, and of course they're called typhoons there, have occurred, you know, with those rapid pressure drops and the lowest pressures ever recorded.
But remember, it hasn't been that many years that they've been flying into these things and measuring these pressures.
I think we really don't know how many tropical storms there were before, let's say, around 1970 when we were starting to get more routine satellite data.
It's basically one of the modes by which the excess heat that builds up at the surface of the Earth is transported away from the surface and up into the atmosphere where that excess energy can then be lost to outer space in the form of heat radiation.
So yeah, it's like part of the air conditioning process, like you said, if you want to put it in those terms.
It's one of the modes by which the atmosphere moves heat away from the surface and keeps the surface of the Earth at a habitable temperature for us.
If it weren't for weather, the effects of weather and water, especially water vapor evaporating from the surface, the average surface temperature over the whole Earth, averaged over the whole Earth, poles and to the tropics, the average would be about 135 to 140 degrees Fahrenheit.
And some people, doctor, would say, well, that's why we're having these really horrible hurricanes, because it is warmer, and so the air conditioner is cranked up harder.
Well, I would say, okay, so mankind has made it warmer in the Atlantic, but not in the Pacific, because, you know, they're below normal for typhoons.
Again, we know that there's been these cycles, these natural cycles in the general circulation of the atmosphere that changes not just the temperature, but the wind shear conditions.
It takes more than warm sea surface temperatures to build a hurricane.
Otherwise, they'd have hurricanes in the Arabian Sea, in the Mediterranean Sea, and in other areas where there aren't ever any hurricanes because the wind shear conditions aren't right.
So it just was, you know, this last year, everything came together perfect, if you want to put it that way.
Yeah, I think he's been predicting increasing temperatures for the last 10 years, that on average, each year was probably going to be warmer than the previous one, which is sort of borne out.
But even if there are just natural climate fluctuations going on, these things have a long time scale.
In other words, once you get into a warm period, you're going to be warm for years on end.
So it's a pretty easy bet to say we're going to stay above normal for a while.
But yeah, it's risky business to predict climate, and he's so far probably done a better job than anybody.
You have worked a little bit with passive microwave remote sensing techniques.
There's somebody with an idea, you know, when you talk about energy, I mean, even our president came out recently, said we're addicted to oil.
We certainly are.
There are all kinds of ideas out there about how to collect and transport energy.
And one of the wilder ones, but maybe not too wild, you might want to comment, is to put solar collection in space and then microwave what's collected back to Earth.
One is the extra expense of putting that solar collector into orbit to get an extra, you know, whatever, maybe an extra 50% amount of sunlight on average falling on the solar collector.
I mean, it takes a lot of money to put stuff into space.
So there's that issue is how much it costs to put a big solar collector up there to begin with.
Now, to beam the energy down, you would have to have such a huge microwave antenna to make a very narrow beam that would have to be very tightly controlled to come down in one spot.
Otherwise, you're going to start frying your neighbors.
Maybe they can get around the danger, but they can't get around the expense.
Maybe someday they'll put up some test thing that only covers a few hundred square yards or something like that of collector area.
I mean, face it, you need to have huge areas covered to get any amount of energy.
The amount of sunlight falling on a square foot of area, even out in outer space, isn't that big.
You've got to have huge areas of collectors to make a dent in our energy needs.
I just attended an annual briefing by ExxonMobil, and this is done by all of the petroleum companies, where they predict where they think energy use is going to go in the next 25 years, what countries are going to be growing in their needs, and where that energy is going to come from.
And basically, petroleum, coal are the two major things.
The renewables are going to be increasing rapidly, you know, like solar and wind, but they're going to be increasing rapidly from very small percentages to only somewhat bigger percentages.
You know, it's just going to take a long time before they can cut into the market of the demand, especially with, like I said before, India and China.
It's at the point now where the developing countries right now are producing as much CO2 as the developed countries are.
We have brought down some of the best, Dr. Oh, I'll bet you have.
Yeah, we have.
Now, there is this project up in Alaska called HARP, and it's a very interesting project.
And perhaps you can't even comment on this, but what they're doing is transmitting ultimately a billion watts of effective radiated power or more from an antenna array that is large on the ground.
And then by the time it hits the ionosphere, it's designed to be a pinpoint.
In other words, opposite of what most antennas are.
Most antennas start out as a very narrow beam and become very wide and very dispersed.
HAARP is going to put this incredible amount of energy, they've already begun doing it, into a sort of a pinpoint location in the ionosphere.
And it got so interesting a few weeks ago that there was an auroral display going on above the facility in Alaska, and they turned this thing on, and they actually saw these sparkly, this whole sparkle show that went on above them as they began to affect the ionosphere.
And there are all kinds of stated goals for this project, like locating underground tunnels and bunkers, radio propagation research, and then there are some more shadowy goals because the government now has gotten hold of this project, DARPA, I believe, actually.
And I guess what I'm working up to here is, A, do you know about this project?
B, what effect could it conceivably have on the atmosphere?
But I will say that from a physics standpoint, we basically don't have to worry about anything going on in the ionosphere when we do climate forecasting, weather forecasting, explaining how the climate system works right now.
In other words, it's like the ionosphere is totally disconnected from weather.
Even the stratosphere, which is the next layer up from where we live, has relatively little influence, and you're talking about way above that.
Also, considering the amount of energy that's involved, a single small thunderstorm is like a small nuclear warhead going off, like a 20 kiloton at least.
You've got thousands of these going on all the time around the world.
Basically, the amount of energy that's involved in weather processes is so huge, I don't think we could alter weather if we tried to with a bunch of nuclear weapons.
Well, you know, even forgetting the mess we would have in terms of radioactive fallout.
And if somebody could identify a system in the right stage where you didn't know which way it was going to go, if you put enough energy in there in the right places with, and all I can think of is nuclear weapons, which you wouldn't want to do, it might be possible to nudge it in one direction.
So that's the only reason why I'm willing to admit that, yes, you might be able to do something in the future, but to make it do what you want it to do, I don't know.
And that leads me to another question, whether it's HAARP or whether it's an attempt to control the weather or anything else that science does, how comfortable are you with the oversight and the ethics?
I've seen scientists do some pretty strange things.
It's kind of like when you get down to the very end and you're ready to push the button.
Do you press it or not?
And more times, you know, the scientists, without thinking about possible larger societal consequences, inevitably push the button.
Well, there's no question that, well, okay, in a general sense, I will say that probably just about any technology that we've developed can be used for good or evil.
They want to fund the finding, the discovery of knowledge.
They're probably a little more in the direction of we need to save the Earth, but at the same time, we need to save our jobs, so let's keep doing climate research.
But for the most part, they're very open, and I never had any overt pressure when I was at NASA about what I could and couldn't do.
The most it went was when I would testify in Congress.
They would just remind me that I'm there to give my expert testimony and what I'm expert in.
Because when you testify in Congress on global warming, inevitably a Congressman or a senator is going to ask you, what would you do if you were me about policy change?
You know, because they don't know what to do.
And I don't blame them.
I'm glad I'm not in their position and trying to decide what to do.
I had a guest on who said, look, it was nothing more than some NASA admin person with a bit of irrational exuberance in protection of, I don't know, whatever, that resulted in the whole dust-up with Dr. Hansen.
Well, no, actually, I can, because now that I've made testimony, now since I'm a university employee, university people, as you can tell from the news lately, get to say whatever they want to, right?
No, I have definite feelings about policy, and that is, let's see if I can put it in a nutshell.
In order to solve this energy problem to where we have energy sources that don't produce a lot of carbon dioxide, it is going to take research and development.
It is going to take technological advancement.
Which countries of the world can afford that?
It's the countries that have built enough wealth to where we can invest the money into that.
Now, my feeling of current legislation about restricting CO2 production, those things are going to hardly put a dent in the problem, but they are going to hurt the economies and therefore hurt our ability to do research and development to finally solve these problems about how we are going to solve our energy needs in the next 50 to 100 years.
Isn't that, though, kind of a negative feedback situation?
In other words, the size of the problem is so gigantic that, from your point of view, what we are doing right now is just virtually insignificant in moving towards solving it.
I mean, virtually all the energy you're getting, you know, you're not having to put energy into the system.
Whereas hydrogen, you know, you have to put, for all the energy that you're going to get out of the hydrogen, you have to put in to create it in the first place.
One technology that I've been real interested in and which is apparently they're going to start construction of it in Australia soon is called a solar chimney or solar tower.
Where basically you build a big transparent canopy over the ground that covers several square miles.
And it's usually in the desert where it's hot and sunny.
So basically that heat or the solar heating that occurs underneath that panel on the ground can't escape the way it normally does during the day with convective motions in the atmosphere constantly taking the heat away from the ground.
It's trapped under that canopy.
It all goes towards a central tower and up a chimney.
And then the turbines are in the chimney.
So it's like a self-contained circulation every day.
In fact, it continues at night because the ground is still warm and generates the design they're working on in Australia is hundreds of megawatts.
And I've been trying to get an answer from the Department of Energy, and from what I can tell, they are not even researching this technology in the United States.
The government isn't, and I don't understand why.
I haven't been able to get an answer from anybody about why they're not.
Stories like the Boston Globe story entitled Too Hot to Handle.
Recent efforts to censor Jim Hansen, NASA's top climate scientist, are only the latest.
As his message grows more urgent, we ignore him at our peril.
That's the headline.
Tomorrow night we'll get to the story.
Or this from ABC News.
Could global warming become a runaway train?
A runaway train?
Or from Science Daily, the Antarctic ice sheet is losing mass, very serious mass, very quickly.
The World Meteorological Organization said it has seen unprecedented signs pointing to a looming La Niña.
I didn't bring that up before, a phenomena that originates off the western coast of South America and can disrupt weather patterns in many parts of the globe.
And they say that this is the fastest developing in all of our record keeping.
And then I've got something on the magna beneath Yellowstone.
I've got all kinds of stories here for you.
But in view of the time constraints, we'll go to open lines here in just a moment.
One note, if you would like to email me, I would like to give you my email address.
It is one of two, artbell at mindspring.com.
That's A-R-T-B-E-L-L at mindspring.com or artbell at aol.com.
The MindSpring address is the primary, and then AOL is secondary.
But either way, artbell at mindspring.com or artbell at aol.com.
Guarantee I will read your email.
I cannot guarantee I will respond, although these days I'm responding to many more.
Let's, oh, there is one thing, and that is that since we've done all this tonight, I had a question for you that I wanted to ask, really, I really wanted to ask tonight before I even knew I was going to have an opportunity to interview Dr. Spencer.
And the question is simple.
It's a very simple question with all that's happening out there right now, with the documented global warming that we have, with the poles just dilapidating beneath us or at the poles, with the storms that we've had recently, with the ocean current problems that we're beginning to discover, with the new diseases that are popping up.
In other words, you can go well beyond just the climate.
With all of this going on, something I chose some years ago to call the quickening.
My question to all of you is, where do you think all this is leading and when?
Let me Repeat that.
Where do you think all of this is leading, and particularly when?
And then I also thought in the next couple of hours, should we get them, there is a very large body of, a very large group of people out there who believe that we are being visited now by aliens.
That we're being visited from.
And it's a perfectly reasonable conjecture, I think.
With all that it is out there, all we know is out there, surely we are being watched.
And perhaps we're being watched from a very close point of view, not just in space or streaking across the atmosphere, as we've seen so many vehicles do at speeds that we can't possibly obtain.
So I think there's a pretty good chance they are here.
A very good chance, actually.
And perhaps they walk among us.
So any aliens who would like to take the opportunity to admit it and have a talk with us, you're going to certainly be welcome.
So that sort of sets it up.
That's where I want to go.
West of the Rockies, you're the first to go wherever it is you're going.
Well, instead of asking questions, why don't you try and define what you say is contradictory or you feel they're wrong about and you know about?
unidentified
Well, first of all, I'm not going to argue that climate change doesn't occur.
It does.
The issue I have with Spencer is he's blaming carbon dioxide.
And what I learned back in the 70s is that the quantum physics derived from the great physics people back then, which still exist and are the greatest today, come from Albert Einstein, Max Planck, all the people that derive the radiation and physics we use in atmospheric science.
Well, you know, quantum physics, sir, is just sort of an imaginary, almost science.
We're not even really there yet.
unidentified
Well, I'll just explain briefly what, try to make this as simple as I can.
Carbon dioxide, when we take a look at the radiation and we talk about absorption of radiation coming out from the earth, coming in from the sun, carbon dioxide is inferior to water vapor.
And what we learned back in the 70s was there is no way that it could ever overcome the radiative effects of water vapor because its blackbody radiation is at around 14 microns and water vapor is down around 6 to 4.
Well, Dr. Spencer did talk quite a bit about water vapor, actually.
unidentified
Well, then I must have missed that part of the conversation.
However, I gathered from him that we have to do something about CO2 emissions, and I disagree with that because water vapor in the atmosphere is 100 times more in concentration, even more than 100 times than carbon dioxide.
And the radiation physics between 14 and 6 would dictate that water vapor absorbs far more than carbon dioxide, and carbon dioxide could never exceed it unless you were choking on it.
With what you believe, then try and answer my question.
With all that's happening, and there is a lot happening by any measure.
I mean, it's now undeniable.
Where do you think this is all leading and when?
unidentified
Well, I wish I could answer the question.
There's so much that we don't know about what goes on in the atmosphere and from the sun.
All of these things are very complex interactions, but there's a lot of other people that have come forth since the theories about CO2 that offer more plausible explanations than he did.
And I'm referring to the latest studies that deal with cosmic rays, different radiative outputs from the sun.
All these things are very likely culprits to climate change.
I'm curious how strongly you feel that there's a profound change underway.
unidentified
Well, I'm not convinced that it's profound because a lot of the people that are climate scientists, including our own here in Oregon, are disagreeing with some of the assessments about how rapidly things are changing.
There's still arguments about this.
So I can't really say, well, I know that things are going one way or the other in an absolute sort of way.
I can say and will say that climate change is real.
It does occur.
And there were points in the Earth's past that showed that there were extremes that occurred even worse than we have now.
But the main question is that all of us, I think, haven't answered is what really causes all of this.
And I don't think we have the answer to that.
If you go back several thousand years in the Earth's climate to the medieval period, for example, Greenland was completely free of ice at that time, and the Vikings migrated from Europe and were able to habitat on that part of the Earth for many years before the climate changed and they all froze to death.
And that was before the Industrial Revolution where we were all worried about the CO2 thing.
Now, here's what I think, and this is only my opinion.
It is no more than the opinion of a talk show host.
That's all it is.
I think that whether you want to blame it on man or you want to blame it on natural cycles, and both are possible, that we are headed for a profound change, a big change, and I think soon.
And I can feel it in every bone in my body.
I felt it coming for years, and I can feel it literally in every bone in my body.
A profound change and a big one, I think, is on the way.
But again, that is only the opinion of a talk show host.
Probably worth that and 10 cents or 20 or 30, whatever, 50 cents for a cup of coffee these days.
I mean, it could be as innocuous as, well, the compass suddenly points south instead of north.
It could be that innocuous, and nothing more would occur.
And then others believe that entire continents would shift their locations.
Now, of course, there is evidence to point to the fact that entire continents have done that before.
In fact, if you take the land masses of the world and you push them all together like puzzle pieces, they pretty much fit together real well, telling us that at one time they were one, and they're puzzle pieces now.
You know, the question of where do you think all of this is leading and when?
unidentified
Yeah, good question.
What I feel is that you have a lot of people who've done a lot of research, a lot of people working for the government, and all of them have the same thing in common.
They're all gagged.
Now, a lot of them can't talk about it.
Now, if it was a good thing and we're safe, they'd be talking.
But they're all gagged, so that tells you there's something really wrong.
I talk to people on a regular basis in New Zealand and particularly in Australia.
And there, you know, this is just not widely known by the American people, but there, by law, by law, the children have to wear things, you know, hats, something to cover their head.
In other words, the radiation is so severe right now that by law they have to wear something to cover their heads.
Because that kind of unchecked radiation causes cancer.
It's not just Richard and Ed, sir, but almost every psychic, almost every intuitive, almost everybody agrees that something really, really major is coming.
And it's damn near universal.
unidentified
I'll answer your question.
You posed to us quickly, then I'll pose one to you if I could.
I live in Kenny Bunker and I worked here for many years.
And when I first moved to town in 1988, or a coastal town, high tide was so far back that there was still dune grass growing in certain areas on the beach, and you could go there and play in the dune grass.
But my question to you is, what have you done to help your family and your personal situation to prepare for something like that?
You know, of course, you only share what you feel comfortable with sharing in a public audience, but what are you doing to actually get ready for something like that?
In fact, they're ramming their little heads against my door as we speak.
And I really have a conundrum here because if I let them in, they go behind my console and probably throw me off air, ripping and chewing and running on wires.
And if I don't let them in, all I hear is bang, bang, bang, bang, trying to get in.
They don't understand that every now and then I have to disappear in a room and work.
unidentified
Isn't there some way you can kind of cat-proof things in the control room to where you can interact with them?
A portion of hell is located beneath Yellowstone, and the fiery, molten lava that is building up is something that's going to erupt very soon, Art, causing Yellowstone to go up in smoke.
And I wanted to commend you on an excellent guest.
Thank you.
This guy talks the language of science, which a lot of people who do what he does do not, which is one thing I wanted to talk about.
I don't have a background in climatology.
I do have a background in physics, and so I can speak the scientific method.
And a lot of what is being put out regarding global warming and climate change does not speak the language of science and does not follow scientific method.
If I were to say to you, I could take three months' worth of data, three months' worth of data, and project 12 million and extrapolate theories about 12 million years' worth of climate cycles, that would be utterly ridiculous.
But we have less, well, roughly 100 years of meaningful climatological data in a 4.5 billion-year-old planet.
We have less than 100 years of good accurate measurements.
But that could either mean that we could have a gigantic change and we wouldn't know why from anything historical at all, or it could mean the exact opposite, that there's no change coming at all and we're all blowing smoke with these models.
It could go either way.
unidentified
Well, either way, obviously we're in a warming cycle.
You can't question that.
It has been getting warmer, you know, incrementally for the last decade.
Yeah, well, there were a lot of people questioning that, sir.
unidentified
I think they've pretty much packed up and gone home on the conclusions that you could scientifically draw from that are almost nil other than to say, yes, we're warming, and that's about all you can say.
You can extrapolate if we continue to warm this way, what would happen.
But where I get upset is when they start trying to project causes and putting out things.
I mean, a couple of your callers have touched on certain things.
We're in a heightened time of solar flare activity.
We know that we're in a period of time where we've measured the Earth's magnetic field, has been weakening incrementally.
Well, there have been some, yeah, there have been some very, very unusual events on the Sun.
Now, you may recall we had what some scientists believe was an X-48 flare.
Now, that's beyond the ability, way beyond the ability of our satellites even to measure.
So they were guessing at how big that was.
Now, if a flare like that were to be Earth-directed, oh my God, what have become?
unidentified
Well, it could be absolutely catastrophic.
But the point I'm trying to make is when somebody comes out and says, oh, it's because people are driving SUVs, there is absolutely no valid scientific way to make that projection.
To make a projection like that, you step outside of hard science into political motivation.
And I wanted to share, I don't know if you remember or even noticed it, but about a month, it was a month or two after 9-11, there was an article in the USA Today that just made me absolutely shake my head and inside say, you know what, science is dead.
There was an article in the USA Today where some, and this guy had a string of letters after his name.
He was touted.
I don't remember his exact name, but he was touted as a major climatologist, you know, scientist.
Yes.
And he wrote an article stating that they took data on the two days following 9-11 where basically all airplanes were grounded in the country.
And he said that those two days after 9-11, the temperature for those days was a degree below the average for those same two days of the year over the last two decades.
I would have thought with the number of contrails, and there was a satellite picture taken not long ago of the southeast U.S., and it showed the contrails.
I mean, they were laid down, sir, in such a tight grid that it had to be reflecting a high percentage of the sunlight that otherwise would have hit the Earth.
I mean, it was actually that serious, satellite photograph.
So you would think the opposite, that if there's cloud cover where there would not normally be, that would actually cool, right?
unidentified
He claimed that because the temperature was one degree higher than the average temperature over the last two decades on those same two days of the year, that that was absolute proof that the emissions from airplanes were causing global warming.
Even if they're not chemtrails, if they're contrails, even as contrails, if you looked at this photograph from above the southeast U.S., there's no way you could not conclude that a lot of sunlight that otherwise would have reached Earth was not reaching that part of the Earth.
I'm basically focusing on some pretty key topics to try to explain the very feeling you're feeling in your bones.
Which, to me, I'm going to just try to break down a couple things.
I want to make a quick comment on the political aspects of what IPCC is doing, as you know, is the intergovernmental policy on climate control.
And when I started this documentary research, slow me down if at all, I'm going too fast on things.
When I initially started researching this as a skeptic and a background in science, I started looking for proof or not proof.
And what I started seeing is that, for example, with the IPCC recent documents, it came out that issued pretty much statistics on the global trends, and they dubbed it the hockey stick effect.
I don't know if you're familiar with that, but essentially what it showed was, and it was almost like one of the, you know, the sense that you get from this type of documentation is that it was almost like a pharmaceutical drug being pushed through the doors.
Because I could tell you the people, scientists, and the, we're talking PhDs, some of the first, for example, in climatology and PhDs in Canada, that were on panels.
And we're talking global panels of climatology experts, some of which who just happen to have issues with these documents and papers and statistics and simulated models that, of course, you've got to take into account there's fudge factors.
Oh, you're talking about the scientists that had verbatim against it?
Well, coincidentally, if you want to ever smell a biased policy going into control, where you would smell it is that the scientists that had verbatim that was anti-thesis to the documents being pushed were not even put in the paper.
So that's a little heads up.
Now, I just want to move on to what the bones thing is all about.
Because when I first started this documentary research, it just, my mouth dropped several times, I can tell you, during the research, because I had to really summon up the bottom-line academic of what this all means to me.
Okay, we've got coronal mass ejections affecting the solar wind, affecting ionosphere, affecting electromagnetic capacitance effect.
That directly interfaces, through the work of Michael Persinger from Laurentian University and ongoing studies, neurological behavior is totally directly interrelated.
So to say that by affecting ionosphere, you don't affect climate, you don't affect the behavioral circumstances.
Wilson, I'm an amateur meteorologist, and I've been studying a lot of theories in the area.
But I have to say that a portion of the global warming is from factories and automobiles and airplanes.
Then another position of it is actually coming from natural earth.
We have gone through a standard warm cycle and we're getting warmer and warmer.
As we get to a point, the highest point of the warming cycle, like you put warm water in an ice tray in the freezer to cause it to freeze, same effect.
We're going to go into a next, a very cooling cycle.
Here in the south, we've had very unusual winter.
We've had a roller coaster winter effect.
So one several days is 70 degrees, and then we get dropped down to about 20 degrees and go back up again.
So therefore, we're going to start to see a slower change by, say, 2015, 2014 in that area.
You're going to start to see the cycle start to change from a very warm cycle to a very cold cycle.
That certainly will change many patterns, including what can grow and a lot more.
Wouldn't it?
That certainly would be a profound change.
So that really is a question we're asking tonight.
All of this taken into consideration, the ocean currents, the changes in our atmosphere, clearly the changes in our weather, where do you think it's all leading?
And when do you think That it's going to get there.
I mean, man certainly has spread over a very great deal of the habitable planet, and man is doing what man does, you know?
unidentified
And when you look at all the other issues that we're concerned with in our day and age, with politics and our economies, wouldn't it make sense to stop using fossil fuels and upgrade to newer, less polluting technologies?
But if we incrementally start at least to move that direction a little quicker than we're doing now, I think there has to be some way we can manage that without everything falling apart economically and so forth.
And it's really time for us to start finding ways to protect ourselves.
And it's really sad when you consider that most of the research institutions and a lot of the scientists, they're having to skew their results in the favor of those who actually pay their bills, the corporations.
And so they're having to put out false data.
There's a lot of propaganda going back and forth about this.
And I really think it's time for the communities to step up and really decide to take the initiative, take things back in their future.
There are certain guidelines, and they just can't speak out.
I mean, look, you know, you've got to think of this as men with well-established careers and families and children probably in college and expenses.
And, hey, look, I understand.
Don't you?
unidentified
I absolutely understand.
There are noble virtues in taking care of your family, feeding your family.
But again, if you have something to say, something that the American people and the people of the world need to know about, you have that responsibility not just to yourself and to your ability to sleep at night, but to your species.
When we're talking about things so fundamentally important to the existence of human species, again, I have to put it right up there and say, I'm sorry, guys, but you're failing yourself.
The first thing is if you take a look at the stars at night, and you look up there in the universe, and if you're any part of an intelligent human being, you would know that the universe has millions of planets.
And if there's one planet in the universe with life on it, which is Earth, there's got to be at least 100 other planets out there in the universe with other life on it.
Another one is we need to be enlightened and stop killing our own race.
We are humans, and regardless of what country you come from or what color your skin is, we live on the same planet, and it'd be really wise for us not to destroy ourselves, which is kind of simplistic, but for some reason we have a hard time doing it.
Well, you know, I guess what I love about that song is you can, or I can anyway, and I think a lot of people can, look into a person's eyes and literally look into their soul.
Yeah, and I can feel it like two seconds being in a person's presence.
I know.
Well, anyway.
unidentified
I read Deuteronomy chapter 28, and if you look around and see what's happening in this country, I think that has something to do with what is happening in this country and what could happen.
As far as when it's going to happen, I'm not sure.
Now, regarding the one caller, and I don't know what to make of the caller, but as far as what he said about Yellowstone National Park and hell, I didn't quite get all that.
What did he say about Yellowstone National Park and hell?
A good, legitimate news service carried the story.
And it was about a hole drilled in Siberia.
Now, there are those who say this is contemporary urban legend.
And a long time ago, I received what I consider to be an authentic recording.
They drilled down miles into the earth.
The story on Reuters said that they lowered microphones.
They were hearing noises.
They lowered microphones into this very, very, very deep hole that they created in the ground.
And then heard what you're about to hear.
And when they did, they, well, you can imagine, they packed up that hole and they took, actually, I think they just took off running and gave up the project.
That's the story, anyway, such as it is.
And these are the sounds from hell.
unidentified
Can you imagine lowering a microphone and hearing this?
First of all, I've been listening to you for quite a long time and really, really enjoy your show.
It's awesome.
Thank you.
But I wanted to say, you know, I was raised a Christian and everything, and I think us as humans are arrogant to believe that we have any effect on this planet whatsoever.
I'm sure this planet has turned over and over and over so many times without us even being here.
And at the same time, I also say that I believe that we're caretakers of this planet and that we should take care of it, but I don't think that users, Many, many Christians have the view that everything here is for our use, that God put everything here for our use.
But, I mean, clearly, if you're to look down on the Earth from space, which they do with satellites, and you see all the lights on at night, you know the Earth is damn well very inhabited.
I mean, very inhabited.
But for us not to have an effect seems to me to be impossible.
unidentified
Well, yeah, maybe a small effect, but I don't think that we're having a big effect like the big global warming thing.
I mean, think how long this planet was here before we showed up.
And I'm sure there was global warming happening then through natural changes of the Earth.
I believe an awful lot in this silly free will thing, you know, that man does have free will, and collectively we can begin to change our minds about something if we're presented with enough evidence and that we might avert what otherwise might be our last days.
I wanted to ask you about something you mentioned probably two or three weeks ago.
I don't remember what show it was on, but you had mentioned a study done a few years ago where people, I think, were under hypnosis, given quarters to hold in their hands, and they were given the suggestion that the quarters were red hot and they actually received burn marks on the side.
I can tell you that hypnotists can clearly make people think they're experiencing that.
And I know that our brains are capable of directing things like marks on our body and other physical manifestations because of the strength of what the brain is concentrating on.
So, I mean, all of that is true.
What right words to insert in Google to get the needed result I can't help you with at all?
unidentified
I definitely agree with you.
I was just hoping to have something to tell people.
And I was wondering if there's anything that you could recommend that would be better than that for UFOs and Area 51, and anything better than the Robert Morgan interview, the Bigfoot Hunter interview, I believe.
I've interviewed witches, but no one with that name.
unidentified
Oh, I thought that was the name.
But it was a witch interview, and you were doing it.
And it so shocked this person that apparently the husband went to the CRTC, the Canadian Radio Television Commission, and blacked it out of this nation's capital.
Well, you should listen to it again because it predicts you.
It's about a lone broadcaster working out of the desert who is operating his studio by himself, trying to turn the world on to the reality of paranormal phenomena, including UFOs, native wisdom.
I just want to tell you how I believed about the global warming and the earth effects.
And I believe our fate is the sun.
I believe all the pollution and all the countries in South America who aren't really regulated with all their pollution and all that stuff and our country and the way we pollute.
I just feel that the ozone is, of course, it's all gone, and they don't want to let us know about it.
Well, what we try and do on this program is stuff that other people won't do.
Well, that's why we get in trouble.
You know, like with the Canadian station or whatever it was, and then there was something else about some political comment and probably got us taken off somewhere else.
You know, but that's our job.
Our job is to walk on the edge, and when you walk on the edge, you're going to tick people off every now and then.
That's all there is to it.
You get them angry.
That's life.
Doesn't mean we yank back from the edge.
We will continue to cover whatever needs or we feel needs to be covered without regard to the consequences.
Well, I've long correlated solar activity in my mind with earthquake activity, but that's just been me.
I've kind of watched that.
So we all come up with our little favorites.
unidentified
Yeah, there's good evidence for that.
In fact, there was a book done by a fellow called Our Manic Sun, and he uses the evidence from SOHO satellite, which a lot of scientists ignore today, but strong evidence for it controlling our weather.
And it's, I don't know, at best, gritty and kind of...
Well, I guess.
unidentified
Yeah.
Well, anyway, I just, a lot of people, you know, calling in with their Christian aspect, and it just seems like when I look around, so much of what is going on now seems to be definitely has a religious aspect to it.
Yeah, and you can see the influence all over the place.
And if you travel outside the U.S., you can really see it.
unidentified
I bet.
Yeah, I was stuck in a Catholic household for many, many years.
So I've had that side of it and seen so much of it that by the time I came out, I was like, get me the far, what is the farthest thing away from it right now?
And I'm working towards that.
Someday, hopefully, I'll just be out in a mountain tending my crops.
They had a cross that was that this lady that owned the house had made this cross out of flowers for her husband when he passed away.
He was a doctor.
And so I took a picture of it.
And when it came up on the screen, when I downloaded it, in each corner in the upper right, upper left, bottom left, bottom right of the cross, there were different things.
In the bottom right, there was like an anchor, a big ship anchor.