All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 20, 2024 - Jim Fetzer
55:40
Denis Rancourt on “Unleashed” with Marc Moreno - January 17, 2024
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Talk to us now and go to the TNT Radio interactive live chat room at tntradio.live.
Lighting the fuse for freedom.
Today's News Talk Radio TNT.
Fearless, informative, and unfettered.
Mark Morano is Unleashed on today's News Talk TNT Radio.
Welcome to Unleashed.
This is Mark Morano on TNT.
All right.
Day one in the Michael Mann-Mark Stein trial commencing in D.C.
Superior Court.
It's better than you.
That's why it's superior.
You thought you were all the hot shit?
Nope.
This is superior court.
And Michael Mann suing Mark Stein for defamation.
And this trial, this is a message from Mark Stein, just received moments ago before broadcast.
I did not get to go down to DC.
We have a snowstorm here.
About four inches have hit.
All the school systems are closed area-wide, and a lot of them will probably be closed tomorrow.
We're in the 20s.
We're going down to single digits tonight, Fahrenheit, which is pretty cold for the D.C.
area.
So everyone's freaking out, but apparently it didn't affect the beginning of this trial.
So here's Mark Stein's message about the climate trial of the century.
And we'll have a lot more on this in future shows.
But Mark Stein writes, greetings from the District of Columbia.
District Superior Court, where somewhat surprisingly, the alleged polar vortex has failed to postpone the Mann v. Stein trial, has postponed it by only a mere 30 minutes.
So instead of a 930, the hour of doom is delayed until 10 a.m., which at the newly appointed time in courtroom 518, jury selection will, after 12 years, it's been 2011, finally commence.
So this is where we are.
This trial has been going on.
I mentioned yesterday it deals with the Penn State Jerry Sandusky reference.
It also deals with Michael Mann saying he was defamed as basically a fraudster by Mark Stein.
And this trial has Mark Stein, the conservative commentator, acting as his own lawyer.
Mark Stein allegedly, theoretically, If all goes as planned, we'll be able to cross-examine the United Nations climate scientists steeped in climate gate scandals, steeped in hockey stick scandals, temperature graph scandals, Freedom of Information Act scandals.
The man that Michael Mann is suing is going to act as his own lawyer and be able to cross examine Michael Mann.
Now, I have a lot of theories.
Last time, when I attended the preliminary hearing back in October 2023, Michael Mann showed up.
At 9.59, I was live tweeting the event, and I predicted he would show up at the exact moment, because you have to understand who Michael Mann is.
He's a Penn State professor.
The whole idea of this UN climate panel, these reports they come out with every five years or so, the IPCC report, intergovernmental panel.
Basically, the UN was set up in 1988.
In order to look at how carbon dioxide human emissions impact climate change.
If they fail to find that carbon dioxide impacts the emissions in a dangerous way, they fail to have a reason to exist.
So the climate panel found what?
That carbon dioxide was a dangerous pollutant and therefore we were facing a climate crisis.
Unless, and this was the beauty of it, unless we all agreed to a net zero UN climate treaty.
So the UN got to set up the panel.
Hype the problem that if they failed to hype, it would mean the abolishment of said panel.
And as a bonus, they got to be in charge of the solution.
So they get to have annual UN climate summits everywhere in the world, the most exotic locations.
Most recent was in Dubai, Middle East.
Next year is in Azerbaijani, which I am intending to attend.
It'll be my 19th at the last 21 UN climate summits that I'll be attending.
And so what Michael Mann did, and this goes back to 2001 United Nations report, we had scientists say they were contacted by climate activists within the UN saying, we have to get rid of the medieval warm period.
Michael Mann stepped forward and his research showed that the medieval warm period was gone.
Temperatures were flat until the 20th century.
So that's where Michael Mann is.
The other thing that Michael Mann got involved in, Was during ClimateGate emails were released where he was working with or implying that he was going to delete documents to evade Freedom of Information Act requests in the ClimateGate emails, which were either hacked or inadvertently released by a whistleblower.
And so this was the background by which Mark Stein wrote about Michael Mann, the then Penn State University professor.
He's now moved to University of Pennsylvania, which was my favorite climate skeptic of all time, Robert Giegengack, who died last year, 2023.
He's featured in my first film a lot.
He was literally the most articulate, knowledgeable, credentialed climate scientist.
He had done 200 peer-reviewed studies.
He'd been on almost every continent.
He went right after the heart of it.
He was a liberal.
He liked Al Gore.
He went and saw Al Gore's movie and was disappointed, started speaking out publicly.
But anyway, so that was the background when Mark Stein wrote this.
I think it was 2010.
I know the lawsuit was 2011.
So what's happened since then is Michael Mann has delayed this Mark Stein trial, delayed, delayed to the point where they were last after the preliminary hearing in October of 2023.
I've got to get my Michael and Mark straight.
Michael Mann's legal team tried to delay the trial again till next fall, till fall of 2024.
And Mark Stein would have none of it.
And he finally got the judge to just say, no, the trial begins now.
After 12 years, we're done with this monkeying around.
And part of this is a legal strategy.
Part of it, Michael Mann does not want to be cross-examined by Mark Stein.
And I'll get to that in a second.
But part of this is just drag it out.
Eventually, they're hoping that there'll be a settlement or that Mark Stein will just get tired of this whole thing and give up.
When my prediction is when the time comes and this trial is only supposed to be about two weeks, maybe three weeks.
I don't know.
I think it's only four days a week.
Fridays are off.
It's a very, you know, judges and it's like banking hours.
You know, they start at 10.
They'll take a long lunch.
They're done by two or three.
I mean, everything's kind of you only get a few hours in a day.
It's not like a full day's work in the courthouse.
But I predict, confidently, that Michael Mann will do everything in his power not to be cross-examined, certainly not in person.
I'm predicting that Michael Mann is going to be called away to a conference.
I'll be happy to take Mark Steins, acting as his own lawyer in the cross-examination, I'll be happy to take his questions in writing.
Then there'll be a big procedural battle over whether that can happen.
Then Michael Mann will say, well, OK, if we can't do it in writing, we'll do it via Zoom.
Because I can't be in the courthouse those days.
It's just, I can't do it.
I'm very important.
I've got other things.
And then there'll be a big procedural battle over that.
I don't know the final result of this.
I just find it.
It would be fantastical.
I don't even know if that's a word, but I think I saw it in a 50s sci-fi movie.
If they actually were face-to-face, in person, in court.
And I'm thinking of 4TNT going down there and maybe I'd like to get some shoot some stuff, but I'd also like to figure out a way I can maybe broadcast live from the courthouse.
Now, the courthouse does not allow cameras, does not allow video of any kind during the actual court proceedings, but I could maybe conduct interviews in the ante rooms, in the hallways, outside the courtroom, and maybe even do my show from the sidewalk!
Outside D.C.
Superior Court, and with our weather, I think it would be fun.
People walking by, homeless people accosting me, potential crime, and also, who knows, it might be snowing, and I think it would be, it would be cinema verte at its height, so we'll see.
And that is a big development.
The trial is officially beginning.
Mark your calendar, January 16th, 2024, the climate trial of the century.
I'll tell you a few other things about this, actually, before I get off it, because We have.
Filmmakers Anne and Felham McAleer are coming, and they're going to be documenting the trial, and they're going to be doing a movie with actors recreating this trial, similar to what they did with, I believe, the Trump-Russia collusion FBI.
They had a courtroom drama based on that.
They did a courtroom drama based on Gosnell, the late-term abortion doctor.
So they're really talented at doing this.
And we're also expecting some of the biggest names in climate skepticism to attend, people like Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT, Dr. Judith Curry.
And they're going to be attending the trial, testifying in person on to basically the problems with Michael Mann and why Mark Stein wrote about him accurately.
And this is all part of a larger picture Of Michael Mann, a UN scientist, a climate activist, the media's number one.
In fact, Michael Mann and I share one little distinction.
He, according to a 2019 journal Nature Study, was the number one media-cited climate activist scientist.
And the same study said I was the number one media-cited climate skeptic.
And both of us by far, I mean, there was no one even close in second place.
So we share that distinction.
And I will admit, Michael Mann actually beat me out at the time, certainly.
He actually had more media hits on the climate activist side than I had on the climate skeptic side.
Not by a huge amount, if I recall, but he's regularly on CNN, MSNBC, PBS, all these other media outlets and radio.
And so, yeah, he does hold that distinction.
So he is literally the media darling.
But I don't expect the media to cover this trial much at all.
Unless, of course, Michael Mann wins.
I don't think they'll get too deep into the machinations.
We'll see.
There might be some beat reporters, but I don't expect the same people.
Because Michael Mann is generally, if you read his Twitter, if you listen to him, he's never really written about this.
It's just all letting his lawyers do the talking on this.
So maybe that's the advice of his lawyer.
He's not going to say anything and blah, blah, blah.
On the advice of himself, serving as his own lawyer, has said plenty and lots, and I'll be playing you lots of clips of that as we go forward on that trial.
Okay, this is the big news of the day, and it's bonkers, so prepare yourself.
Prepare yourself, prepare yourself, prepare yourself.
Davos is opening up, and we're going to have on, by the way, Dennis Rancourt will be joining us in about 10 minutes.
Dennis Rancourt is a physicist, used to be formerly a professor at the University of Ottawa, I believe.
Toronto, sorry about that.
I'll find out.
He is coming on.
He has done phenomenal work on COVID, on lockdowns, on public health, on the vaccine, on the actual virus.
Doesn't even believe we had a pandemic.
He's done phenomenal work on climate change.
I'm going to ask him about Davos, the Great Reset, the World Health, the pandemic treaty, et cetera.
We're going to go through all of these issues with Dennis Rancourt, our guest, when he joins us.
But here's the latest from Davos, live.
Not live, but this happened late yesterday.
Al Gore in Davos claims government policies can change Earth's temperatures in three years!
Gore, quote, once we get to true net zero and stop eating, sorry, let me try that again.
Once we get the true net zero and stop adding CO2, the temps will stop going up almost immediately with a lag of as little as three years, unquote.
So Al Gore, Not content to just talk about a doomsday five, ten years, tipping points, all that stuff.
And I think we're on like eight years or now, maybe seven years and some change of the climate tipping point originally presented by AOC and others signed on this doomsday clock, Prince Charles.
Al Gore is now saying if we achieve the climate success with our government policies and we achieve net zero, three years the temperature won't go up.
The brilliance of this, first of all, just in an uninformed sort of media landscape and even public, general public.
Because if the temperatures go up in three years, you can say, well, we didn't do enough.
We have to double down.
Sorry.
We're just not doing enough.
Sorry.
Even though we met the goals, the goals weren't tight enough.
So we have to go further.
And if the temperatures don't go up, which they don't, we've had upwards of, depending on the time, 14, 18 years of no change in temperature.
Are they going to claim credit for that?
Years ago, the UK environmental minister actually said during the global warming pause, Uh, where we had no temperature increase from like 98, I think it was 2015, and we had another big El Nino, was crediting solar and wind power with lowering world temperatures or preventing them from going up.
And my attitude was, why not?
You guys make any claim you want.
No one checks them scientifically.
You can just have fun.
This is pretty wild though.
And I have a clip.
I hope to have this clip for you tomorrow on Al Gore saying that.
But let me just find you the net zero will be reached when the world completely eliminates carbon emissions.
And my response to this was, and I was on Fox News, and I'll have that clip for you, but not today.
As Davos is meeting, they hear things today, like Al Gore said, if they meet the political targets in net zero, they're going to Which are going to impact businesses, the temperatures will stop going up almost immediately, three years.
He's saying in three years it will see no effect.
So if businesses believe we can pass a tax or regulation and stop the Earth's rotation or climate change or the Earth's temperature, it's a pretty big regulatory uncertainty of what's going to happen to these businesses because ideologues at the World Economic Forum will enforce those kinds of regulations on business if they actually believe they can stop temperature from rising in three years or less.
It's pretty scary stuff.
Think about that.
This is a situation where Al Gore, and the backstory here is Michael Mann, the aforementioned, who's Mark Stein, is being sued by Mark Stein.
The other way around, Michael Mann is suing Mark Stein.
I'll get these names right.
It's just, dude.
Michael Mann is bragging on Twitter that he helped Al Gore give him the science on this, and I will get back to that on that in terms of what science they're claiming.
I'm sure it's model-based.
It's bonkers, whatever it is.
It's insane that they could even try to come up with a three-year, if you do this policy goal, Three years later, we'll have the result we want.
It'll start working.
I mean, I don't even know that the old wagon-selling, you know, con men who would sell you the vitamin or the mixtures or the health tonics would claim that, you know.
Well, it's at least on their level where they would probably claim instant results, all psychological.
And by the way, all they had to do, just like COVID, COVID was based on COVID case counts.
So when the media decided to stop counting COVID case counts and stop doing daily death tolls of people with COVID, as opposed to dying of COVID, and we had cases where there were coroners and gunshot victims were classified as COVID deaths.
Same thing with climate.
You're going to say, oh, the weather is not as extreme because the media won't be covering it.
The weather is extreme.
Weather happens all the time.
We know from all the big reports and all the peer-reviewed science and all the data That extreme weather is actually on a declining or no trend in the last 30, 50, 100 year timescales.
Even the UN acknowledges it.
Even our time.
So all they'd have to do is just stop reporting the extreme weather and Al Gore would be right.
It's a whole new tactic.
I mean, it's almost like a desperation tactic because it's so out there.
Go to our achieve our policy goes and just one last point.
This is important.
Net zero, we know this from the climate gate emails, was quite literally pulled from thin air.
Phil Jones, the lead UN scientist, upper echelon, was revealed in these emails as saying net zero is just a number we pulled out of thin air, it has no meaning, it's politically based, it's to give politicians some kind of target, it's meaningless.
And to sit here and say, well if we achieve these net zero goals, which is basically shutting down fossil fuels, shutting down the economy, planned recessions to fight global warming, more climate lockdowns and all that, Then we could have the temperature will stop going up in three years.
Can you imagine all the young climate activists cheering?
We have to do this!
Al Gore with the backing of Michael Mann said, well, we can reverse global warming in three years once we achieve the goals.
This is our life's commission.
And this is why you have eight, literally eight year old suing Biden's EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, to ensure themselves a climate future.
It's bonkers.
And then there's bonkers.
And then there's bonkers.
So it's all bonkers.
Okay.
Having said all that, when we come back, we're going to have on physicist Dr. Dennis Rancourt of Canada, and he's going to go through all these issues.
We're going to talk about the vaccine.
We're going to talk about COVID.
We're going to talk about public health.
We're going to talk about climate, the Great Reset.
Stay tuned.
This is Unleashed with Mark Morano on TNT.
TNT's Jeremy Nell.
Nice comment here from Rebecca.
She says the youngest people I work with are a bit more mature but their interactions with the public is stifled and she's referring to the excessive use of cell phones and social media and how it's making them so anti-social also.
The business is open six days a week.
One of his staff members formally requested that they be given permission not to have to work on Wednesdays so that they could help at the dog shelter.
Now, as you know, I'm a dog lover.
I have hunting dogs, I've got dogs coming out of my ears, my Malinois.
And this dog, this Malinois, is bright even by Malinois standards.
She can do crossword puzzles.
She's lying under my desk at the moment feeling sorry for herself.
Because she's just come on heat for the first time and she's completely bewildered.
She doesn't know why she's bleeding to death.
It's not about whether it's a good or a bad thing to work at animal shelters.
That's a delightful thing.
It's a noble thing to do.
But who in their right mind goes to their boss and says, would you mind?
I'd rather not work on Wednesdays if it's okay, because I've got other priorities in a town down the road.
Jeremy Nell on today's News Talk TNT.
I'm Cal Fire Battalion Chief Isaac Sanchez, and normally we like to provide you with tips on how to keep yourselves and your families safe during wildfires.
But given the historic impacts that the weather has had on our state this year, we would like to provide you with tips on how to keep yourself safe during extreme weather.
If you reside in an area susceptible to flooding, please take the necessary steps to prepare to evacuate if advised.
Make sure you've identified at least two exit routes out of your neighborhood as one of them may be blocked or flooded.
As the weather develops, remember to check in on vulnerable neighbors and family members.
They may need additional time to prepare for evacuation.
And just like during a wildfire, if you feel unsafe, please evacuate.
You don't have to wait for the order to come.
Keep an emergency go bag ready in case you need to evacuate.
And always remember to plan for the safety of your pets as well.
If you must leave, never drive around roadblocks.
It can take as little as 12 inches of water to sweep your vehicle away.
And always remember the mantra, turn around, don't drown.
Be aware of first responders working in highly impacted areas, especially on the roads.
For additional safety tips and updates on Cal Fire activities, follow us on social media or visit fire.ca.gov.
My character Shazam knows all about growing up in a family full of teenage superheroes.
They're bold.
Where's everyone going?
To fight crime.
Okay.
Adventurous.
Shazam!
There's never a dull moment.
And no matter what happens, they'll always have your back.
All they need is a place to grow and be themselves.
And the best part is, you don't have to be a superhero to adopt a teen.
Learn more about adopting a teen from foster care.
Visit AdoptUSKids.org.
You can't imagine the reward.
Your website?
TNTradio.live Check it out!
Today's news talk radio It's the coolest!
TNT Welcome back to Unleashed with Mark Morano on TNT.
All right, joining us now is physicist Dr. Dennis Rancourt, formerly of University of Ottawa, and I've been a huge fan of him.
He was featured in my first film, Climate Hustle, and one of his things that I loved and what drew me to him originally, and I'll just start with this because it was so much fun, You'd said that global warming was a movement, a corrupt social phenomena, strictly imaginary problem of the first world middle class.
So, let's start with that, Dennis.
How is global warming a corrupt social phenomena that's an imaginary problem of the first world middle class?
And just before you answer, we have an eight-year-old in the United States with other kids, teenagers in high school and middle school, suing the United States government to ensure themselves a better climate future by the government, because the government hasn't shut down all fossil fuels and centralized the economy to fight global warming.
So is that, you know, where, how can you say it's, you know, just an imaginary problem when you have these earnest kids suing governments around the world, they're doing it in the EU.
Right, right, right.
Okay, well, that interview we did together is, I think, a decade ago.
We've been doing this for a long time, you and I, right?
2013, 2014, yeah.
Yeah, and it's been a lot of fun, and I really appreciate interacting with you.
Um, when I said that, I meant that the people who are captured by it in terms of the general public will tend to be the professional and middle classes, not so much the working classes.
They're the ones who are captivated by it.
When I first saw Al Gore's nonsensical film, I went to see it in a theater in Ottawa when it came out.
And I had just sat through all of this garbage, all of these manipulated graphs.
You know, as a scientist, I couldn't believe that he was seriously saying these things.
And as I was walking out of the theater, the thing that stunned me was that these middle class and professional class young people that were walking out of the theater were just enthralled.
They were just like, oh, now we know what to believe and what You know, virtuous position to have, and they were just so pleased with themselves that they had seen this film.
And I just couldn't believe what a despicable film this was in terms of misleading and just talking nonsense.
So that's how I was introduced to this.
So what I meant by the middle class thing was that.
You know, it's really the Western middle class that is in a position to want to soak up the propaganda about the next new ideology to have.
And they've been doing this with climate change, environmentalism, gender equity, Indoctrination since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, and anti-racism of language, right?
Of the spoken word, as though that were going to remove racism.
And all of these are the doctrines of the Western world, and the people who soak it up are the wealthy classes, well, you know, in the Western world.
They're the ones who are captured by it.
Is it ironic because it seems to be the middle class is going to be the ones most impacted by the so-called climate solutions, by sort of the crushing, you know, what you have going on in Davos, the world economic forum, and just the general economic trends of the earth.
It would seem as though the middle class is being crushed.
You're going to have a wealthy class and then a lower class that's essentially dependent on universal basic income.
But what's your thought on that?
Well, there's a huge You know, salary professional class, that's a big thing.
I mean, the US is an empire and it has managers for the empire, whether they're working in finance or government, whatever they're working in, that is a large class.
And these people benefit from following the directives of the government and the ideology proposed by the government.
They always benefit.
They have high salaries, their income is guaranteed, or their business directions are guaranteed.
if they cooperate with the government and so on.
So they all benefit from it.
So, yeah, that's how I would put it.
Okay.
Well, before we get just into that, just talking about what's going on in Davos in terms of like the Great Reset, there's been a whole realignment in politics really since March of 2020.
You have everyone from people like Jimmy Dore, who was a progressive on the Young Turks, to Russell Brand, a Hollywood socialist.
You have them joining forces now with Naomi Wolf.
You have even Bill Maher at times when it comes to a lot of these issues.
And then you have them joining forces with Tucker Carlson and a lot of the conservatives.
There seems to be a meeting of sort of the Traditional liberals with the, I hate to say isolationist, but the conservative new right, or I don't know what you want to call it.
But have you witnessed that in your personal life and just politically?
There's a new alliance forming basically because it's no longer left versus right.
It's really the freedom fighter, the people who want more freedom versus the establishment and ruling class.
Or is that just another made-up game that the ruling class is throwing at us?
I think it's generally true that there is that phenomenon and that it involves many of the players, that there is this union of positions.
Because the COVID scam and the COVID episode, the COVID assault against people was so devastating and so obvious and so overt that it did wake up a lot of people that normally might not be in the same room together.
But it's bringing them together now that they're noticing that this is starting to look like advanced totalitarianism.
You know, we're starting to approach this now.
And they can inject whatever they want into our bodies whenever they want and lock us in.
And they can do all these incredible things.
So that has brought people together that may not naturally have come together.
For sure, for sure.
The only issue where that hasn't happened as directly is the issue of Israel and its attack against Gaza and so on.
That's still divisive.
So even though that is clearly the empire and that is clearly the actions of the empire Uh, and and actions that are counter to our interests in the world, no matter where you live.
Uh, there's still there still appears to be a strong hold on that issue, and it's still still hasn't brought people together to oppose that.
Yeah, and that issue, in terms of the free speech angle, it's disheartening to see a lot of these people who railed against cancel culture for years suddenly want to shut down and decertify anyone's anti-Israel stance or whatever you want to call it.
Oh yeah, and have them declared it.
Yeah, and have them declared on campuses as terrorists and things like that.
It's just over the top, crazy censorship.
A lot of climate skeptics were cheering the, I think it was the Burning Man, where the police were brutalizing some of these protesters blocking the highway, like almost kicking them and dragged them forcefully.
And I remember I stood up and said, look, I don't want to see this against climate protesters doing silly things like blocking a highway, and I also don't want to see it against people protesting vaccine mandates.
I got hit a lot from my own side.
A lot of climate skeptics came back on Twitter and were attacking me like I was going soft or something.
But I think it's a mindset where everyone's for censorship unless it's an issue that they don't want attacked.
It's human nature, I guess.
Yes, and demonstrations are part of expression and influence in a democratic society, and you have to expect that they will give rise to, you know, it will bother some people and it will disrupt their lives if they can't go as quickly as they want to on the freeway and all those kinds of things.
You have to expect that.
So in Canada, we had the truckers come in and be present, and they were attacked viciously eventually when the government organized itself militarily and decided to close down Ottawa.
and blame it on their presence.
I mean, the people who disrupted Ottawa, I live in Ottawa, are the police blocking all the roads and doing all these totalitarian measures.
That's what disrupted Ottawa, but they successfully blamed it on the truckers and on the demonstrators who were families dancing in the street and so on.
I was with them regularly.
And the professional class bought that.
They bought the story that there was a fascist occupation of Ottawa, that the propaganda was entirely successful among my neighbors, you know, and people like that.
They reported there was a Nazi flag, right?
I remember them saying like there was one Nazi flag and they made that into their own.
There was one Nazi flag that was associated with the government, you know, having No one who knew exactly where to point its camera when and where and so on and denounced by everybody.
So it's just, yeah, it's crazy.
It's crazy that freedom is very selective in people's minds, depending on the issue, even for those who would defend it vigorously in certain for certain topics.
Well, let's take a moment on the trucker convoy, the freedom convoy.
Justin Trudeau, I think it was 2013, said he admired China's basic dictatorship.
So just can you walk us through exactly how unprecedented and how authoritarian Specifically, Justin Trudeau's response was to the truckers in terms of using the Canadian Emergencies Act, in terms of canceling the truckers insurance with corporate government collusion, and in terms of blocking access to their own bank accounts.
Can you just lay out what exactly Justin Trudeau did?
You just laid it out.
Those are the big building blocks.
But Ottawa had never been locked down to this degree.
Ever.
There are always protests on Parliament Hill.
That's what Parliament Hill is for.
And normally, protesters can walk right up to the door of the Parliament.
And there's a huge area there where you can have protests and organized concerts and do whatever you want.
And it's been that way the whole time that I've ever lived in Ottawa.
I've seen close to 10,000 demonstrators on Parliament Hill and nobody batted an eye.
The police were just making sure that everyone was safe.
That's it.
I mean, physically safe, just because you're moving a lot of people around and stuff like that.
Um, but the reaction in this case was to vilify them.
Uh, there was propaganda about how they were dangerous and, and, and there's, um, they, they targeted some people to arrest them as dangerous and this kind of thing.
And they, and they.
And they just painted everyone with the same brush and that became the pretext to lock Ottawa down military style.
It was a totalitarian police occupation of Ottawa.
That's what the truckers were.
And it was very disruptive for someone like me who lives in Ottawa.
I had to argue with the police just across from one neighborhood.
to another that kind of thing it was and show my id and so on it was it was crazy but um so that's certainly that was unprecedented and the the main avenue in front of the parliament uh was blocked for traffic for like more than a year it was just crazy um yeah all right well let's go back to the root of this then
i mean uh in terms of march of 2020 tell us what you think the prevent I don't think it necessarily...
I think what happened was this was in the works for a long time.
We know from all the pandemic planning sessions, from things like the Rockefellers and Johns Hopkins and World Economic Forum, they were planning exactly what happened.
They were planning lockdown, they were planning mask and vaccine mandates, they were planning censorship, all the things that happened.
But how profoundly did March of 2020 forward affect the world and open people's eyes?
Because a lot of people were red-pilled by that.
And what's the end game of this?
And how do we stop it?
This sort of, I guess you could call it, public health authoritarianism.
Oh, my God.
Well, that's like a... I'll come back in an hour.
See you later.
Good night.
Yeah, exactly.
Okay.
Well, first of all, there can be absolutely no doubt in any thinking person's mind That this was organized top down, it was a military operation, and they were going to do it no matter what.
So, directives were given to all the governments, all the satellites of the US, all the way down to municipal governments in every city.
This was going to happen.
COVID was going to be a thing.
We were going to have this huge mask of propaganda about the danger of this new virus.
And then we were going to vaccinate everyone.
We're going to inject everybody.
And this was going to be how it was going to be, period.
And the scientists ended up just being an integral part of the propaganda.
They're bought out and they said all the right things to be an integral part, whether they were talking on TV or writing scientific papers that were completely funded by pharma and so on.
So the operation, when you see it, when you step back and look at what actually happened, there can be no doubt that this had nothing to do.
It was anti-democratic.
It was anti-science.
It was anti-freedom, it was anti-human rights, it was anti-everything, and it was just something they were gonna do, okay?
Now, why did they want to do it?
And what were they doing precisely?
I think the military has a significant interest in being able to inject whatever they want into people's bodies whenever they want.
So they tested their ability to do that, including the propaganda.
That's the military weapon right there, is to be able to inject people whenever you want on this mass scale.
So that's what I would say about the weapons side of it.
Why did they want to do it?
Well, if you look at What actually happened?
Who gained and who suffered?
They're crushing the working class.
They're completely removing the buying power, the property, the small businesses, the influence, the political freedom, and the freedom of expression of the working class, who tend to be the people who have the most common sense and who can See for themselves the negative impacts of these things and complain about it.
So, you know, the working class in in Western societies are a big threat to the empire, the domestic population.
You have the yellow vests in France, you have the Brexit movement in the UK, you have.
Uh, Trump related movement in in in the U. S. There's a real threat of political influence of people who actually, to some degree, represent the interests of people.
So you have to bring them down and take away the resources and give yourself the ability to shut down their bank accounts, shut down their industry, whether it's farming or the energy sector and so on.
These are all sectors that are not controlled by big finance completely.
And where the working class still has some power and some influence, you have to crush that.
So that's one of the consequences of COVID.
It brought us into this era of closing down farms in the energy sector, which is crazy.
So I think they're desperate to, well, what's really behind this, I think, is the extreme importance of geopolitics.
Geopolitics is a real thing, and it's never gone away, and Eurasia, Russia, China, and the countries that sign contracts with them and have economic exchange and so on, they are developing, and it's real economic development, and it's real societal development of institutions and companies and so on, and they're doing it, and they're decoupling from the US dollar.
So the US dollar which is this global currency that is basically they print as much as they want of it and they use it as a tool of exploitation and if you don't like it or if you refuse it they bring in the military and they intimidate you or any other way.
They engineer crews around the world, whether they're color revolutions and so on.
They make sure that you buy into their system, buy their military equipment, make sure that you use the U.S.
dollar and so on.
You probably know that I wrote a big article about geopolitics in 2019, which people are now recognizing as a really important explanation of the context here that allows us to understand COVID.
So I believe that this was geopolitical.
The world is changing.
It's no longer a single empire that has all the power like just after the dissolution of the Soviet Union.
It's now a competing bloc that is real, that has strong institutions, a stratified society, many different social classes and so on.
These are strong societies.
I'm talking about China and Russia, and they're not going away.
And there's an interesting development in Ukraine where Russia actually became stronger as a result of that threat from NATO.
And aligned with China.
Exactly.
So this is very real.
The geopolitics is very real.
Those people who say, oh no, it's the same few elite that are controlling both sides.
They don't, I don't, I think that's just, that's just fictitious, you know.
Sure, China developed its own vaccine.
So did Russia.
You can't Watch the Empire develop this new weapon, which is the ability to vaccinate the population and pretend like you're not going to do it yourself.
I mean, the Western propaganda is so powerful that it penetrates into Russia and China.
So the populations there would have said, why are you not saving us from this terrible threat?
You know, what are you doing?
There would have been some unease there.
And also they want to develop the same ability, the same they want to Uh, get in there and be part of pharma as well.
I mean, the Russia bought patents and that allowed it to make, uh, some of these vaccines and so on.
So sure, they develop their own thing, uh, and they do similar things, but it's because they're competing with the US.
It's not because they're, they have the same bosses, if you see what I mean.
Yeah.
We need to take a break.
When we come back, I'd like to talk to you about was COVID-19 an actual pandemic and then get a little further into the intelligence agencies involved in the censorship and canceling with things like Twitter and Facebook and also just the vaccine mandates in general and the solution, how we fight this.
You're watching Unleashed with Mark Morano on TNT.
We're talking with Dr. Dennis Rancourt.
We'll be right back.
De-weaponizing weather with reality and perspective.
I was asked today by someone what makes me mad.
What gets me anxious?
Lies.
Distortion.
Not telling the whole truth.
Trying to paint something different than what it actually is because you have an agenda.
That gets me upset.
The reason it gets me upset is I think everyone should have the opportunity to decide for themselves, based on all information possible, what they want to do with their lives.
Let's take the global temperature.
The global temperature is a very poor metric for measuring the climate, but...
Better than the global temperature is what we call the wet bulb temperature, which is the saturation temperature of the air.
And even better than that, just use pure water vapor.
That explains everything.
If we track the amount of increase of water vapor, we know the correlation between temperature and water vapor, it explains beautifully what's going on.
We don't even You don't need any CO2 back radiation theory, but you're not going to hear that.
It makes me mad.
And you know why it makes me mad?
Because it's not telling the truth.
It's hiding the truth, distorting the truth.
And that means that you cannot make the decision you need to make as an individual with your free will.
Basically, that's what this whole climate fight is all about.
This is TNT climate and weather watchdog, meteorologist Joe Bastardi, asking you to enjoy the weather it's the only weather you've got.
Here's a bushfire fact.
Bushfires can occur without warning.
So, if you're traveling during bushfire season, here are three simple steps to remember.
One, check the fire danger rating before you go.
The higher the fire danger rating, the more dangerous the conditions.
It may be safer to re-plan your trip.
2.
Think about the area you're going to.
And what you would do if a fire started.
How would you escape the area if you needed to?
And where would you go?
Check if there's a neighborhood safer place.
3.
It's dangerous to drive through smoke or fire.
If you can't find a way to avoid the fire, park in a cleared area, face the car towards the fire, and turn the engine off.
Then lie on the floor and cover yourself to protect yourself from radiant heat.
Live bushfire ready.
For more helpful tips, visit myfireplan.com.au today.
Taking no prisoners, this is Unleashed with Mark Morano on today's News Talk, TNT Radio.
So.
Welcome back to Unleashed with Mark Morano and TNT.
We're talking with physicist Dr. Dennis Rancourt.
All right, this is breaking news, Dr. Rancourt.
In Davos at the World Economic Forum Great Reset Summit, Al Gore is the first speaker out of the blocks and he claimed, I don't have the clip unfortunately, but claimed that government policies can change the earth within three years.
And here's the exact quote.
Quote, once we get to true net zero and stop adding carbon dioxide, the temperature of the earth will stop going up almost immediately with a lag of as little as three years, unquote.
So basically, he's saying, if you regulate and follow all our prescriptions that I've wanted to do in the UN and the World Economic Forum, we can solve global warming and we'll see results in three years.
Doesn't this sound like the end game?
It's over!
All we have to do is do what they say and they'll leave us alone and we'll solve global warming.
It's a win-win, is it not?
That statement is completely nonsensical.
It's so crazy on so many levels.
First of all, there's no demonstration that human activity can affect the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.
The mobile carbon is in various huge pools on the planet.
One of the biggest ones is dissolved carbon in the ocean, which is controlled by temperature, the dissolution of CO2.
So there are these huge pools, much bigger than the carbon that's in the atmosphere, that are exchangeable, that have exchangeable with the atmosphere.
And there's all kinds of geological Uh, processes that control those exchanges.
And so there's no reason to believe that because we're burning fossil fuel, that's why the CO2 is increasing.
Okay?
And and there's likewise no reason to believe that if we stop burning fossil fuel, that it would stop increasing and so on.
So that's one thing is that that is a very tenuous and simplistic thing to believe that, uh, the CO2 that you produce by burning directly goes into the atmosphere.
The planet doesn't work that way.
First thing.
Second thing, the warming will stop if we do this.
Well, what warming are we talking about?
If you actually look at surface temperature, and you do means, annual means, because of the, you know, the seasonal variations in temperature, and you do means across the surface of the planet, the best way you can, using geographer's techniques, Then that mean temperature, which is fundamentally obtained by measurements locally at weather stations and so on, or sometimes by satellites, the data that suggests that the mean temperature has been increasing slightly is completely biased.
It's skewed.
It's unreliable.
It's full of problems.
Every time statisticians look at what the government are proposing for this data and how they have manipulated the data in order to produce a very small increase, What you find is that it's unreliable and untrue.
So I don't even believe that there is conclusive evidence that there is any warming of the surface temperature.
We don't have the ability to detect it that finely over such a short period of time.
Okay, that's the second thing.
And then the idea So how can you say warming will stop if you haven't established that there is warming?
You see?
So that's the level of insanity here.
And also, it's a statement about the future.
How would you decide that you've stopped?
Are you going to actually suggest That all human activity that produces CO2, net CO2 has stopped.
For example, if you have more animals and more humans breathing and eating more and exercising more, the growth of population, the growth of that relative to other things like plant life, is going to cause a net increase in CO2.
That is significant.
I showed this in a calculation previously.
So what do you have to do?
Do you have to kill every Kill all growth of animal life that breathes?
What do you have to do to achieve his zero?
Just stop pouring cement?
Stop tilling the soil?
Stop making batteries because you think electricity is going to do it?
Stop making electricity?
You want to make electricity?
How are you going to do it?
We've got thousands of years worth of coal.
Are we not going to burn that coal?
How are you going to do this?
And if you manage to do it, how are you going to establish that you've actually achieved your goal of zero emission of CO2?
Are you going to measure CO2 content in the atmosphere and see if it continues to rise?
Because if you do that, you're going to get a heck of a surprise.
It's going to continue to rise because it's a planetary process and nothing you do as you see.
That's the thing.
That's that's the first reality that people have to realize is that we can show we know how much fossil fuel burning is occurring on the planet as a function of time.
And it is not correlated to the gradual increase in CO2 that you see in the atmosphere.
You can increase the burning by tenfold within a decade and it does not give a sharp rise or any kind of a proportionate rise in the CO2.
There is no relationship!
One is a planetary process determined by planetary scale processes that many of which are not even known and cannot be calculated precisely.
And the other is the human activity related to burning fossil fuel.
They're not related.
So how are you going to do this?
So there's just layers of stupidity in the entire project and in a statement like that.
Well, how would you evaluate the marketing and the public persuasion angle?
Because this is clearly Al Gore trying a whole new tack.
He's tried the tipping points.
He's tried Florida underwater with sea level rise.
He's tried to scare.
Now it's like, this is a very hopeful message.
He's saying, we're so close.
All we got to do is reach this goal.
And I think, depending on which one he's talking, it could be 2040, 2050.
I think 2050 is like the furthest one out.
Net zero by 2050.
He's saying the temperature of the earth will be affected by three years after you achieve the goal.
Does that work on a public persuasion level?
Do you think he'll be successful there?
Forget science.
Well, yeah, it's an intelligent talking point, and it makes for great propaganda, and it achieves the goal of giving them a pretext for a decade or more of completely destroying the fossil fuel energy industry.
You know, the problem with fossil fuel, people used to think, oh, we're going to run out, it's precious, and everything.
The problem with fossil fuel is there's too much of it.
You're not about to run out, you know.
And the big problem, when they say too much of it, they mean our enemies have it.
You know, like the competitors of the US have lots of fossil fuel.
Venezuela, Russia, even China has a lot of coal.
And so not as much as they'd like, but still.
So you want to find some way to impose frustrating their development And making them criminals if they continue to use this energy source and you want to also shut down your own domestic or pretend to shut down your own domestic energy supplies, you know, I think I think.
Domestic power plays within the U.S.
are probably important.
You've got a lot of energy producers, especially with shale, that are not controlled by big finance, that are not controlled by the finance sector, that can really generate their own income.
That's a threat.
That's a threat.
Think of the two classic competing forces within the empire, which is the finance Versus manufacturing military and energy sector in the US.
The Republicans and the Democrats are basically mostly tied to those two big sectors.
You can kill your opponent by killing that industry.
You can say, well, now we need to go to batteries and we have to invest so finance will control this and we need to go electric.
And we're gonna take over energy in the empire, you see, and just kill fossil fuel production because it provides jobs to the working class who are already in themselves dangerous.
And it gives economic power to our main opponents right now that don't agree with just finance being the only source of everything.
So I kind of see that it's playing on that level.
Does that make sense to you, Mark?
I mean, you've been thinking about this a lot.
Does that make sense to you?
Absolutely.
Yeah, no, it does.
And I think, you know, Al Gore is going to try anything he can think of.
And this is as good a new marketing thing as he's come up with in decades.
So I give him kudos on that level.
All right.
We only have, you know, Yeah, but Al Gore is not just a guy looking for personal profit.
He is that, but there's more to it than that.
Again, I think we have to bring it back to the geopolitics.
And the domestic battles within the U.S.
for power.
I think I think it's tied to that as well.
I mean, Al Gore is a personality that you can criticize and so on.
But really, the fact that this is happening at the U.N.
or facilitated by the U.N.
and so these are all institutions controlled by the West.
This this is their plan.
This is what they want to do.
It's and it's big and it's driven by geopolitics and and and and also domestic fighting.
So I think I think that's what it's tied to.
All right.
Well, we only have about two minutes left.
Here's a question for you.
Well, in as brief as possible at this point, and I'd like to have you back on to really explore this, but was COVID a pandemic?
And in my book, The Great Reset, I actually quoted Klaus Schwab of the World Economic Forum saying, you know, that this doesn't qualify the death toll.
This was in June of 2020.
He was saying this really isn't that big of a deal historically with other viruses, but was it a pandemic?
And How do we prevent the kind of authoritarian response to COVID, the virus, that we had?
And again, you only have about a minute and a half now.
Yeah, a minute and a half.
So let's stick with the first part.
Was it a pandemic?
Okay.
I wrote an essay that people can find online.
It's in various places, and it's also published in a book.
And the title of the essay is, There Was No Pandemic.
And that's an important essay because it really summarizes my thought based on hard measurements and so on.
So what I mean by that is there was no spreading new pathogen that was causing the excess death.
But that doesn't mean there was not excess death.
There was huge amounts of excess death, but it was all tied to the nature of the various assaults against people.
So, these assaults included the medical treatments, the lockdowns, just all kinds of things, and we have been studying that for three years.
I've written more than 30 large reports on this, and we've demonstrated that excess mortality prior to the vaccination occurred in peaks that were often synchronous if the assaults were synchronous around the world, And it was all due to these assaults.
So you're basically attacking vulnerable people.
You're crushing them.
They get sick and they die.
So we have proven that there was no virulent pathogen that was spreading and causing death.
It did not cross borders.
It stayed in hot spots.
It didn't spread.
We've proven all of these things.
And so in that sense, there was no pandemic.
Alright, well thank you very much.
We're talking with Dr. Dennis Rancourt, physicist, formerly University of Ottawa in Canada.
Thank you so much for joining the show today.
My pleasure.
This is Unleashed with Mark Marano on TNT.
▲
Export Selection