Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Jan. 4, 2023 - Jim Fetzer

01:40:30

Real Deal Principia Scientific Special (3 January 2023) with John O'Sullivan and Joe Olson

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	This is Jim Fetzer, your host for A Real Deal Special, where I'm simply delighted today to be interviewing the co-founders of Principia Scientific International, which has come on the scene like gangbusters, has published a huge number of articles of scientific significance that impact contemporary political debate.
	Joe Olson is here with me and John O'Sullivan.
	John, let me introduce you first.
	Please tell us a bit about Principia Scientific and how you and Joe came up with such a brilliant idea.
	Yeah, thank you, Jim.
	It's a real pleasure to be with you.
	Yeah, Joe Olson and I first came across PASS in about 2009-2010.
	We were both independently working to expose the climate fraud We were among a small group of international analysts who found that there was anomalies in the so-called cornerstone of climate theory, the greenhouse gas theory.
	And most of my friends and associates at the time were either applied scientists or engineers and either retired academics.
	And they took the view that the game was rigged and that the science used to support the Reduction in CO2 was a fudge, it was a fudge, a fudge factor.
	And a lot of the guys said that there's not enough empirical evidence to back up these claims.
	And all coming from very different backgrounds, we wanted something unique to offer.
	So we decided that we'd form a team and write a book.
	We co-authored, about eight of us, roughly eight, maybe 10 or 12 all together.
	And the book was, we called it Slaying the Sky Dragon, Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory, and I was very, very honoured that Joe Olsen joined us.
	Joe Olsen was doing good work, writing for other outlets, and loved his style of writing.
	He kind of covered the bases very well, both on the political side, he saw the corruption on the political side, he saw the science and engineering uniquely placed Criticized a false paradigm.
	The way that thermodynamics was excluded was quite shocking and a lot of the guys I spoke to at the time were saying that it's very much a cherry-picking exercise using computer models.
	My background, Jim, was in education.
	I worked as a school teacher for 20 years and I've been peddling this nonsense.
	In my classes.
	And over the years, year by year, I realized it wasn't substantiated by any hard evidence.
	And lo and behold, when I went online to verify some independent sources, you know, I found good people like Joe Olson, who were not invested in any way.
	They weren't invested, Jim.
	And they were very open and honest and forthright and not afraid to pull the punches.
	And we thought, what a wonderful idea.
	Write the book.
	And we wrote the book.
	We found a publisher, a very helpful publisher, two publishers actually, one in England and one in the US.
	And we were fortunate to get the book out.
	And we caused a lot of a lot of debates, Jim.
	And we were the outcast.
	We were the outcast because we were daring to suggest that CO2 not only caused no warming, but could possibly be a benefit to the climate.
	And we were arguing, one of our colleagues was Dr. Pierre Latour, The leading expert in CO2 science working for DuPont.
	And he argued there are at least three ways, maybe four ways that CO2 actually cools the planet.
	And none of this was factored into the climate models.
	And we were very surprised to find nobody really wanted to have an open debate.
	We wanted to be educated.
	We wanted to know about these hidden circulation models, GCMs, the general circulation models.
	General climate models were rigged, Jim.
	They were rigged with algorithms that we decided we weren't having access to it.
	And we thought the whole thing is based on secret science.
	And to me, I come from a background, my American life, was involved in corruption against the New York government.
	And again, there was secrecy there.
	And when I see secrecy, Jim, I smell a rat.
	And I think we were right.
	We were pressing for years for disclosure.
	And in the UK at the very same time, in 2009, there was a big investigation.
	Well, freedom of information law is very similar in the UK as the US.
	And my colleagues in the UK filed a freedom of information request to the chief climate research institute in the UK, which is the University of East Anglia, CRU Climate Research Unit.
	And the guy who ran that at the time was Professor Phil Jones.
	And time after time, when Phil Jones was receiving requests to share his data, which a lot of it was public data, Jim, from net offices from around the world, net stations from around the world, mostly Stevenson screen records, as you know, Stevenson screen records.
	Stevenson screen records go back 150, 180 years.
	Very, very patchy.
	But, you know, again, it's the best we have.
	For some reason, this guy wouldn't share with us the data, this independent data.
	It got to such a point that he actually broke the law.
	He actually broke the law.
	The statute of limitations in the UK for a denial of freedom of information request is six months.
	And because my colleagues and other people waited beyond six months, not being really legally savvy, he was on the hook.
	The independent commissioner's office that oversees this, the authority that oversees this, refused to take legal action.
	They got away with it, Jim, and they got away with it.
	Every step of the way, we've always said it boils down to sharing the data.
	And we decided then that what we had to do was form a new organization, Jim, Principia Scientific International.
	And we decided that the point of PSI, Principia Scientific, was to extol the traditional scientific method, to try and convey the need to be transparent, to use a scientific method to share data, And to actually refute a theory, you should truly be a sceptic.
	The true nature of scientists is to be sceptical of their own ideas and to test it.
	And these climate scientists, Jim, were not testing their theory.
	They weren't prepared to, they were guarding it with great care.
	And power review, one of the terms we call power review, because the peer review system, as you probably know, is rigged in favour of establishment diggers.
	We, as independent scientists, could not get our work published to independent journals, so-called independent journals.
	And we found a lot of these journals were owned and managed by the same authorities, the same people.
	So PSI became an independent body.
	We published quality papers.
	We peer-reviewed openly under a system called PROM, which we acronym for Peer Review of Open Media.
	Joe, myself and others, we took it upon ourselves to read through papers submitted to us and we would post them on our website and openly invite people to read them and offer open, informed comments.
	And that was our way of providing an antidote to the corrupt peer-review system.
	Thankfully, we've done very well.
	We went from perhaps 20 or 30 people Within a year or two, we're in the hundreds, and over the years, in the thousands, and the last time we checked, we had over 7,000 subscribers.
	People who follow our website, read our articles, it's in the millions!
	Effectively, we reach millions of students.
	And, as Joe will tell you, we were invited to work for TNT Radio.
	We're very honoured to have worked for TNT Radio.
	We still work for TNT Radio.
	And it's all about networking.
	And yourself, you're part of that team.
	We are effectively all part of the truth movement.
	And if you're part of the truth movement, you kind of instinctively know that our enemy is secrecy and the hidden agenda of governments and corrupt corporations.
	And I think there's a lot of overlap between all of us.
	And the academia, the academics, they're the ones I think that are too invested in this.
	And we're seeing it with the pandemic, aren't we?
	We're seeing it with Selected elites, so-called experts.
	And no longer do we refer to the scientific method, but we refer to experts.
	Trust the experts.
	And the term trust of science really means trust the chosen experts.
	And we reject that, Jim, as you do.
	John, that's just a wonderful statement.
	I'm very favorably impressed.
	I'm a philosopher of science myself.
	I publish extensively on scientific reasoning, scientific explanations, theoretical foundations of scientific knowledge, and I like the spirit of exactly what you're saying.
	There's a great niche that needs to be filled that you are filling.
	I'm very impressed.
	Joe, your thoughts?
	I'm just delighted with John's introduction.
	Oh yes, and there's a whole lot more we can carry on with that.
	I had decided when Obama was running for office and then got elected, he was going to pass his carbon credit tax, that there was something totally wrong with the climate science.
	And I'd taken two semesters of thermodynamics back in the 70s, And prerequisites for that are four semesters of chemistry, two semesters of physics, three semesters of calculus, and then a special course called numerical methods, which is math that is required for engineers prior to taking your two semesters of thermodynamics.
	So I already knew from that and from a lifetime experience doing air conditioning loads for buildings exactly how the various portions of the atmosphere work, including latent heat transfer, radiant energy, thermodynamics, so I was very well aware of that.
	I knew that what they were telling us was wrong, and I studied it off and on for years, but I finally got motivated to do something, and I started writing to newspapers, and nobody would publish anything.
	They'd go, well, your stuff is too technical.
	And I said, look, I can't dumb it down lower than a GED high school equivalent exam, so I've got to use some technical terms.
	And finally, I got posted at InfoWars April of 2009.
	And after that, I got posted along with John at Climate Realist, Climate Depot, Canada Free Press had 60 of my articles, and I had those up before we started writing the book.
	And so I already had a pretty good exposure and I covered a wide range of things, including not just global warming, but also green energy, peak oil and Big Bang, which were other things that I have problems with traditional science.
	It's not just the secrecy, it's the secrecy used to cover up the lies.
	And so we are being lied to about virtually everything involving science and history, which are two things that really offend me.
	And in the process of lying about those two things, they're able to create a complete false narrative reality and then direct you to their false narrative end goal, which is, you know, one world government and you will own nothing and be happy.
	And none of us are in the position, you know.
	In our lives where we want to own nothing and we're not going to be happy eating bugs.
	So that's how we got motivated there.
	And we've had some tremendous articles that are posted in our prom review, including two that I highly recommend from Dr. Nasif Nahal from University of Monterey, and then two that have been posted by Dr.
	Arthur Vitturo, who is a geography professor from University of Maryland on geothermal forcing, and we might get into a little bit more detail on that as we go through this hour, but That's basically how John and I got started.
	And I want to say, first of all, this is a real treat because John and I have had phone conversations back in 2009 and 10 as we were getting the book started and we were getting the PSI started.
	And we've only had, what, John, one other video Zoom where we could actually see each other and talk at the same time?
	Yeah, that's the truth, Joe.
	I mean, it's incredible how yourself and I and others They've formed a very, very strong bond over many years, mainly men who have either retired from applied science and so forth, who mature, I mean, many, many years in life experience, a lot of life experience, and also very diverse.
	You know, many of us, you know, if you recall, our first publisher in the UK was a vicar, you know, man of the cloth, you know, and it was a case of, How did we come together?
	It's by chance, but it's the magic of the internet.
	And I think the absolute passion that we felt that we were being lied to, that instinctively we knew that the narrative was full of holes.
	And whenever you corner anybody who supports the narrative, it doesn't take long to unpick the fact that they're repeating tropes that don't have any substance.
	And one of the obvious ones is the trapping of heat, Joe, the trapping of heat, so-called CO2 trapped heat.
	And yourself and others, especially those in industry, they knew CO2 was a cooler gas.
	Quite the opposite, you know, it only holds a molecule momentarily of heat, you know, it soon exposes the heat.
	So if anything, it's the absolute opposite of what they say.
	And we called it magic gas, didn't we Joe?
	We decided it must be magic gas because only in the computer models did suddenly that CO2 acquire the ability to trap heat.
	And as you know, we spent many years Looking, for example, at an industry that people have used CO2 for cooling.
	CO2 is used in refrigeration.
	CO2 is currently used by Mercedes-Benz in their cars for air conditioning.
	And they wouldn't be doing that if it wasn't highly efficient at transferring heat from a warm source to a cooler source.
	It's all about the heat flow.
	And I picked up on very early on that People would just buy into soundbites, the soundbite, the greenhouse itself, the greenhouse theory, greenhouse gases.
	Joe Posner, again, did wonderful work, posting with us wonderful papers, exposing the fact that greenhouses do not operate the way they convey it in the theory.
	Greenhouses simply block convection.
	And, you know, worse yet, the whole point of CO2 greenhouses is to encourage plant growth.
	You know, again, other colleagues of us pointed out that 20%, well, 20 times, sorry, 20 times greater, up to 20 times greater CO2 in greenhouses, horticulturists are pumping it in, increasing plant growth, it's plant food.
	And a lot of people would never even grasp that basic fact.
	And this was where Pierre Latour was very effective, because he said, climate models don't factor in the idea that by absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere.
	The plants then emit oxygen.
	And the fact is that we've had far higher levels of CO2 throughout history.
	We're incredibly low historically, geologically.
	In geologic terms, we're extremely low, almost dangerously low.
	Because we're not far above the point, I think it's about 250 parts per million, where life becomes unsustainable.
	So going down to 400 parts per That's a drop in the ocean, though.
	We want more CO2.
	We're kind of vilified for even suggesting that.
	But that's what replicates, isn't it, Joe?
	People who think that it's a catastrophe looming.
	And yet, our view is the planet and ecosystem is very robust.
	It's withstood far higher temperatures, far greater disparities in constituent chemicals in the atmosphere.
	You know, we've gone through epochs where volcanic activity was far greater.
	Life would be unsustainable as we know it, you know, but yet what happens is life perpetuates itself.
	It grows and we should bless ourselves that we live on such a robust ecosystem.
	Whatever we throw at it, nature seems to cope with it very well.
	And you know yourself with the oil spills.
	I've seen oil spills and people have said, oh, awful oil spills, and yet nature deals with it.
	You know, there are microbes that love oil, eat it, consume it.
	It's like tar pits, Joe, you know, tar pits and so on, where we find fossils.
	These are not unnatural elements in life, they're very natural.
	And our job as humans is to adapt and use them as best we can.
	You know, I'm a great believer like you, Joe.
	I mean, we evolve as a species to exploit natural resources.
	And the more civilized we become, the wealthier we become, The more we are careful about how we manage the environment.
	And that's true if you look at first world countries compared to third world countries, where we are very, very meticulous at processing waste.
	And we find a use for waste, don't we, Joe?
	Capitalism is very good at finding uses for waste.
	You know, we don't like to waste anything.
	And that's why I think we naturally have the ability to cope with so-called problems like these.
	And, you know, I'm all for ingenuity.
	Malthusians, our real enemy are Malthusians.
	At the time of Thomas Malthus, he said, we are not adaptive.
	But it's quite obvious that we're very, very, very adaptive as a species.
	Well, this is just wonderful.
	And you've been doing so much good work.
	It seems to me the area where perhaps most pressingly you've been making contributions has to do with the myth of global warming, green energy, and the whole bit.
	And the failure to appreciate that oil is naturally produced by Earth and that carbon dioxide cools the Earth in four different directions, dimensions that is indispensable to life.
	Joe, perhaps you'd like to elaborate on those themes, which seem to me to be so vital for the world to understand.
	Because we're being played massively on the basis of pseudoscience, claims that are demonstrably refutable on the basis of principles of thermodynamics, for example, as you yourself have taken courses.
	Please elaborate.
	Yes, thermal energy is a force multiplier for all of civilization.
	Back when we had horse-drawn agriculture, it took one-third of your agricultural area to provide the forage for your draft animals.
	So your horses and your oxen and your mules required you to grow an extra one-third in order to be able to produce enough food just to keep your draft animals going.
	And so when we had internal combustion engines,
	And Henry Ford was a principal for both tractors and trucks and cars, and so then farmers had the ability to be able to grow a small amount of area and produce alcohol that they could use to operate their low-compression engines in their tractors and in their Model Ts, and it extended their market range from the 12-mile radius that you had between small towns in agricultural America
	to 25 miles because it was very easy to load up the truck with a bunch of produce and go into town and trade your produce for goods and then come back and you could make both of them operate really well.
	Alcohol is not an ideal internal combustion engine, but it It was at that particular time with the engines that they had at that particular time, but it's still not a a thermally efficient method of doing things.
	And so the other factors are you had the sustainable energy factor.
	Yeah, the carbon is warming the planet vector, so you can't use any thermal carbon energy, and then the sustainable energy hoax, and then the fact that oil is actually an abiogenic product from Earth's fission.
	Now, on the sustainable energy thing, I was always curious how a photocell worked, and so I I went online back 10 years ago, 12 years ago, when you could actually find things online, and I couldn't find a single paper about how an actual photocell worked.
	So I went to the basic chemistry involved in it and the physics, and I realized that what they were doing is you take a 95 percent pure silicon crystal grid, which you there's a great movie by Michael Moore called The Planet of the Humans, which is a 90 minute long documentary.
	They're blowing out this giant quartz mountain in South Carolina, shipping it over to China, where they crush it and refine it, bake it in a vacuum oven at 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit, like 1,200 degrees centigrade, under a vacuum in order to create this silicon structure that you use as a sub-base, and it's a crystalline structure.
	Then you wash out the impurities, and then you embed it with phosphorus, which has three outer shell electrons, and boron, which has five outer shell electrons.
	When boron is exposed to gradient energy from the Sun, it releases one of its electrons, which moves across the grid in the photocell and leaves as a 1.5 watts per square foot, 1.5 volt direct current.
	It doesn't go out and work all day and then come back to the photocell.
	It's gone.
	What you're doing is molecular erosion.
	It's just a slow motion battery and there's no way that you can produce enough energy with photocells to even create the photocells.
	My estimate is that it's about a 10 times amount of energy net loss to produce photo cells.
	So that's one thing.
	They're going to sell you these trinkets and say, this is what you need to save the planet.
	Meanwhile, it's just like the batteries for your EVs.
	It's just like the rare earth metals and all the materials that it takes to make windmills work.
	It's just like The ethanol that it takes to put in your automobile takes 100,000 BTUs per gallon to manufacture.
	It has 80,000 BTUs per gallon as a fuel source, and you add it to 110,000 BTU per gallon gasoline to reduce your gas mileage and ruin your engine.
	There's nothing sustainable about any of these sustainable green products.
	And then I'd written an article in Canada Free Press called Green Prince of Darkness Back in 2010, and then I updated it and put it at Principia Scientific with these additional factors.
	It's called Green Prints of Darkness Exposed at Principia Scientific.
	And then I also wrote an article on Fossil Fuel is Nuclear Waste at Canada Free Press back in September of 2010, at the same time that we were writing the Slaying the Sky Dragon book.
	That had 11,000 cross-links in one day, and Canada Free Press had a translation bar beside their columns where you could do auto-translate, and it would do about 95% accurate translation.
	Somebody that was a native speaker could go through and massage the grammatics and make it more palatable, but at least it was understandable.
	I was in 25 foreign languages in less than one day.
	That was the power of the Internet.
	And that's the power of truth, because truth is self-resonating.
	There again, I've written several articles.
	The Green Prince of Darkness is posted at Principia, but also I wrote one when I was getting ready to do my fifth interview with Coast to Coast Radio back in March 2021, and that one's called From Muscle Power to Carbon Empowerment, and it goes through all of the The physics and chemistry and geology that is involved in manufacturing hydrocarbons and they exist throughout the universe.
	And so that's just basically what I've tried to do is to take 50 years of college professor-level self-education in a wide range of subjects and try to integrate into a pattern recognition where I can translate it to laymen and they can go, oh, okay, now I understand what they're lying to us about because I can see what the truth is.
	Yeah, Jim, just to jump in and add to what Joe says there.
	Yes, yes, John, please, please.
	Joe presents it from a very, very technical point of view, very thorough, very rigorous in his analysis, as my colleagues are.
	But the other thing we ask is that let's flip it around a bit and say to these global alarmists, global warming alarmists, two key questions, Jim.
	First of all, what is the ideal temperature of the Earth?
	And what is the ideal amount of CO2 that should be in the atmosphere?
	They can't ask that question, Jim, because it always varies in nature.
	And the point being is by their own calculations, by their own methodology, they seem to want something fixed in stone.
	And that is not how nature operates.
	I mean, we look at graphs, geological time scales are very important here.
	And we see the up and down constant in and out of ice ages.
	You know, currently we're in the middle of a cooling We're headed to another ice age.
	It's imminent and we talk in terms of thousands of years and yet the climate alarmists want to talk in terms of hundreds of years and that's the flaw Jim because if you're looking too closely you're not seeing the bigger picture.
	The bigger picture here is that we live in a non-linear chaotic system and that term non-linear chaotic system is precisely how we should identify and debate the climate because unless you look How far apart we are in terms of what is natural variability.
	I think we know, we all agree.
	Alarmists, skeptics, luminaries alike, we all agree.
	We're talking about a change in temperature of about one degree Celsius.
	Now one degree Celsius, over a hundred years or so, really is well within natural variation.
	And the margin of error of the noise in terms of poor measurements, again, is about one degree itself.
	You know, you cannot measure temperature any finer than that.
	There aren't the Stevenson screens we referred to earlier.
	Stevenson screens are located all around the world.
	There's got to be an allowance made for human error as well.
	And human error, Jim, is a key factor here because, you know, if you cherry pick and only look at what data that indicates warming, you overlook data that shows cooling.
	And if some place on the planet is warming, By and large, you'll find somewhere else cooling.
	And that's what we saw, you know, at the moment, America, North America suffered a very, very stark period of very bitter cold weather.
	Conversely, here in Europe, we've had quite a mild period.
	And within the system itself, there are fluctuations.
	And Joe, you backed me up on this.
	You might see a very poor summer in southern Antipodes and a mild winter in the north.
	But the point is that within the system itself, nobody disagrees.
	Solar energy, solar input varies very, very little.
	And the very fact that you've got people like Bill Gates and even Joe Biden now, is proposing that we try and block the sun, limit the amount of solar radiation entering the system, betrays the fact that these people know that their greenhouse gas theory, the suggestion that CO2 in the atmosphere, within the atmospheres, is a lie, because the true controller of our climate is solar input.
	The sun itself is the driver.
	We talk about Milankovitch cycles, we became very aware of the fact that there are Measurable cycles known for literally thousands of years.
	You know, the ancient civilizations that have risen and died.
	It's becoming more apparent to historians that a lot of these ancient civilizations that arose and then died were heavily impacted by famine, which directly correlates to solar minimum.
	And we know about the medieval war period.
	We know, we've talked about that.
	My colleague, Dr. Thimble, who was the main author of our first respected Canadian skeptic climatologist whose PhD was in climate.
	He studied climate at PhD level.
	He made a very strong argument that we could just as easily be in a warming period or a cooling period because in the mid-1970s when my colleague Tim Ball was more active, I mean he worked as a meteorologist, I think, I believe he worked in the military and aviation, The issue then was global cooling.
	And the so-called greenhouse gas theory, CO2, is then attributed to global cooling.
	Within a very few years, because the temperatures being measured weren't cooperating with that narrative, they flipped it.
	So CO2 then became associated with global warming.
	And James Hansen, who was the head honcho at NASA, who made his key speech, key presentation before Congress, Back in 1988, his whole argument, when he was a poor, was that it was particulates in the atmosphere that were affecting the climate.
	And yet, when he saw the opportunity to link CO2 to warming, he then jumped onto the CO2 warming thing.
	And conveniently enough, at that time, we had an El Nino in 1998 that was very, very powerful.
	Temperatures at that time were very, very high.
	I do believe that they've not been as high since.
	And we could argue, quite rightly, that since 1998, Jim, we've had no global warming.
	And that is a statistical fact.
	And Joe Olson, I'm sure you'd like to back me up on that.
	We don't see any evidence.
	There's nobody alive today, there's no 18-year-old or 20-year-old today who's actually seen global warming.
	Joe?
	Yes, well...
	Temperature is cyclic, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the amount of carbon dioxide in the air.
	This is a graph that's available online.
	If you just go to global temperatures, 2500 BC to 2040 AD, this is prepared by climatologist Cliff Harris and meteorologist Randy Mann, and this shows warming period.
	This is the Mioan, the Grecian, and the middle medieval warming periods, and then these are the cooling periods that are interspersed with those.
	And this is the Grecian, although it had the Roman warming, this is the Grecian cooling period, the Dark Ages cooling period, and the Little Ice Age.
	During the Little Ice Age, the river Thames froze solid six feet thick.
	They had ice parades in the middle of winter where you could take elephant rides on the Thames.
	We didn't put carbon dioxide in the air to make it cooler or hotter.
	These are our functions of astronomy and also of geology because we have a variable internal fission heat coming in.
	So this is something that anybody can pull up on their own and they can review this particular graph and verify that things and the archaeological evidence for this is that during the My own warming period Vikings occupied Greenland and they called it Greenland because it was green.
	They built stone dairy barns big enough to hold 50 cows and then during the Grecian cooling period they left and then they came back during the Roman warming period, then they left during the Dark Age cooling period, and then they came back during the medieval warming period.
	And we know that that's a fact because the earth accumulates about six inches of atmospheric and volcanic dust every century.
	And so archaeological layers are always set down in layers.
	And over the course of 4,000 years, the Vikings had changes in metallurgy, they had changes in their written language, they had changes in their jewelry.
	And so you had all of these different things that were buried in architectural, I mean, archaeological layers, where you could go back and say, well, the Vikings lived here, then they didn't live here.
	And then they came back and they lived here and they didn't live here.
	And when the archaeological record matches the temperature record, you're left with the question of who you're going to believe, 10,000 dead Vikings or a bunch of overpaid climate clonologists?
	It's absolutely a joke.
	And we've been pestering these people forever to give us an energy balance.
	This is what's actually happening in the atmosphere.
	The black line at the top of this curve is called the Planck's curve.
	That's based on the temperature of the Sun at about 5500 degrees Kelvin.
	The yellow is what's absorbed in the atmosphere and never warms the surface of the planet.
	The orange, if you take the integral of that, is the amount of heat which does hit the surface of the planet.
	This is called TOA, top of the atmosphere, and this is called total insulation.
	So 30% of the energy coming from the sun every day never warms the planet because the atmosphere catches it.
	Uh, and does what's called stoke shift on everything where it has an emission or it reflects it because of the water vapor and clouds and in the process of reflecting the sunlight, it picks up a little bit of heat energy with the water molecules.
	And there again, it's a cooling cycle.
	When was the last time a cloud got between you and the sun and you got warmer?
	When was the last time a cloud got over you and dropped hot rain, hot sleet, hot hail, or hot snow?
	Water vapor is a coolant, and it's 2,274 kilojoules per kilogram for latent heat of vaporization, and 331 kilograms, I mean, Yeah, kilojoules per kilogram for latent heat of solidification when it goes from liquid to solid in the form of ice or snow.
	So that's what's happening in the atmosphere, and we've been pestering these people, give us an energy balance!
	So they got two clowns named Keel and Trendberth, and you can look this up, Global Energy Flows, And the Kiel trend birth chart shows that they've got 341 watts per square meter coming in at the top of the atmosphere.
	And out of that, 161 is what they claim makes it to the surface of the planet.
	But then, lo and behold, you've got magic gas, which is what we call the supposedly warming gases.
	And those are sending 333 watts per square meter back to the surface of the earth.
	So do you really think the atmosphere is sending almost the same amount of energy to the surface of the earth as the sun is?
	If you do, you need to do some basic physics because This Kiel trend birth chart is a complete joke.
	And one of the things that Joe Postma makes a big point about is this incomer soaring radiation of 341.
	It's actually four times larger than that, but to do an integral on a sphere is more complicated mathematics than the climate cloudologists or meteorologists are capable of doing.
	So what they did is they just said, well, we'll take the the silhouette of the Earth, and then we know what that is, and we'll divide that by four, and that will give us, instead of the 1,000 watts per square meter that's coming in at the top of the atmosphere, that'll give us 340 watts per square meter.
	So there again, they use a flat Earth model because it's too difficult to do the integrals for the surface of the sphere.
	Yeah, again, just to back you up, Joe, what you're saying, again, I always like to refer to a more simple explanation for those who find it hard to follow the numbers, and one of the things I like is referring to work that my colleague and yours,
	good friend, Alan Siddons, who co-authored The Sky Dragon good friend, Alan Siddons, who co-authored The Sky Dragon Slang, but Alan Siddons unearthed a fantastic paper, a study done back in 1989, the year after James Hansen and so-called greenhouse gas theory experts proposed that CO2 trapped it, And the study was done at The Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory in 1989 and they tested the use of CO2 as a heat trapping gas in double glazing.
	They wanted to see if there could be a lot of money made by applying this heat trapping property of CO2 commercially.
	And lo and behold, they used all these so-called greenhouse gases, amongst them CO2, but also SF6, NH3 and N2O.
	They tested each one individually, separately, and they actually found, and I'll try and find the actual quote, the conclusion was that the effect of the infrared radiation properties of CO2 is unnoticeable.
	So, you know, the whole argument is that CO2 has an infrared heat-trapping property.
	Well, they found it to be unnoticeable, and that's in the laboratory, and that's trying to find a commercial use, trying to find a commercial use for this magic gas that we are told warms the planet by 33 degrees.
	And that's a key number, Joe, isn't it?
	33 degrees is a hell of a lot of warming.
	33 degrees, is that a coincidence?
	That's the magic number from the Masonic point of view.
	33 degrees?
	You've got to be kidding me.
	33 degrees, Jim.
	Yeah.
	We like to throw around Masonic numbers, but there you have it, right there.
	What a coincidence.
	And Joe, when you were talking about the use of the cumulated CO2 to increase the heating of Earth, I mean, that's just hocus pocus.
	I mean, what nonsense?
	Yeah, okay, so this is to expand a little bit further on the radiation effects in the atmosphere, okay?
	Everything with a temperature above zero degrees Kelvin emits electromagnetic radiation, so distant dust in the galaxy that has no star nearby radiates at 2.7, which is the cosmic background radiation.
	A human being at 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit, and I don't know what the exact conversion is for a centigrade, but 30 degrees centigrade, 32, something like that.
	That you emit in the 10 micron range, but you cannot take, and this is the point that Alan Siddons made in our book, you cannot take your own radiant energy, reflect it back to yourself, and raise your body temperature.
	And you can reflect radiant energy with a mirror or with a polished metal surface somewhat effectively, which is how infrared heaters work, But, you cannot increase the temperature of a body with the heat that's coming off the body because any thermal transfer is always a vector from a higher heat to a lower heat.
	Now, getting back to what's happening in the atmosphere, here again we have the Planck's Curve at 5500 degrees.
	Here we have the 70% that's coming into the surface of the Earth.
	This is radiation transmission in the atmosphere by the individual molecules that are in the atmosphere.
	Now, they show what's called outgoing long-wave radiation, which is the heat that the Earth picks up during the day from the Sun that is then radiated as that same radiant energy back into outer space.
	But there's two interesting things about this particular graph.
	One is that the x-axis is logarithmic, which means that this blue bump Happens way off of the scale.
	They pulled them together where this is 1 and this is 10 and this is 70.
	They pulled it together to bring this closer to make it more more visibly understandable.
	But then they did something else.
	The peak temperature is Earth because it's round and it's varies between day and night.
	They have it listed as 210 to 310 degrees kelvin well the vertical scale on this is not indexed and what they did is they showed the blue the same height as the red but then if you just take the simple division we'll just say the average of 310 and 210 is
	260.
	So, 260 means that they've amplified this 20 times the actual amount.
	So, if you were looking at an actual radiation atmosphere, you would have this giant bump from the Sun, and way off in the distance, you would have this tiny little bump from the outgoing radiation from the Earth that'd be barely even visible.
	And then you break it down by individual molecules.
	The first line on this shows the total absorption.
	The second line shows water vapor absorption.
	Water vapor absorbs in 37,000 spectral lines.
	The next one is oxygen and ozone.
	They absorb in the UV range, but they also absorb some minor portions in the visible light range, which is very helpful because that makes the planet easy to live on because we're not being bombarded with Cancer-causing ultraviolet rays.
	Methane, which is 1.7 parts per million in the atmosphere, has three different absorption bands.
	All three of them are covered by water vapor.
	Two of them are within the solar range of absorption, which means they can absorb incoming sunlight, but they are outside of the range of of outgoing long-wave radiation, so they can't absorb anything there.
	The one band of methane that does absorb in the outgoing radiation is at 14.7 microns, and that's at minus 80 degrees Fahrenheit, so it's completely absurd.
	Nitrous oxide, that's the one they're making a big deal now about fertilizers.
	Nitrous oxide absorbs in five minor little bands, and they're almost off the edge of the chart, and it's 0.331 parts per million in the atmosphere.
	And methane, when it's released in the atmosphere, naturally degrades.
	It has a four-year half-life.
	I have a great article that was at Canada Free Press and then reposted at Principia called Green The Strange Tale of the Greenhouse Gas Gang, and it goes into the history of Sabanthi Arrhenius.
	Joe winning an objective scientific account shows us there's nothing to it, and the only way you can construct an argument is by exaggeration, deception, changing scale, and the like.
	How did this ever get traction in the first place?
	They must have paid off scientists to do fake science for political purposes to promote their agenda.
	Under Ronald Reagan, the climatology budget for the entire United States Department of Energy was $20 million a year.
	Under Big Bush, it was raised over his four-year term to $1 billion per year.
	Under Slick Willie in 1992, it was raised to $2 billion per year.
	And so over the last 30 years, we've squandered over $100 billion in carbon endangerment findings.
	And that's the only thing I find is anything that you can claim is going to be affected by having more carbon dioxide in the air, and every one of them is completely false.
	Tell me a bit about the so-called carbon footprint they want to begin to measure and reduce.
	Tell us how that factors into the larger scheme of things.
	Well, basically, if you want to have a slave population, you don't want anybody to be better than anybody else, and you don't want them to be able to achieve anything.
	And so basically, the simplest two vectors that you can control humanity with is food and energy.
	And so that's what they've done.
	They've decided that they're going to produce an economic system.
	This goes back to the Hubert Peak Oil Theory.
	They had already removed gold and silver as the medium of exchange in the United States, first with the Emergency Banking Act and the executive order issued by FDR in 1933, which removed gold currency and gold certificates, and then under LBJ in 64, right after he snuffed JFK, he removed silver coinage.
	And so they'd already removed precious metals, which It were were being developed at about the same rate as the population growth.
	So you had some standard of economic transfer that was that was stable.
	And so as your population increased by, you know, 10% per decade, or whether 5% per decade, that was the explosive exponential claim by Malthus.
	But the development and minting of gold and silver coins pretty much matched the population.
	So you could have a base of trade based on these two precious metals.
	That was uniform.
	What they wanted to do was replace it with something that they thought would be inflationary.
	And the peak oil theory from 1955 by Hubert was that oil is a limited resource and we're going to be running out of it.
	And so if you could attach the petrodollar to something that was automatically being reduced by scarcity, Then you would be able to cover the inflation that they built into the system since the takeover of the Federal Reserve in 1913 with something that would be reducing, and then they could say, well, it's not our fault.
	It's because we're using this petrodollar, and it's going down.
	Putin is really blowing a hole in their program because he's found plenty of oil, and the Russians were able to prove early in the 50s, at the same time the Hubert theory was being proposed, that oil is being produced by the planet, and that we've got more proven reserves today than we had at the time of the peak oil theory was being proposed.
	Yeah, it appears to me oil is an inexhaustible resource because it's being produced by earth in the natural process.
	John?
	Yeah, I'm backing you up there.
	Speaking as an educator, somebody who worked for 20 years as a schoolteacher in schools, maintained schools in the UK, I can tell you that we are being paid, teachers are being paid to peddle this narrative, the Malthusian narrative we've been peddling to kids that The planet is meant to have finite resources.
	I remember when I was a child, my geography teacher telling me that by 1980...
	Back then that we'd be heading for peak oil and they'd be running out of oil.
	The same thing.
	The sky is falling.
	Oh my God.
	It never ends.
	And like you say, you've got Al Gore, the Prince, well now King Charles trotting out every so often.
	We have 10 years to save the planet.
	It's like a broken record, isn't it?
	The same threats always come out.
	They repeat the narrative.
	They work to a script.
	It's scare tactics.
	And they don't back things up with numbers.
	And as Joe says, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.
	We see energy levels, I mean, not only is there more hydrocarbon fuel available than we thought, but our ability to exploit it is so much more ingenious.
	You know, the combustion engine, the ICE, internal combustion engine now, year on year, becoming more and more efficient.
	You know, the one good thing about the push for green energy is that we're realising how much better we can do with conventional technology.
	And, you know, the beauty of hydrocarbons is it's better than a battery.
	As Joe will say, it's already stored energy, isn't it, Joe?
	The fact that a lump of coal, a gallon of oil, is better than a battery because nature's done the work for you.
	There's no processing, there's no human processing involved other than refining itself.
	Whereas if we have to use lithium from Mongolia, these rare earth metals, there's a lot of extended energy up front.
	There's a lot of investment, financial investment, which makes the whole thing prohibitively costly.
	So, you know, we've got this abundant natural resource.
	We're told that the wind is free, the sun is free.
	Well, the true thing is that in the ground there is oil that's free.
	If you own the land, yeah, sure enough, you can profit from it, and that's a wonderful thing, but the bottom line is nature's already provided us with these resources.
	It's less efficient to process the solar energy, it's less efficient to process wind, because all we need to do effectively is take that coal, you can burn that coal, you can burn that tree, and immediately release that stored energy.
	You know, the carbon cycle is there for our benefit, and Joe, you'll back me up here, it's a wonderful system Mother Nature's given us.
	We don't need to reinvent the wheel.
	At the moment, we've got enough coal and oil reserves to last hundreds of years.
	True, yeah, we can argue, definitely argue that we can filter out pollutants better, and we are.
	You know, the scrubbers in refineries now, the scrubbers in power plants now are very efficient.
	Emissions from tailpipes on cars now, Catalytic converters were a wonderful invention.
	You know, again, that again, you could say that's harvesting of those trace elements.
	Again, you know, we are smart enough to use our initiative as capitalists to find a market for waste products.
	And Joe, we've discussed in terms of the food industry, haven't we?
	The way they've used different oils, vegetable oil, for example, you know, that was originally used to literally lubricate the industry.
	But then they thought, well, let's put it in food.
	There are people out there always sharp enough to try and find a way to make a dollar, and that is the beauty of human ingenuity.
	And let's just give benefit of the doubt here to the fact that people generally don't like to waste things.
	We're not naturally wasteful.
	You know, if there's a dollar to be made, there's somebody out there willing to get their hands dirty, and that's to the benefit of all of us.
	Don't you agree, gentlemen?
	Oh yes, yes, yes, John.
	You and Joe are making such wonderful points.
	I think it would be a marvelous way for us to conclude our conversation today to talk about the push for electric vehicles, which seem to me to be a devastatingly bad idea on so many different levels.
	It seems to me there's ignoring electricity doesn't just come on its own.
	It's not that electricity is an inexhaustible resource in and of itself.
	But electricity typically requires the consumption of non-green energy to produce the electricity that we then want to power the electric vehicles, which require massive batteries that are incredibly expensive to produce, require strip mining, child labor, the whole bit.
	Then they have limited range, limited traction with vehicles, and they really destroy lives, it seems to me, because now instead of filling your tank in five minutes, You may have to consume hours.
	A trip from Two Points in Wyoming, for example, took three hours.
	Conventionally, 15 with an electric vehicle.
	I mean, it was absurd beyond belief.
	Let me start with Joe.
	Uh, first of all, I want to set the parameters.
	Aren't we talking until 11.30 today?
	We can if you would like that.
	Oh, I would love to.
	Yeah, I am so impressed.
	We've got so much more to cover.
	Yeah, that's fine.
	We can do that for a certainty.
	The wonderful thing about thermal energy is that you have a A set, known, calculable output from it.
	So, if you've got a coal-fired generating plant, and you've got a big pile of coal, you know if you've got a 60-day stockpile, and you know what your usage is, and you can program it.
	If you decide that you want to switch that over to methane, then you're dependent on a pipeline that like we had here in Texas during the big freeze in February 2021, where the operators of the gas pipelines had decided a decade or two ago that they would where the operators of the gas pipelines had decided a decade or two ago that they would replace the natural gas
	And then they didn't notify the ERCOT power grid company that this was vital infrastructure and that you should not be able to disconnect that.
	And so when they started doing the rolling blackouts across the state, they were knocking out the electrically powered gas pumps for the pipelines.
	And therefore, you didn't have any supply, not to mention that those pipelines are very vulnerable to sabotage, where if you have a big So, from a strategic standpoint, if you've got a nation with a whole bunch of coal like the United States, like England, like Australia, like Canada, you need to be using that resource because it's there for a reason.
	And there again, the planet is going to be generating more coal.
	It's part of a Hydrogenation process when hydrocarbons are bubbling up out of the ground as methane.
	Methane has a specific gravity of 0.43.
	It's lighter than air.
	You release methane in the air, it goes up and then it is ionized by the sun within four years period of time and it turns into carbon dioxide and water vapor and it goes back into the atmosphere that way.
	But there's no reason that we shouldn't be capturing that and using it.
	And there's massive amounts of methane that are concealed as hydrates in the polar caps, as chaltrates in frozen ice crystals in the base of the ocean, and as liquid methane, which is below the pressure temperature point for the And so there's an enormous amount of resources that are down there that are waiting to be used.
	So the average temperature of the ocean is like four degrees centigrade.
	The average depth is like two miles.
	It covers 78, 75 percent of the Earth's surface.
	And so there's an enormous amount of resources that are down there that are waiting to be used.
	And if we're not capturing and using them, then they become an environmental hazard.
	So it's better as a steward of the planet to capture and use these hydrocarbons than it is to let them go unused.
	But the Malthusians that are running the planet go, well, we've already drilled enough wells, we've already located enough reserves, and we've got a hundred year supply, so we don't need any more drilling companies, and we don't need anybody else refining the materials, because we can operate robots on 10% of the scale we got.
	All we need to do is kill 90% of the people on the planet, and that brings it up to the next thing that Prince Peter Scientific was on the forefront of, and that's this ridiculous pandemic scam.
	I wrote my first article on it in March of 2020, and then I attended rallies all across Texas.
	I attended rallies on the medical aspect of it and wrote a dozen articles about it and John and I have been on the forefront of that particular Malthusian scam as well.
	Joe, that's wonderful.
	I want to propose that John talk a bit about electric vehicles and all that, and we take a five-minute break.
	I want to get a cup of coffee and we'll continue with the pandemic scam, because what you're presenting here, gentlemen, is just wonderful and so timely and relevant.
	The whole world needs to understand.
	I think this is a reason why Principia Scientific International is making an impact.
	Far beyond its initial conception.
	John, your thoughts?
	Yeah, yeah.
	And the key here, Jim, is the fact that we cross over so many specialties.
	And again, it's about time that applied scientists got into the debate.
	I mean, we know that academics have had, you know, center stage for too long when it comes to advising policymakers.
	And really, it's now the right time for applied scientists and engineers.
	To take their seat at the front table.
	And one of the things I have to add that we've not yet covered is the secret behind the Japanese economic boom after the Second World War.
	And the reason for that, in large part, was the idea of manufacturing just-in-time, JIT, just-in-time manufacturing, Jim.
	And the whole concept of just-in-time manufacturing is you don't store anything more than you need to.
	You always have a reliable energy source.
	You always have a reliable supplier for your materials.
	And yeah, Toyota was the company that first exploited this principle to massive international effects.
	And you know it was a concept that the rest of the world adopted because quite simply Jim, you don't want to over invest in things you don't need and the problem with the green industry, the green approach to things, is you need the so-called fossil fuel backup.
	You can't have wind or power, wind power and solar power, without realizing that you're going to have intermittent energy supply.
	You know sometimes the wind doesn't blow and I know here in the UK we've We're renowned for it, we're notorious for it.
	We have periods in maybe December, January, February, where the air is still, the air currents are very still.
	Temperatures are very, very low, bitterly low, but no wind.
	And conversely, you know, there's no sun in winter.
	We're very high in the Northern Hemisphere.
	We get very, very low levels of sunshine.
	So wind and solar are not reliable.
	And if you have a manufacturing base, you want reliable energy.
	We do use the Japanese system just in time.
	And JIT requires reliable supplies of energy and raw materials.
	And, you know, the way to do it, Jim, is not reliant to sources of energy.
	You don't need the green energy.
	All you need is all that plentiful so-called fossil fuel that is guaranteed to come good.
	And the problem we mentioned many times on Principia Scientific and articles is the unreliability of batteries.
	The lithium ion system of storing energy By nature, it's a very volatile material.
	It can spontaneously combust.
	It's been proven that that is a problem.
	We've seen container ships of cars catch fire at sea.
	We know that in the recent hurricane in Florida, you know, there are quite a lot of incidents where salt water exposed to vehicles can cause fire.
	You know, and in fact, there are more and more places banning Car parking for electric vehicles.
	Electric vehicles are not safe.
	And it's a tragedy that people are not being made more aware of that.
	Because if you are in a car crash, an electric vehicle, and your vehicle catches fire, the fire department will have a very difficult job extinguishing that fire.
	And quite often, Jim, they have to let the fire put itself out.
	And you know, I would not want to be a passenger or driver of an electric vehicle just for that reason alone, if your priority is vehicle safety.
	Oh, John, I think those are sensational points.
	Let us just take a brief break here.
	I want to fetch a cup of coffee and we'll continue tackling the pandemic and related issues.
	I'm just delighted to have the two of you here with me today on this Real Deal Special Report.
	We'll be right back.
	I'll grab my coffee, too.
	Well, gentlemen, now that I've had a cup of java to keep me going, I gotta tell you, I'm just ecstatic about our conversation today.
	And, Joe, you were suggesting the pandemic is another monster scam.
	I believe, in fact, they're correlated, that they're related, and it's all intended to promote the Great Reset, where the Rothschild empire isn't satisfied with only owning 80% of the world's wealth.
	They want it all.
	Joe.
	Yeah, so when you have a government that tells you that 90% of the people in the nation are non-essential workers, that pretty much tells you what the government thinks about you.
	And considering that 10% of the employment in the whole nation of America is government officials, that pretty much tells you where they think they can take this.
	So yeah, I was real concerned about lockdowns in Texas, so I attended rallies in Austin, two of them with Alex Jones, another with a bunch of different Del Bigtree, I've talked to a half dozen different times at events.
	Stuart Rhodes from the Oath Keepers, I've talked to him several times at different events.
	I went to one event in Dallas, and this was May 9th.
	And this is an article that I wrote up as a review of that, and it's called the... Remember the Alamode Review?
	This is a lady named Shelly Luther owned a hair salon, and she had a dozen hairstylists, and they weren't able to make any money at all.
	They weren't included in the government PPP funds for over 60 days, and the governor of Texas had done a lockdown, which was illegal.
	He could have emergency authorization to do a two-week Well, he didn't bother to call the legislature in because it's a pandemic.
	And so after 60 days of lockdown, she went ahead and opened her salon and started cutting hair two days before the governor said she could.
	She was arrested by local political corruption people in Dallas County and was thrown in jail for a week.
	When she got out, the name of her salon was Salon a la Mode.
	And so I went to this rally, wrote a great article.
	One of the speakers at this rally was Dr. Yvette Lozano, who was a private practice in Dallas area for almost 30 years.
	She had 30 patients that she treated and a dozen staff that she treated with hydroxychloroquine.
	So immediately, I had been studying the alkaloid family, and what a wonderful group of chemicals they are, and they're naturally produced.
	And she was using hydroxychloroquine, which is just a stabilized form of quinine, which is derived from a South American chinoa tree, and had been used by Native Americans for a thousand years before Columbus got here.
	So anyhow, then there's a debate that we're going to have in the very near future as to whether viruses actually exist.
	But if you take the current theory on viruses, they are not able to reproduce without being in living tissue.
	And in the process of replicating their own DNA inside a living cell, they absorb a little bit of DNA from their host, which means that they are constantly mutating, which means that if you're going to make a vaccine for somebody and you're going to inject fertilized eggs, every fertilized egg has a slightly different DNA.
	You inject it with What you think is a virus, it's going to reproduce.
	You end up with a batch of slightly variated deadened virus cells.
	And then those are what you inject as being a cure.
	And so basically what you're doing is you're shooting at a constantly moving target with a constantly changing weapon.
	And so it's like a billion and one chance that you're going to pick the right combination of DNA that's going to be able to actually affect your disease outcome.
	Well, one of the things that came up early on, and this is another article that I wrote, Wu Flew at Warp Speed, Moderna, in their published documents, said that they were using moth cell lines to reproduce their mRNA vaccine.
	And it was like, oh yeah, because we don't have enough cockroach DNA in our own bodies, so let's go ahead and grow a vaccine in insect cultures, which I thought was completely absurd.
	And then Donald Trump made a big deal about passing the Right to Try Act.
	And this was the FDA doesn't allow you to do certain therapeutics and certain medical devices.
	And so the state of Colorado 2014 passed the law.
	that said that you could go out of country or you could get things delivered from out of country as an alternative right to try.
	Well, when they finally got around to passing the national law in 2018, you had the right to try whatever big pharma wants you to try only with the doctors that they allow you to use, and then you're not allowed to have any civil or liability criminal liabilities against the manufacturers of the drug they're testing.
	So basically you're a free guinea pig and if they find something that works, they're under no obligation to make that generally available.
	So that's one of the little problems.
	And then I did a little bit further research on hydroxychloroquine.
	I wrote this great article called WooFlu Bat Stew News for You.
	There again, it's at our favorite website.
	And here's the takeaway line from this.
	Hydroxychloroquine decalcifies the pineal gland.
	Well, in addition to decalcifying the pineal gland, it also decalcifies the pituitary and thyroid glands.
	And how do they get calcified?
	Because your body, in order to produce hormones and have a functional immune system, has to have iodine.
	Iodine is in the halogen family, which is group 7 on the periodic chart, along with fluoride and chlorine.
	And so, if you're ingesting fluoride and chlorine, you are displacing the iodine that your body needs, and those particular halogens have an affinity for calcium, and so they calcify the very glands that your body needs to have a functional immune system.
	So, bottom line is, we've been slow poison with fluoridated and chlorinated water system, and I go into a great bit of detail in this particular article.
	So, Anyhow, that's kind of basic coverage on that particular subject.
	Maybe John has some more to offer because we've done an enormous amount of research on the WuFlu scan.
	Yeah, I'd like to just jump in and the broader picture here is the way that people are waking up to the fact that allopathic medicine Freedom of choice is promoted as the only way, and the problem with that is it's a captured market, as Joe's pointing out.
	It's only approved people that can dispense this.
	And I've been a great believer in freedom of choice, always believed in freedom of choice.
	It's part of my DNA, because you've got to have freedom of choice.
	Sovereignty is important to you, isn't it?
	If your intellect and your rational being tells you that something's being pushed on you, the whole concept of being compelled to take a vaccine, what does that tell you about the state of the government and of medicine when you're being forced?
	If the vaccine was so effective, if it really was a wonderful way to prevent disease and spread of disease, then surely the The whole thing is premised on something that's so virtuous, nobody in their right mind would deny it.
	However, the denial, the so-called anti-vaxxer movement is not diminishing, it's growing.
	And what does that tell you about the people behind this?
	Because we can talk about the wonderful story, well it's not a wonderful story for the people involved, but Damar Hamlet, the NFL player who collapsed in the game on Monday night, you know, a highly supreme athlete, The peak of his career, the cardiovascular system, his whole physical preparation for that game would be immaculate.
	The doctors they had at hand, you know, there's no way that player would be on the field unless he was 100%.
	He went on that field and went into a cardiac arrest and technically died.
	When you administer CPR, you're effectively trying to bring back a life.
	You know, he's in hospital now and Touchwood, you know, the medics have said there is a chance.
	What struck me, Joe and Jim, is on Twitter there's a reply and a debate brewing and it's a wonderful thing because when you have something in the public eye like this, you do get a chance on Twitter now, with thanks to Elon Musk, with a bit of free speech, Dr Peter McCullough has come out and he said that what we need to do
	is to look very carefully at what the evidence that's building and he quotes here that um and this is what he's from PubMed you know respected journal PubMed has shown that 1598 athletes have suffered a cardiac arrest 1100 of one of them uh with a deadly outcome and um you know that's unknown that's unprecedented in our time and those those who criticize the anti-vaccine movement
	They can't answer that because what they're doing is they will not look at the elephant in the room.
	They're putting it down to something that's being termed SADS, Sudden Adult Death Syndrome.
	But when the death rate in the under 40s is four times higher than it is normally, and I tell you what shocks me is that I'm still in touch with school teachers.
	I don't teach very much now, but school teachers are telling me in schools in England, they are now introducing defibrillators.
	Into schools, defibrillators into schools, where 98% of the people in attendance are meant to be fit young children.
	You know that, that it tells you there's something not right, and there's a massive cover-up.
	And you know, the MO, the modus operandi, Joe, is exactly as we saw with the global warming thing.
	It's secret science again.
	It's vested interests.
	It's trust the science, isn't it, Joe?
	Trust the science.
	Do as we say, not as we do.
	Because quite often, all these people have got their finger in the pie, they enrich themselves.
	Truly, if the planet was in danger, Joe, Michael Mann would have revealed his data.
	If you recall, the reason why Michael Mann lost his lawsuit against my friend and your friend and colleague, Tim Ball, in an eight-year protracted lawsuit, was because he wouldn't show his secret data.
	All he had to do, Joe, was come to court and prove that the Medieval War Period was insignificant.
	We've always argued that, as we said earlier in the broadcast, there were periods of cooling and warming, natural variation, but to sustain a narrative, they have to rig the data, and they've done it with things like vaccine safety and vaccine injury, and we've told that vaccines cured polio, vaccines have done this, but there are many doubters who say, well no, the real thing here, the real trend here, the positive trend has been the rise in hygiene,
	The fact that we eat healthier, more quality food, that we're more aware of these things.
	But that's never factored in, is it, Gerard?
	Because we know that cherry-picking, that is the modus operandi of these people.
	And they won't debate.
	And I love it when people like Peter McCullough and others like him, who are eminent in their field, have been trashed.
	And he comes out on Twitter and he's citing So-called peer-reviewed, PubMed is, and we will accept PubMed, not many people will deny PubMed is credible, and they have, you know, 1,598 athletes are dead, except for cardiac arrest, 1,100 dead.
	That is something unprecedented.
	If that doesn't warrant debate, then we're living in very dark times indeed, aren't we?
	Yeah, getting back to Michael, man, the way he made the medieval warming period disappear is he managed to find tree rings on three bristlecone pines and wipe out the whole entire worldwide warming period.
	Yeah, absolutely insane.
	I want to move on to a couple other things.
	We try to provide at PSI a wide forum, and there were some articles that were up recently.
	One of them was on plasma boring, and somebody in the article, it states that we'd be able to do all of our high-power transmission lines that way, and it's like, are you kidding me?
	These things are like 70,000 volts.
	They're polyphase, which allows you to carry a lot more power.
	I think you can go up to nine phases, but the general transmission that I've worked with as an electrical engineer is three-phase power, and that's 1.7 times increase in amperage based on the same amount of voltage by having three-phase power.
	And what you do is you have an alternating current that's going back and forth in the UK and I think most of Europe, they use 50 cycles per second.
	In America, we use 60 cycles per second.
	But those things are slightly out of phase, but they're one third out of phase.
	But that means if you throw a ladder or any type of conductor across two of those transmission lines, you will blow out the whole system because you're shorting between those high current lines that are out of phase with each other.
	And those aerial transmission lines are bare aluminum because that allows them to dissipate the heat that it takes in order to transmit that enormous amount of wattage.
	And so what happens is if you want to bury it, Then the National Electric Code automatically requires you to de-rate it by about 40%, and then if you're going to put conductors that close to each other, they have to be insulated, which means you have to reduce it by another 30%.
	So anybody that's thinking you're going to bore a 3-foot diameter hole and put all of your transmission lines in it, It's like cuckoo for cocoa puffs.
	And then the next thing is that they said, Oh, we can also use it for, you know, transporting water and, you know, a three foot diameter hole is not going to transfer a whole lot of water as a.
	Civil Engineer, I was trying to take fluid mechanics, and according to Hayes and Williams, you've got gravity flow, which are known formulas, which produce a low volume of water.
	You've got under pressurized system, you use the Bernoulli equation, and for open channels, you use the Manning equations.
	But We know exactly how much water is going to be transmitted in a three foot diameter tunnel is going to do absolutely nothing to alleviate any major amount of drought or transfer any major amount of piping.
	So that's item number one.
	And then the next thing we had an article and I put a comment down at the article on plasma boring at Prince Pia Scientific just two days ago.
	Read the comments.
	It's really good.
	Another one is geothermal power.
	I've studied geothermal power extensively, and I sent John a map.
	You can go on and look at a map of the United States geothermal energy.
	There's only certain areas where the geothermal energy is close enough to the surface of the Earth that if you have to bore down to it, when they did the Kola bore in Russia, a 42,000 foot deep bore.
	The temperature was 350 degrees Fahrenheit at seven miles depth, but the pressure was like a thousand atmospheres of pressure.
	Well, in order to be able to extract power from that level, you're dealing with highly corrosive water environment.
	Number one, if you do a direct exchange, if you try to do a heat exchanger, or you try to do a remote generating and do power back up, the losses are insurmountable.
	So from a technical standpoint, just from the using the Carnot cycle of high temperature and low temperature, setting the efficiency of your generating capacity, it's impractical to do it other than the selected locations where you have He and I've been past geothermal plants in the west eastern side of California.
	There's a large geothermal generating field and there's also one on Highway 80 in Wyoming, but they're only in very, very selected locations.
	So that's item number one.
	Item number two, I came across a very interesting person who was fired by Delta Because she was a student at Emory Riddle College, Aviation College, getting a PhD in airline safety.
	She had 35,000 hours as pilot-in-command with various airlines, and she was working at Delta.
	She's certified in 10 different airframes.
	She's a flight instructor when she's not busy writing, and she's written nine books, and she got fired because She went to a conference of senior Delta pilots and the head of the company said, we need to The reason we have such a safe airline is because we take feedback from our pilots.
	And she said, well, I just did a PhD on some things that we're doing wrong at Delta.
	And they said, oh, we need to get rid of you.
	So they hired a quack doctor, which there again goes back to the captured AMA and the captured psychiatry department.
	The guy reviewed her work and said, this woman is bipolar because no woman could do what she claims that she did.
	She couldn't have 35,000 hours in 10 different airframes and write nine books and get a PhD in airline safety, and so they fired her.
	Ended up being a pretty big scandal, but we're going to have her as a guest.
	Her name is Kathleen And we're going to have her as a guest in February on our TNT radio program.
	Should be very interesting because there's a whole bunch of other things that are involved with the FAA, which goes back to Southwest Airlines and the Boeing MAX 737, and this recent thing that we just had where they had cascading failures of Southwest Airlines, and it all goes back to Regulatory capture, where the FAA is just as captured as the CDC and the FDA.
	And what we need is some honest voices.
	And the airline industry, Boeing has been able to write their own rules, check their own planes, lie to the government and get away with it.
	The airline industry says we need to have an airplane that has these larger turbo fans.
	And so bottom line is we're going to be doing that.
	And then also I went to an event in the first week of Dallas at City of Allen by an author who's written 25 books named Mark Shaw, and he's done a deep dive investigation into the murders of Marilyn Monroe and Dorothy Kilgallen involved with the JFK thing.
	So that will be interesting, too, because they're, again, probably one of the pivotal points in the last century was the public coup d'etat that we had in Dallas on Dealey Plaza, which is where this big rally was that I went to.
	Dealey Plaza.
	So yeah, so bottom line is we've got some exciting things coming up in TNT, and we're trying to do full spectrum correction for all of the lies that we're being forced to.
	Yeah, and to back you up, I can't begin to say, John and Joe, how impressed I am with what you're doing.
	You're hitting the most important issues in the most serious way with great effect.
	I'm just tremendously impressed.
	John, yes, further thoughts of yours?
	Yeah, yeah, just to tie in with what Joe is saying, I mean, when you've got Miss Pettit, who clearly is a supreme Practitioner of her craft, you know, undeniably.
	If you're a feminist, you want to make a film about it because she's such a hero, a heroine.
	She's achieved a lot and to denounce her is just a travesty.
	But, you know, the wheel will turn, Jim, and people like her will come to the fore again and be lauded for what they're achieving.
	And what I want to add here is that the playbook is the Alinsky tactics.
	And we picked up on this many years ago.
	Saul Alinsky's 12 Rules for Radicals.
	Time and again, we've suffered it.
	I'm sure you have yourself, where they de-platform you, they ghost ban you.
	When they can't attack your argument, they attack your character.
	And the 12 rules are very well laid out.
	It's publicly available.
	People don't need to just put it down to conspiracy theory.
	These are a set of rules that time and again, especially the media, mainstream media, will apply to people like us.
	Because we're speaking against their monopoly, you know, their power.
	The idea that we asked for a debate, they don't like debate.
	They don't like people rattling the cages.
	And when you've got somebody who's a little bit unconventional, like Miss Pettit, who, you know, a very successful aviator, stellar personality, and somebody who's a wonderful advocate for women who are ambitious.
	This is where we get them, Jim, is because All we hear about from the woke community is the victimisation of women and so forth.
	And here's a woman who's just standing up as a human being.
	And we've saw it again, time and again, you know, where somebody who steps outside their so-called clique, where you're meant to be within your frame, you know, you're meant to be within your category.
	It's all about identity politics.
	You know, if you're in the black community, you should stand by your fellow people of colour.
	If you're a woman, you should stand by your fellow gender and so forth.
	And, you know, it's something that we don't think is acceptable.
	And that's why we adhere to the scientific method, because there should be an objective measure of truth or guilt or innocence.
	And that's where we're losing the point here.
	The problem today, Jim, is there's not enough debate on the merits.
	There should be more debate on the merits and less triggering You know, I've noticed that so often that the key words are thrown around like, you know, you're right wing, you're an extremist.
	And that just shuts down debate.
	You know, if you're racist, it's how they kind of, it's anti-intellectual.
	Rather than engage with somebody and not try to stereotype, we're losing the art of debate.
	And speaking as a teacher, I mean, what I've noticed, Jim, where we went wrong in education is we didn't, we stopped teaching critical thinking.
	And one way we used to teach critical thinking was in classrooms, we'd say, right, advocate for a position and then flip it around, advocate for the opposite position.
	And that way you get to see both sides of the argument.
	But now we're so invested in one way of thinking and it's so-called tolerant left who say we believe in tolerance, don't tolerate dissent on the right.
	And it's hypocrisy.
	It's a double standard that I think more people are waking up to.
	And I think that that's where we can score points here, Jim, is realising that shutting down debate is where we all lose.
	And we have to encourage debate.
	Even if you risk losing the debate, we have to be principled enough to do that.
	Well, there's no reason you would know, John, but I spent 35 years in higher education offering courses in logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning!
	You know, I could not be more enthusiastic about what you guys are all about.
	I mean, I just think...
	Principia Scientific International is a sensation, and the timing!
	This is what, not just the nation, this is what the world needs, exactly what you're offering here.
	I am blown away, I'm thrilled, I'm enthusiastic over the top, Joe.
	Yes, and regardless of gender, we have one of the most outstanding pilots and role models that anybody could possibly have, and there's a great article by Dominic Gates at Seattle Times, and the article is, She fought back, and it's a great article.
	Once we get her scheduled, we'll make sure we put that article up at PSI because people need to read it.
	It's absolutely incredible.
	And then this morning, I got an end-of-year message from our good friend Jeremy Nell down in South Africa about a guy whose name is Michael Palmer.
	And he said that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not bombed by nuclear bombs.
	And I'm as much into conspiracy theories and research as anybody you've ever met.
	And there's only two that I absolutely disdain and reject.
	And that is the flat earth hypothesis.
	And the other one is that nuclear weapons do not exist.
	So I'm going to challenge that guy to a little bit of a debate.
	But his argument is that The Hiroshima and Nagasaki were firebombed just like they did Tokyo.
	Well, guess what?
	I had already researched this.
	Tokyo was firebombed for the first time on March 9, 1945 by 330 B-29 bombers that dropped incendiary bombs and burned 16 square miles.
	Well, kids, 16 square miles is 4 miles by 4 miles, and that's 330 bombers.
	And this guy's saying that they were able to do that same amount of damage in Hiroshima With one bomber.
	It was like, yeah, where are the rest of the bombers?
	And he's got these really spurious arguments.
	The guy came up with the hypothesis, somebody put a bug in his ear, and he's a smart guy.
	He's from Germany, he was a medical doctor for 20 years, got fed up with the medical system, got a degree in chemistry, went to work at University of Waterloo, was a in the chemical department there until they required him to get an mRNA vaccine.
	And he was smart enough to know that those things were poison.
	And so he was fired.
	So like he said, he's in forced retirement.
	But I'm going to extend an offer to debate him on TNT radio, because this is another debate that we need to have.
	And we can do some discussion on the very basic facts of nuclear weapons.
	And Joe, I couldn't agree more about both flat earth and non-nukes.
	And you are invited to join me with a similar debate on Revolution Radio on my own program, because I have a regular caller who is regularly protesting there are no nuclear bombs.
	And I'm just pulling out my hair.
	I promised him I'd arrange a debate, and you are my choice to join me on that occasion.
	John, your further thoughts?
	Yeah, yeah.
	A lot of this is actually enlightening in terms of the skill of debate, Jim.
	I think when you listen to people debate, inform people when they debate, it's wonderful to watch the tactics, the way somebody puts forward an argument, attempting to be persuasive rather than confrontational.
	And we had a wonderful show.
	Joe reminded me of the show we had back in June with Bart Sibrel, where, you know, Bart Sibrel is well known as an advocate for the hoax moon landings and, you know, Joe persuaded me to invite Bart onto the show and Joe knows full well I'm sceptical of the idea that the moon landings were all fake.
	I tend to take the view that some things were fake and not everything and but you know I wanted the debate and I wanted to hear Bart.
	I wanted to hear his arguments.
	It was a wonderful show Jim and entertaining too for listeners because you get to hear people who are passionate about what they believe in putting forward their case openly and freely And people can make their own decisions, you know, based on their own experience of what they've seen.
	And people will come forward and add something to the topic, add something that they've seen themselves.
	We had this with 9-11, you know, that the amount of people who have witnessed 9-11, who came forward with their smartphones, filming things and recording things and sharing, you know, citizens, scientists, all part of the debate, critics, citizen journalists, you know, people who want to add the five cents, This is the whole point of a cohesive society, Jim.
	We have to have cohesion.
	And if you want to be successful and have some kind of social contract, if you like, a social contract of acceptance of the norms, then we're always looking to move forward.
	I know we talk about the progression of society.
	You can't have progress in society unless you have open and informed discussion.
	And we change society by consent.
	And the unwritten social contract is we allow people to put forward their arguments as a group, either within a village, within a town or a nation, we formulate policy, we formulate laws by consent.
	And that's something I believe in.
	And rather than the fascist way of dictating everything by an approved narrative, I think the way we do it is a healthier way.
	And the way to do it is to exploit the medium of the internet, exploit the medium of these podcasts, exploit the medium that we all have now of mass communication.
	We're moving away from the old way of doing things back in the UK.
	I remember when I was a kid there were three TV channels and the population you have 20 or 30 million people watching the same TV shows at the same time every week.
	Well thankfully we've moved on from that.
	But we're fragmented to the point where we don't really relate to each other anymore.
	I would go to school on a Monday morning and I knew I could get in a conversation that day with everybody who probably watched at least one or two TV shows like I did.
	And you can have a debate, a discussion about that, but now you can't do that Jim.
	And there are things going on in society now that I'm not aware of.
	You know, people will mention something to me, it goes way over my head.
	There are issues in society, there are subgroups in society now that don't feel connected, that we were losing cohesion.
	And the point is, I sense that a lot of people sense as well, this is how the elite divide and conquer, Jim.
	Because they're encouraging people to stay within their little groups and form their own little echo chambers and not engage in society and not feel that they're part of society.
	Now, part of it, I think, is self-inflicted.
	It's self-fulfilling prophecy.
	It's confirmation bias.
	But another thing is it's engendered by the media.
	I think the woke culture, it plays that really well.
	They're telling us that really we're hated, we're subgroup and we're not welcome.
	And I feel that as an old white guy, old boomer.
	People refer to me as boomer.
	And that shuts down debate, you know, and I tell people my beliefs, I tell people my perspective on things.
	Oh, well, you're just a boomer.
	It's amazing, isn't it?
	That's such a dismissive term.
	And again, when I speak to young people and I try and engage with them, I say, well, no, these arguments I'm putting forward are about your well-being and about open debate.
	And thankfully, there are people who engage with But those, the unthinking class, the TikTok generation, I call them the TikTok generation, Jim, if something isn't conveyed within a minute, they'll shut down.
	And that's the problem we have on Principia Scientifica.
	I said to Joe in the break, there's a big movement towards short, sharp videos.
	Twitter, the Twitter generation, the TikTok generation, if it isn't summed up in a short little message, We're done.
	And politicians do that today, don't they?
	They do it with the soundbite.
	The term the soundbite is the key, isn't it?
	Or the elevator speech.
	If you can't sum up your message with an elevator journey, you know, you're kind of not compelling enough to have a persuasive argument.
	And that's the tragedy.
	We're dumbing down too much.
	Oh, you guys are just wonderful.
	I'm just ecstatic about all this.
	I gotta tell you, I really didn't anticipate just the profundity of this conversation and the quality of what you're doing.
	It's simply superb.
	Simply superb.
	Let's do a final round of final thoughts here to tie things together.
	But John, Joe, I just compliment you beyond words.
	You're doing something so important and so timely.
	This is just what the world needs now.
	Joe, to begin with.
	Yes, well Jim and I did our first interview on March 16, 2015 on nuclear vaporization of the World Trade Center buildings.
	And then I had read his book called, I suppose we didn't go to the moon either.
	I thought, man, I'm from Houston.
	This is one conspiracy theory I don't want to believe, but I'm an engineer, and if I can find something that I haven't seen published anywhere else.
	So I watched dozens of hours of videos.
	I watched most of Bart Simbrell's stuff.
	I've read, you know, dozens of articles, and then I came across a graphic at space.com america's moon rocket saturn 5 and so i started reading it and the fuel load was absolutely impossible to do what they said they did and then you have this uh lander that's positioned underneath the jet thruster from the command capsule and there's no loading dock or
	are airlocks and so what did they do they spacewalk between the capsule and so i wrote this article called perplexing uh apollo questions for nasa just asking questions i sent it to nasa i sent it to jim fetzer he posted it his website And then when we schedule Barks and Brill for the TNT program, we put it up at Principia Scientific.
	So if you just want to read some of the things that are contradictory evidence about what NASA claims and then what physics says, this is a good little article, so I recommend that too.
	Wonderful, Joe!
	Wonderful!
	John, you guys are a super team!
	I gotta say, a real true dynamic duo!
	John, Yeah, this moon controversy, it's entertaining Jim, because I mean, I grew up, I remember watching as a child, watching the moon landings.
	I was allowed to stay up very late at night, you know, take a day off school and revel in it.
	And it was a big impact on my life, you know, watching this wonderful achievement and how NASA became the forefront of technology and scientific endeavor, you know, the heroic astronauts, you know, beating, winning the space race against the Soviets and so forth.
	And, you know, again, Joe makes very good arguments.
	I mean, he has a compelling diagram there, asking a very valid question, you know, how does this add up from an engineering point of view?
	And when Joe says that, I respect Joe as a highly qualified engineer, I think that's a wonderful start on the debate.
	And my immediate reaction is, and we discussed it in the Bart Sidrell program, Why would the Soviets and the Chinese not expose this?
	Why would they go along with this so-called fake moon landing?
	And again, it's fascinating, Jim.
	I want to know these answers to these questions.
	And this is the pleasure of it.
	This is the entertainment side of it, Jim, because I want to know, perhaps there's deeper things in place.
	There's something else behind it.
	And by scratching around, you know, discussing it amongst ourselves, perhaps we can expose something that's not been considered before.
	And that's the point.
	We're always on the edge of discovery.
	We're always on the edge, trying to probe, trying to find new things to look at, trying to find the unknown.
	And I'm sure that the way we do it, our methodology, would help facilitate that idea of advancing into the unknown, collectively, you know, asking questions.
	Honestly, sincerely, I want to know the answer.
	I do want to know if the moon landings were fake.
	Why were the Soviets and Chinese complicit in that?
	You know, and that's something that we're going to keep coming back to.
	I've invited Bart Sybil to come back.
	He's a wonderful guy, very respectful guy.
	And when you have people who debate openly, sincerely and honestly, that is heartwarming, Jim.
	Rather than being antagonistic, rather than being insulting, rather than using devious tactics, genuinely approaching a debate with inquisitiveness.
	That's the way forward.
	And I welcome that.
	And I thank Joe.
	Arranging for Bart to come on the show because it was such an enjoyable radio show and if anybody's not listened to it, I recommend it very highly.
	Well, just let me add that, given my background, I put together a course, a 15-week course, on critical thinking and conspiracy theories.
	I call it Conspiracy 101.
	It's available online.
	If you go to mixnstream.com slash I think conspiracy, you should be able to find it.
	And I recommend to everyone, it includes Discussion of the Moonland, and you can also find an extensive piece on my blog at jameshfetzer.org under Jim the Conspiracy Guy, the 65 shows.
	You'll find I have them on a whole lot of topics, but what I'm recommending here and now What I'm recommending here and now is the one on the moon landing.
	I just want to say you guys are just sensational.
	I can't compliment you enough.
	I would say you made my day, but it's much more.
	You made my week.
	You made my month.
	This is a perfect way to start off 2023.
	I cannot thank you enough.
	This is Jim Fetzer, your host on The Real Deal with a simply sensational presentation about Recipient Scientific International from John O'Sullivan and Joe Olson, who are the co-founders.
	I commend them.
	I applaud them.
	You're going to love it.
	Follow up.

▲