All Episodes
Previous Next
July 25, 2019 - The Delingpod - James Delingpole
45:40
Delingpole 29: Dr. Rex Fleming
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to the DellingPod with me James DellingPod and I'm delighted to welcome my guest this week.
He's come over from America.
He's called Dr.
Rex Fleming and I was contacted by his daughter who said my dad is coming to speak at a conference The World Congress on Geology and Earth Science.
And I couldn't attend it because I was actually going to my friend Christopher Booker's funeral that day.
But anyway, heroically...
Dr.
Fleming has come over from his hotel at Heathrow Airport to my pad, and he wants to tell me about his theories on global warming, because like me, he's a skeptic.
Unlike me, he's actually a scientist of considerable expertise.
So Rex, tell me about your history as a science.
You've got an undergraduate degree in maths, is that right, and a PhD in atmospheric science?
Correct.
Right.
So you're quite on top of this subject.
And in your career, what did you do?
You mentioned you worked at NOAA. I did.
My PhD was involved in a unique kind of mathematical computation involving not just the weather, but also the uncertainty of the weather.
And that led to some notoriety, and I eventually got called to become head of the Global Weather Experiment, which took place in 1979.
Since then I've been involved in climate activities and served on a lot of different panels and had a few awards here and there.
What was the thing you mentioned in 1979?
It's called the Global Weather Experiment.
Many countries participated with satellites and ships and special observing systems around the planet, drifting buoys in the oceans.
And it was a year-long project.
I managed it for the United States.
Right.
Well, what resulted from that?
We learned a lot more about the atmosphere.
It led to further greater involvement of various observing systems, which have improved weather prediction since then.
But weather prediction is still an unsolved problem.
It's a chaotic atmosphere we live in, and therefore climate is chaotic.
I got involved in the climate studies many years ago.
On the other side of the issue, actually, I actually supported people in managing the office I did.
Washington, D.C. And I funded scientists who were pushing carbon dioxide as the cause of climate.
I had my doubts, but that's the way the world was going in those days.
And eventually, I just read enough to realize it was a totally wrong direction.
And so, in the past, I would say 10 years, I've been on the other side.
So you're saying there was a period where you actually might have believed in the anthropogenic global warming theory?
Yes, there was a period.
And so you were pushing grant money in the direction of people researching that?
Yeah, I was satisfying grants, yes.
I wasn't pushing it, but I wasn't...
My job was to fund people who wanted to do that.
So do you regret now that dark period of your life?
That was a dark period of my life, yeah, absolutely.
Because NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, has been implicated...
I've written about this a few times, that it's been twisting the evidence, hasn't it?
It's been meddling with the raw data.
A few individuals, I know who they are.
I did not mention their names in the book.
I don't want to get too many enemies.
I mentioned a few already, but not everybody.
Yes, there were people in NOAA who actually fiddled with the data to make their president look good at various meetings, or past president.
Obama we're talking about.
Yes, yeah.
And they would change the ocean data.
They would change atmospheric data.
They would not even believe, they would not admit that they had observing stations too close to the centers of cities that were giving temperature measurements too high.
The open heat island effect.
Yeah, heat island effect, yeah.
And they would not own up to that.
It took other individuals who were, quote, deniers to point this out, and no one has denied it, and it's all part of the debate.
This is funny because I think you are the first person who's been inside the system that I've spoken to that can report back what's going on.
So are these guys, what's their motivation?
Is it that they want to go with the flow, they want to go along to get along?
Is it because they actually believe this stuff?
Is it because they're, I don't know, intellectually corrupt?
What's the motivation?
I don't think they're intellectually corrupt, but they are corrupt in the following sense.
When you are working for a company or working for the government, you want to keep your salary growing.
You want to be successful, rise in the system.
And what a government employee does at the upper level...
They want to keep their funds coming in.
And when the media and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is pushing a subject like that, you want to be a part of the growth.
Organization to grow, and so you don't fight it.
And I think that's part of it, is people just not willing to fight it, just trying to keep their jobs, keep the salaries going up.
It's wrong.
It's absolutely wrong.
That's what some people do, and very few...
I know also scientists in NOAA who are intellectually...
Very accurate and correct, who disagree with this carbon dioxide cause, but can't speak out.
If you spoke out in the Obama administration, you'd be fired.
Yes.
So they don't speak out.
And when they retire, they speak out.
There are several examples, I should have given a few in my book, but I did not, of people who are well known in NOAA. Once they retired, they opened up.
This I've noticed a lot.
Whenever I go to the Heartland Climate Conference, a lot of the scientists one meets there are emeritus professors.
They've had their time in the sun and they're out of the system now.
Yeah, they're all probably over 70, most of them.
But these are the only...
And the left uses this as a way of saying, well, look at these dodderial fools.
They don't know what they're talking about.
When in fact, these are the only people who are able to say this stuff.
Exactly.
They're able, they're smart enough, and once they've left the system, they're free to speak out, and they have.
But what about, hasn't the climate changed, to coin a phrase?
Now that President Trump's in office, has there not been a change at all in these places, or are they still holding out against the reality?
Unfortunately, although I think Trump disagrees with the warming, he has stated it in the past, and he hasn't been firm enough in that point of view quite yet.
But the government people clearly still say the same thing.
It isn't just the government.
It's also the scientific organizations within the United States that I'm familiar with, And there are three of them, the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and maybe the most important one, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, AAAS, who produced Science Magazine.
All three of those organizations will not support a, quote, denier.
I could not get published in any of those organizations.
They all put out periodicals.
As a denier.
I made a recent check about a year ago to see if their policies had changed.
Nope, they haven't changed.
So I had to go to Europe to publish a paper.
And when I did, it was peer-reviewed in Europe, and it got through, and it's been very successful.
This is your paper saying that carbon dioxide climate theory is a busted flush.
Correct.
That's a phrase I wouldn't have used, but it denotes the right connotation.
Right.
It is definitely over, and I produced that paper.
I've had enormous response.
I've had 3,000 people around the country request copies of it.
And then I was last March, March of 2018.
That paper resulted in me being asked to be a keynote speaker at a climate conference in New York City last May.
And it was the first time I had ventured out into the public myself in a visible way, and I gave the keynote speech.
I expected a lot of trouble.
I didn't get any trouble.
Nobody objected.
Nobody asked any serious objective questions.
I was very pleased.
And there were two other people at the conference.
Who didn't say exactly the same thing, but clearly were on my side of the issue.
So there were three of us in the group of maybe 100 who felt the same way.
So these are fellow scientists mostly attending this conference?
Right.
So do you think that, can one be optimistic about the conclusions drawn from that?
Is it that there is a change in the scientific community or not?
Oh, very definitely.
Since that talk, I've had so many people approach me, and I've seen various publications.
There's a fellow who puts out a blog out of Germany whose name escapes me at the moment.
Oh, I think I know who you mean, yes.
Gosselin.
Yes, Pierre Gosselin, yeah.
He has put out information indicating that hundreds of papers came out in 2018 Now, declaring the sun as a more probable cause than carbon dioxide.
Without the proof, but nevertheless, papers that suggest that.
So, that's a big change.
And there are now people talking about the coming cooling, which maybe we'll get into in this discussion.
Well, yes.
I'm now going to ask you to do something very, very hard.
I'm going to ask you to explain in ways that all my listeners...
Actually, I've only got one listener who's called a special friend, or he or she is called a special friend.
But my special friend, who may not be acquainted with atmospheric physics, explain why it is that this theory, which has become the dominant theory of the environmental movement, that man-made CO2 is warming the climate on an unprecedented and catastrophic level.
How is it that all these scientists are wrong, and why should we trust you?
There are several ways to approach that answer.
One is how it got started, which is about in 1850 when the current modern warming started.
I think that got confused with the Industrial Revolution.
But let's not start there.
Let's start with the physical cause.
We now have a very solid physical cause of climate change, and it's based upon three functions.
Two of them that go on sort of constantly, and a third one we maybe will get to.
But the two functions are the solar magnetic field and cosmic rays.
First of all, the solar magnetic field is invisible.
Extremely powerful, thousands of times stronger than the Earth's magnetic field, and that's one factor.
The second factor, and it goes up and down in strength, the second factor is the impact of cosmic rays that infiltrate the atmosphere.
Cosmic rays are nothing more than stardust.
It's the protons from exploding stars.
And very large, massive stars have a relatively short lifetime and explode.
And when they explode, their protons and electrons go all over the universe.
So these cosmic rays are constantly coming through towards the Earth.
When the Sun's magnetic field is strong, rejects these cosmic rays.
They do not enter the Earth's atmosphere.
They're deflected away.
But when the Sun's magnetic field is weak, they come through all the way to the surface of the Earth, and these cosmic rays produce vast areas of low-level clouds which cool the planet.
And that's the main reason why we have warm periods and cold periods.
For example, the medieval warming that was several hundred years ago, then followed by the Little Ice Age, followed by our current modern warming.
Those are long periods.
Our current modern warming has been going since 1850, and the Sun is getting stronger and stronger.
Its magnetic field is being stronger.
So those are the two factors that cause the climate change and have nothing at all to do with carbon dioxide.
Right.
And so why is this stuff ignored by the anthropogenic global warming theorists, if it's so well known?
Well, it's not so well known because the magnetic field parts may have been out there for 50 years or so, but they're in this groove of getting funds for huge, bigger computer systems to run these massive climate models.
And they want their salaries to increase.
They don't want to change.
It's been a boondoggle.
It's been a wonderful gravy train for atmospheric scientists for 50 years now, since the mid-70s, late 70s.
So they don't want to hear the truth.
If they believe it, they don't want to divulge it.
Well, it's that Upton Sinclair quote, isn't it?
It's difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on his not understanding it.
Exactly.
Yes.
I know Henrik Svensmark, who's been one of the main proponents of cosmic ray theory.
He's been dismissed as a kind of an eccentric loon, hasn't he, by the mainstream...
However, he and Nigel Calder, a Brit, I think, produced a book called The Chilling Stars.
Wonderful book, and very successful, well-read, lays this whole situation out very beautifully, goes through his history of the fight he had to go through.
He's...
People now know that that theory is solid, and people have come to me looking at my paper and say, yeah, we agree with Svensmark.
You've brought his name up.
Yeah, he's good.
Good scientist.
So what's your insight in your book, which you're publishing shortly, The Rise and Fall of the Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climate Change?
What are you bringing to the party?
First of all, the book is published as an e-book right now.
The hardcover is available in a couple of weeks.
It's from Springer Press.
It's 176 pages, and it covers several important things.
One is the history of this debate, and it's dramatic at times, so it's an interesting subject in itself.
I've covered the Svensmark theory, why we do have the change.
I've covered what's happening in the future, which is very important.
We'll come to that, because that's nice and depressing, unless we do something to stop it.
But just going back, you're saying that the history is quite eventful, quite dramatic.
What were you thinking of?
Well, we have to go all the way back to 1896 when a Swedish scientist first came up with the idea that he thought carbon dioxide would cause the planet to warm.
Is this Svante Arrhenius?
Yes, Arrhenius.
Four years later, another scientist from Sweden came out and said, no, no, this is not the case.
There are reasons why it is not true.
And they were pretty solid reasons, and the theory dropped.
It was basically, it didn't come up again until much, much later.
I don't know if I should go into Margaret Thatcher's role or not.
Well, I think, yeah, you should mention Margaret Thatcher.
I mean, I've written about this as well, that she, yes, she hasn't been very helpful.
She wasn't very helpful to the cause of scientific challenge.
Yeah, she had her reasons to be against the coal industry back in the days of labor disputes, and she was against the high prices of Arab oil and wanted nuclear energy for the country.
And therefore, when somebody came up with this latest revival of the fossil fuel problem, she jumped on it and had put out money for people to prove that it was true that fossil fuel was a problem.
And everybody around the world jumped on that, and that's what started this.
And then the press got involved, and it's just growing and growing and growing, and that's part of the problem.
Well, yeah.
How does that strike you?
Are there any other historical examples, I wonder, of a kind of minority eccentric theory which has no solid scientific basis becoming the dominant thinking of the time despite the existence of much better, stronger theories?
I'm not sure this is the kind of answer you want to hear, but there's a historical precedent of people way back who thought the earth was flat.
And one particular scientist came up and tried to be excommunicated from his church because he thought the world was round.
And that took a while for people to get to the point that it was, in fact, round.
This is the same kind of thing that's happened now.
We've got a minority people, a couple of scientists, Winsmark and his friends, who have come up with a counter-theory, and that has been a struggle to overcome that, just like it was a struggle to overcome The problem to overcome the flat earth, round earth problem.
You were showing me some charts earlier on.
So you were giving me a run-through of your theories.
And what you were...
My computer's breaking down.
One of the points you made was that...
Carbon dioxide levels historically have risen as a result of warm temperatures, not the other way around.
Correct.
Yeah.
If we go back even further in history, The maximum carbon dioxide occurred a long time ago.
And when the Earth's tectonic activity was strongest, volcanoes were rampant.
What levels were we talking?
Because we've now got roughly, what, 400 parts per million of carbon dioxide, haven't we?
It was a factor of a thousand larger when that tectonic activity...
Then carbon dioxide slowly evolved, lower and lower values, went up and down through the years, and now we're to the point where it's only 400 parts per billion, roughly, a little bit more.
Right.
And that's near the lowest point in the Earth's history.
So we're in a carbon dioxide-starved period at the moment.
Yes.
Then there was a series of ice results from Antarctica.
Ice cores taken from various countries.
First the United States and then France and then the Soviet Union over different periods of time.
And they found in each case that the temperatures lead the carbon dioxide.
Right.
And you have to have a ice core that has proper resolution to see that.
Right.
In Al Gore's famous movie, he showed a figure of temperature and carbon dioxide from an ice core, but it was one of the very early ice cores, and the two curves were almost on top of each other.
Right.
He said, oh, this looks like a pretty good correlation to me.
Well, it was in that case, but the resolution of the ice core was not good enough.
When you get high resolution of the ice core, you can see the big difference between temperature and carbon dioxide.
And in every one of those scientific results, temperature led the carbon dioxide.
Yeah.
So it was a 420,000-year period of zero correlation of carbon dioxide and temperature.
Right.
And if they're not correlated, there can't be a cause.
They've got to both go up and both go down at the same time.
And so from every period of history we've looked at, from the four billion years of the Earth's atmosphere existing, there's no correlation.
The observations alone prove The concept that carbon dioxide is not a cause of the climate.
There has to be something else, and we now know that something else is from galactic space and our sun.
But so why are some of the people pushing hardest anthropogenic global warming theory?
People from organizations like the British Antarctic Survey...
These people who've been taking these ice cores samples, they tend to be the ones really, they're true believers in man-made climate change.
Yes.
So how can they look at the data, look at these ice cores, and draw completely different conclusions from the ones that you're drawing?
Because there's no scientific conclusions drawn from the pro-carbon dioxide causes of climate change.
It's all hearsay.
It's all based upon desires to...
Eliminate fossil fuel.
They think fossil fuel is a problem.
Fossil fuel is running out.
They're wrong in both cases.
Fossil fuel is not running out.
We've got 500 years supply for the world.
There's so much fossil fuel out there.
It's amazing.
Liquid natural gas is now being produced in many countries and being shipped to other countries who don't have liquid natural gas.
It's the cheapest fuel.
It's the most least controversial.
It's the cleanest fuel.
People just want to get rid of fossil fuel for several reasons.
One is entirely political.
I don't want to get into the subject of socialism, but they're pushing socialism again.
It's failed throughout history, but they're pushing it again.
And they're using a calamity as a measure to get people's attention.
So the climate is a good one to use because the media and scientists have wrongly Without any proof, assumed that this is the problem.
I can give you a reason why I think it all came up.
It all came up because of the Industrial Revolution, which is in around the same time period as this current modern Mormon started, which is 1850.
Industrial Revolutions, 1810, 1860, and at various phases of it.
That was a time of tremendous growth of carbon dioxide because of all the industry being formulated in new factories.
And the temperatures rose.
But they rose because of the Sun having a solar maximum due to the magnetic field being very strong and the cosmic rays were coming in.
And we have isotopes of beryllium and carbon-14 which match up that incoming cosmic rays very precisely.
So we've got absolute proof that the cause of the modern warming Is in fact due to the Sun's magnetic field and cosmic rays.
Nothing to do with carbon dioxide.
And we've got carbon dioxide measurements from that period onward, which keep rising, keep rising.
But even in the 20th century, after World War II, there was a period of time where it was a 35 year period, 1940 to 1975.
35 years of cooling within the modern warming.
CO2 kept going up, didn't show any difference, but solar records showed a difference.
And now we've got absolute proof in the 20th century, along with proof from all past history that CO2 is not a problem.
Right.
But do you think that we've reached the stage where it's so far gone, that so many vested interests depend on CO2 being a problem?
The renewables industry, for example, which wouldn't be viable without the subsidies they get from governments which believe that CO2 is a problem.
Do you think there's any chance that they're ever going to admit that they're wrong?
Well, you brought up an important point that the renewable energy people of wind and solar, they have a lot of money to make and are making it through government subsidies.
We would like to see fossil fuel go away.
They would make far more money.
But fossil fuel is cheaper.
So the only reason they're even popular is because government subsidies.
Well, it's the government who's involved here.
And it's the government who tax the hell out of fossil fuel.
That's why fossil fuel is so expensive here in England.
Petrol, unbelievable prices compared to the United States.
Yeah, yeah.
But so it's a hard thing to fight an industry, big industry like that.
It's hard to fight governments who want bigger governments and more taxes.
It's a difficult challenge, but I'm telling you, there are enough scientists now coming around.
And there's enough people out there who don't want to pay these costs for energy, who are going to come around to when the truth is out.
And the truth is coming out.
Maybe we have to produce a movie like Al Gore did, but eventually we're going to get it out with our articles, with our books.
There are over 20 books on Amazon.com right now that talk about the fallacy of carbon dioxide warming.
They don't have the proof that my book has.
They have some proof but not the entire proof that my book has.
But they're out there and they're talking about the fallacious lies that are put out by government, by media, and The truth is slowly, slowly coming up.
So what is the killer point in your book that takes on the argument to new levels?
I think, well, the three arguments, the two of them have been put out by other people.
One is the...
Cosmic rays and...
Well, one is the...
There is an alternative, but a factor that most people do write about in these previous books I mentioned on Amazon.com is that the past climates have been warm and cold and warm and cold with no changes in carbon dioxide.
Yeah.
How can that be a cause if there's no correlation?
So that's a big reason.
A second reason is another theory, which is the Fensmark theory of CO2 not being the cause, and cosmic rays and sun's magnetic field being the cause.
What I've brought new to the table is a detailed look at radiation.
Which you never see in the literature.
They never go that deeply in the articles that talk about this.
They never go that deeply into the day-to-day changes in radiation from forcing from carbon dioxide and what it actually looks like.
All they show is model results where they've jacked up the models with carbon dioxide increasing every year until they get a doubling.
That's why all these climate models are way too warm compared to reality.
And we've got proof of that all over the place.
But the proof never comes out in the detail, and that's what I've provided in my book.
I now have the detail on a day-to-day basis of how radiation interacts with our atmosphere and how the radiation intensity, although it is strong near the surface, It depletes as you go higher in the atmosphere, and it becomes non-existent, virtually non-existent, at 16 kilometers.
And at 16 kilometers, the only heat left from that initial heat is so trivial, and the absorption coefficients of carbon dioxide are so small that it gets radiated to space.
And that's what's happening to the heat, the leftover heat from the carbon dioxide.
Which is why there's no tropical hot spot, because it's not...
Correct.
There is nothing in the tropics.
There's been no tropical heating for the last 20 years, but the models all show it big time.
So are you saying, I'm just trying to understand it in a kind of layman's way, that anthropogenic warming theory has it that this CO2 gets trapped within the atmosphere and has a kind of potentially catastrophic heating effect.
Whereas you're saying, and that it accumulates, it gets trapped, it doesn't leak out.
Whereas what you're saying is that actually this radiation is being dispersed into the atmosphere.
And depleted.
Depleted.
And that's the difference between the hotness that they're predicting versus the reality we're observing.
Exactly.
Let me say a bit more about that surface heating.
It's been called greenhouse gases.
The atmosphere is not a greenhouse.
The greenhouse has a roof.
Our atmosphere has no roof.
But there is a thermal layer about a kilometer thick.
That exists due to water vapor and carbon dioxide.
They both absorb solar radiation.
And that solar radiation is turned into long-term, long-wave thermal radiation.
And that's what heats that lowest one kilometer.
That heat then, and by the way, water vapor It's five times as important as carbon dioxide in that lowest layer.
A factor of five.
Nevertheless, both sources of radiation decrease as you go up because radiation is given by the Planck function.
The intensity of radiation is driven by that Planck function created by Max Planck way back in 1900.
So that heat, which is strong at the surface, It keeps rising, and it's energy.
Energy is not created by carbon dioxide and water vapor, but it's absorbed by those two gases, and that absorption is then used to drive an engine.
It's driving the heat engine, it's driving the engine of the atmospheric circulation and the irrigation system of the planet.
So that radiation slowly depletes vertically with height, and when you get up to 16 kilometers, there's nothing left.
It's a trivial amount left and again the coefficients that absorb radiation and the coefficients that emit radiation are so small that radiation at 16 kilometers and the heat left over there is just radiated off to space.
Right.
I suddenly realised, I made a mistake in my description of CO2 theory, that it's not the CO2 that gets trapped, it's the CO2 that traps the heat.
But yeah, anyway, just correcting myself for posterity.
I see.
So...
This factor is not built into any of the, what was it, 21 models you said?
20 and some.
And so this ought to reshape our thinking about how climate works and the nature of the problem.
But why have they not spotted this then, all these supposed experts?
How come you've spotted it and they haven't?
The climate experts, let's talk about the modeling experts.
They're the ones who really drive it because they need supercomputers and we all like, as a mathematician myself, I would love to see a supercomputer in my home and do all kinds of fun things.
They're very expensive and it takes big bucks to buy a supercomputer these days.
So you've got one at home?
Pardon?
You've got a supercomputer at home?
No, I have a powerful laptop.
All right, okay.
I could tell you about my laptop in a minute.
These scientists need the money to get the computers.
They don't want to change what's been going now since the Iron Lady introduced this situation.
Yeah.
And so they keep grinding ahead, producing their forecasts, writing articles, but never ever have you seen the detail in those articles that I have in my book.
Right.
They just don't want to discover it, I don't think.
So...
Yesterday, I think it was.
I was in various email groups with climate scientists and, well, not climate scientists, proper scientists, you know, atmospheric physicists and stuff.
And they were expressing disappointment at the Trump administration appears to have been got at yet again by the swamp.
Because President Trump, you remember, was talking about having a red team, blue team discussion of the CO2 issue and getting scientists on both sides of the argument to thrash it out and to form a decision, form a verdict based on their blue team discussion of the CO2 issue and getting scientists on
And he's now decided to nix that, apparently because the GOP, the kind of the Washington conventional swamp that never wanted Trump to be in power anyway.
They've said, no, no, no, we can't be seen to be climate change deniers.
not when we're facing people like AOC, not when the entire Democrat Party is...
It's deciding its campaign slogan is going to be, you know, we're going to solve the planet's climate problems.
So I still worry that there's going to be just a sort of minority of us who are speaking the truth, whereas the clamour of the times is for more to be done, that, you know, this is a planetary emergency, as we're being told by David Attenborough and Greta Thunberg and others.
So how do we win this one?
Well, we need people like Trump to follow through with his original plan.
That plan is not dead.
I have been informed that this team has not been formed, and the international or even the national debate on the subject has not been brought to the forefront yet.
But I understand it's still being thought about.
And enough people want to be a part of it.
Judy Curry is somebody you probably...
Yeah, yeah.
She's a proponent of it, and many people are.
So I think it's going to slowly happen.
We do need to get an open, free discussion from scientists on both sides.
When that happens, the people in my group, the deniers, quote deniers, we have so much evidence.
We will easily defeat the people on the other side.
They bring nothing to the table of scientific proof.
All they have is hearsay.
All they have is media coverage.
All they have is government people saying it's true.
They say it's true, but they have no proof that it's true.
We have, on the other hand, proof that the opposite is true.
So we will win that debate if it ever gets out there.
Nobody wants it because of the political reasons, but it's going to eventually get out.
We just have to keep working on it.
People like you and I got to keep pushing it.
We have a lot of followers.
There's more all the time.
We've seen already a tremendous change in the past two years, the number of scientific papers coming out on the solar side versus anthropogenic side.
So there's encouraging news happening.
Yeah.
Well, except, of course, the unencouraging news is that, by your theory, we're approaching a new solar minimum, which is going to hit a sort of… Oh, that's right.
You said it moves the solar minima come in what?
How many year cycles?
350 years?
350-year cycle.
But it's coming due… From the coldest period of the Little Ice Age, where millions of people died of starvation, it was so cold, and especially here in England, many problems.
From that point, 1680, you add 350 years to that, and you get 2030.
It's 11 years from now when there'll be a rather substantial solar minimum.
Solar minimum being, again, not the insulation of the sun, but the magnetic field of the sun.
Minimal activity.
This is probably going to be the single biggest reason we'll get a change.
Of policy is when it starts getting colder.
And it's going to get colder.
How much colder, we don't know.
Again, just as the atmosphere is chaotic, climate is chaotic, there are no exact answers ever, but there are approximate answers.
And so plus or minus five years from 2030, there's going to be the solar minimum, which is going to expose itself to the point where temperature is going to start getting colder.
And when it gets colder, there's going to be less food production.
There were a billion people on the planet back in the Middle East age times.
And in 2030, there's going to be greater than 8 billion people on the planet.
How are we going to feed that many people if we have any kind of a famine?
Well, it's going to take an enormous amount of planning, and that planning is going to have to start fairly soon.
And I think it will when this word gets out, when my book and other books come out.
There'll be other followers.
And there are other people with other theories that also disagree with the man-made cause.
So it'll all get out, and eventually we'll see some changes in the real atmosphere, in the real climate, and then they'll have to realize they've been wrong all along, and then we've got a serious situation at hand.
Well, may I make a suggestion that obviously these people will want to make amends for their wrong-headed theories, which would cause so much damage.
So I'm sure they will want to volunteer to provide food for the starving poor.
I think the first people to go to be fed to the starving masses should be all your former NOAA colleagues, perhaps, the ones who've been pushing this nonsense.
Have you ever had this?
I get this.
Somebody actually emailed me the other day from Canada claiming to be an environmental lawyer.
And he suggested that one day people like me are going to be tried at The Hague for, what was it, ecocide or something?
That by denying climate change, man-made climate change, I'm somehow contributing to terrible things.
Well, he's exaggerating, of course.
I would love to see this get into the courts.
It's already been defeated some years ago in England.
Al Gore's movie was a farce with many errors in it.
And it was brought to court and the deniers won that case.
And they had to back off producing that movie and sending it around to the UK schools.
That's one example.
I would like to see more of that, actually, because in every case, the scientific...
You can argue about rumors, but you can't argue about scientific facts.
We have the scientific facts on our side.
There are zero scientific facts on the other side.
And so that's going to really help.
Now, but the real question is, how do we accelerate that?
We do need people like President Trump and other world leaders...
Admitting to this fact and deciding to do something about it and try to change things.
But it won't be easy, but I think it's going to happen, and the weather itself will make it happen.
Well, yeah, one final question.
You are not in the first flush of youth.
Have you taught people, do you see any, because one of my worries is that all the people in academe, they've bought into this whole climate change scare theory, and they are teaching PhD students the same rubbish, and those PhD students will presumably be one day teaching other people.
Do you get any sense that the kind of younger generation of PhD students and scientists are wising up?
Actually, it's worse than that because the pro-carbon dioxide cause of climate are pushing this in the high schools and grade schools.
Younger kids are being scared to death of the future based upon this false catastrophic theory.
Another thing we have going for our side, though, is they've been pushing this thing for a long time, and they've been saying, oh, it's going to be horrible in 10 years.
Twenty years ago they said that.
It hasn't been horrible.
Nothing has changed.
There's been no catastrophes.
The storms we have are natural weather variability.
They're not due to climate.
It's just natural weather.
In warm periods and cold periods, we have storms.
We have droughts.
We have floods.
We have hurricanes.
We have tornadoes.
They all happen warm or cold.
But the dramatic things, like Al Gore talked about in the future...
It never happened.
Jim Hansen of NASA said some crazy things way back about what warming's going to be.
And your Max Ridley...
Matt Ridley, yeah.
Matt Ridley, he has called that out in one of his presentations, that how wrong he was.
And they keep making these claims, they never come true.
They've got...
There's not been one claim that's ever come true.
So we have that going for us.
So eventually the truth comes out.
I'm optimistic.
I just hope I'm alive long enough to see it.
Yeah, well, yes, so do I. Good.
Well, just a reminder, your book is called The Rise and Fall of the Carbon Doxide Theory of Climate Change by Dr.
Rex Fleming.
Well, Rex, it's been a pleasure meeting you, and I do hope that we get rewarded by people joining our side one day.
Well, thank you.
I've enjoyed meeting you, and I really enjoyed your book.
You've got several, but the one called The Little Green Book of Eco-Fascism.
Oh, yes.
You've got wonderful quotes in here.
They're very clever and very convincing, and I've used two of them in my book, and I've quoted you exactly, so you're in the...
Another reason for reading your book.
Excellent.
Okay.
Thank you very much, and goodbye.
I love Danny Paul.
I listen another time.
Subscribe with me.
I love Danny Paul.
Go and subscribe to the podcast, baby.
I love Danny Paul.
I listen another time.
▲
Export Selection