Ep. 84 - Bitterly Cold Global Warming ft. Richard Lindzen
A bitterly cold spate of global warming has struck the East Coast, freezing harbors and blanketing whole cities under its sweltry frost. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, this bomb cyclone occurs when a "cold air mass collides with a warm air mass, and despite the intense name the phenomenon is actually quite common, particularly in the northern Atlantic regions. But forget all the science mumbo-jumbo! The mainstream media have wasted no time in identifying the clear culprit behind the frigid cold front: global warming. Because weather is weather, not climate, except when it’s convenient for Democrats, in which case the weather becomes the climate. We’ll analyze this bitterly cold global warming with former MIT atmospheric physicist and catastrophic climate change skeptic Richard Lindzen. Then, This Day in History!
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
A bitterly cold spate of global warming has struck the east coast, freezing harbors and blanketing whole cities under its sweltery frost.
According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, this bomb cyclone occurs when a cold air mass collides with a warm air mass, and despite the intense name, the phenomenon is actually quite common, particularly in the northern Atlantic regions.
But forget all that science mumbo-jumbo.
The mainstream media have wasted no time in identifying the clear culprit behind the frigid cold front.
Man-caused global warming.
Now, because weather is weather, not climate, except when it's convenient for Democrats, in which case the weather becomes the climate, we will analyze this bitterly cold global warming with former MIT atmospheric physicist and catastrophic climate change skeptic Richard Lindzen.
Then, this day in history, I'm Michael Knowles and this is The Michael Knowles Show.
We have a lot to talk about today.
We've got to analyze the bomb cyclone.
I can't wait to get to Richard Lindzen.
We're going to bring him on right at the top.
And this day in history.
But first, before we can do any of that, we've got to keep the lights on in this place.
So we have to thank Ring.
Ring is some pretty amazing technology.
Ring's mission is to make neighborhoods safer.
So you've probably seen this.
All your cool friends who have, like, cool houses and stuff might have this.
It's that video doorbell.
So that when you ring the bell, they can just see you on their cell phones from wherever they are, and they can answer and talk back to you.
So today, over a million people use the amazing Ring video doorbell to help protect their homes.
Ring knows that home security begins at the front door, but it doesn't end there.
So now they're extending that same level of security to the rest of your home with the Ring floodlight cam.
For most of my viewers and listeners, you'll know what a floodlight cam is because when you're trying to break into somebody's house, that's the light that shoots on and catches you and then you scurry away in fear.
Well, now, good law-abiding homeowners will be able to see you when you do that because even if the bad guys try to steal your doorbell or steal the floodlight camera, that video will be uploaded straight to the cloud.
People will already see it.
You can catch the bad guys.
You can see and speak to visitors, even set off an alarm right from your phone.
And that is HD video, that's two-way audio, lets you know the moment anyone steps onto your property.
With Ring's floodlight camera, when things go bump in the night, or when you go bump in the night, you will immediately know what it is.
Whether you're home or away, the Ring floodlight camera lets you keep an eye on your home from anywhere.
It is the ultimate in home security.
Remember in the old days they used to have the neighborhood watch and then people would still rob your neighborhoods all the time?
This is the 21st century.
Get with the 21st century.
These are amazing price points for incredible technology.
It is the ultimate.
So there is high visibility floodlights, powerful HD camera.
Put security in your hands.
I know they did an experiment in a bad neighborhood of LA. They gave out a bunch of Ring technology.
And they saw within six months a 55% decrease in home burglaries.
That is incredible.
Plus, it's like something out of the Jetsons.
So be sure to go get it.
Right now, today, you can save up to $150 off of a Ring security kit when you go to ring.com slash Knowles.
That is ring.com slash Knowles.
What is it, Marshall?
Slash Noles.
Slash Noles, that's the one.
Okay, so I've got family back on the East Coast in the bomb cyclone of global warming.
Things are looking pretty bad.
Here are just a few photos of it.
Here you can see Niagara Falls is freezing as the water molecules prepare themselves to evaporate into the broiling atmosphere.
You can see some shoppers in Dumbo, Brooklyn.
They're actually ignoring the Do Not Cross signs as they race across the street To escape the blazing sun.
Speaking of Brooklyn, another trendy Brooklynite is donning half of a snorkel in her tropical paradise.
A tractor sweeps the bubbling asphalt off of the main drag in Bellport, New York.
And look at this, a despondent puppy in Bryant Park begs his owner to trim his coat just a little bit shorter.
If only there weren't so much man-caused global warming.
Three Beach Bros cruise Main Street, Midford, New York on jet skis.
Boy, oh boy, that man-caused global warming really is unbelievable.
To help us explain the situation, we now bring on Richard Lindzen.
Richard is an atmospheric physicist specializing in the dynamics of the middle atmosphere, atmospheric tides, and ozone photochemistry, all things about which I know absolutely nothing.
He has published more than 200 scientific papers and books.
He is the recipient of many awards, including the American Meteorological Society's Meisinger and Charney Awards, probably mispronouncing that, the American Geophysical Union's Maslowane Medal, and the Leo Prize from the Wallen Foundation in Göteborg, Sweden.
He is a member of countless climate science advisory boards, and until 2013, Richard worked for 30 years as the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT.
Richard, thank you for being here.
Pleasure being with you, Michael.
So, Richard, in September, even the Washington Post, where, as you might have read, democracy dies in darkness, they reported on a new study in the journal Nature Geoscience, adjusting the settled science of global warming.
Pravda on the Potomac reports, quote, a team of 10 researchers, led by Richard Miller of the University of Oxford...
Recalculated the carbon budget for limiting the Earth's warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit, above temperatures seen in the late 19th century.
It had been widely assumed that this stringent target would prove unachievable, but the new study would appear to give us much more time to get our act together if we want to stay below it.
What this paper means is that keeping warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius Well, obviously it's not settled.
But it's equally true that there are certain problems with these hyped-up statements.
I mean, if you think about it a little bit, You know, the temperature has already gone up since the 19th century by about a degree.
This has been a period of the greatest advances in human welfare in history.
Why do we suddenly feel that the next half degree is the end of the world?
It makes no sense.
Whether we'll go above that or not, I have no idea.
But I'm almost sure that its consequences would be fairly minimal.
And, you know, you make a great point that whenever we're talking about this climate debate, will the temperature go up another degree or half a degree or one and a half degrees?
We're ignoring the greatest advances in human prosperity in the history of the world.
We're ignoring the Industrial Revolution.
You know, many distinguished scientists, including yourself, reject the so-called climate consensus pushed by politicians.
We saw 16 scientists sign that bill.
A Wall Street Journal article in 2012 arguing that decarbonizing the world economy would severely hamper economic growth, quality of life, especially in the third world, that it's not justified by the scientific evidence.
And yet people with little to no scientific training reject all of you highly credentialed scientists as climate deniers.
Has the world turned upside down on what should be a scientific issue?
I suppose you could say that.
I mean, you know, the 97% is a curious thing.
I mean, it's the number that they've decided on that will convince people, as you say, who don't know anything about the subject.
I wouldn't say anyone.
I mean, what I find, for example, is if I, you know, talk to my plumber or electrician or anyone like that, they don't take this seriously.
I'm pretty sure people in what we refer to as flyover country don't take it seriously.
I think the only people who take it seriously are people who went to college, who don't understand science, are worried about it, and are reassured if somebody tells them, however faultily, that 97% agree, then they're comforted and they feel, oh, that's fine.
They never check what the 97% refers to.
I mean, one of the studies was asking people, you know, has the climate warmed since the last 150 years, and has man played any role in it, whatever?
You know, everyone who works in it would agree that, you know, both those statements are probably correct.
They have no catastrophic implication.
But they leave it to people to assume that means the end of the world is nigh.
Others have done all sorts of other fudges.
But the truth of the matter is that probably if you ask weather forecasters, media weather forecasters, it's always been over half.
I don't think there's anything remarkable happening.
That number, as you say, seems perfectly tuned to be used by politicians and demagogues in the media to convince people that something terrible is happening.
And your statement on people who are doing jobs, who maybe they don't have a bachelor's degree or they didn't go to some elite school in the United States, They're not terribly worried.
They're not screaming for their family's welfare and saying, oh no, who cares about how much money we're making and how our investments are doing and whether we can put the kids to college.
Global warming is going to kill us all.
It seems evidence of an age-old truth that a little learning is a dangerous thing, because if you asked any of my classmates at college or any college student today in the United States, they would call you crazy.
Yeah, I think that's true.
But, you know, think about what education is about.
I mean, you know, unfortunately I've come to the conclusion that for the most part what a good student refers to is a student who has learned to rationalize anything in order to please the professor.
That's maybe a useful skill in some instances.
But it'll certainly lead you astray when you're confronted by something fairly absurd, and your special ability is you can rationalize it.
That's a great point.
Alan Bloom wrote about the tenor of college students in The Closing of the American Mind.
He said the best thing you could say about them is that they're nice, and that is a damning indictment.
And speaking of the university, speaking of academic life, scientific careers, from what I have read, have been ruined.
for contradicting global warming orthodoxy.
I read about Murray Salby, American atmospheric physicist, who is a so-called climate dissenter.
It seems that he was fired by Macquarie University for his views.
The university even cancelled a non-refundable return ticket from his European speaking engagement, all because he has dissented.
Is it fair to say that there are professional incentives to toe the line on global warming in the academy?
Of course.
Of course there are.
I mean, Murray's case is really sad.
He's a very good atmospheric scientist.
And they not only did everything you said, but, you know, they prohibited him access to his papers and everything.
He's absolutely Stalinist.
Rob, his entire career.
Etch him out of photographs, maybe.
Yeah, I mean, it was that sort of thing, truly bizarre.
I would say if you're a young scientist and don't have tenure, this will kill you if you dissent.
If you are still active and senior, you'll still be cut off from funding.
So, yeah, sure, it's more than an incentive.
And for university administrations, the fact that this has become a matter of student activism, that students somehow feel that they are displaying their virtue by condemning CO2, which happens to be vital for life.
I mean, you know, it's a bit crazy, but nothing frightens an administrator more than an activist student.
An excellent point.
And did you yourself feel protected a bit?
You were well ensconced, well established nationally and at MIT. I spoke to Harvey Mansfield, the tenured philosopher at Harvard, who said that once he got tenure he felt he could raise a little hell.
Did you think you were protected in a way that younger or less established professors were not?
Of course, of course.
You know, It's supposed to be the purpose of tenure, to give you the freedom to pursue the truth in whatever way you can.
On the other hand, that is less important today than it used to be, because your position in the university depends very critically on your ability to raise funds, and that in turn means everyone, including senior people, Have an immense incentive to toe the line.
And, you know, it's always been known that this is a danger, especially in science, and especially in a science like atmospheric physics or climate, where the government has a virtual monopoly on support.
And a vagina.
Oh yeah, that's the point.
And if they have a position Then that's going to be a real limitation on freedom of inquiry.
And in terms of this, they have this monopoly, they have an agenda, they fund all of it.
And then there is a little old us.
There's the general public.
So I want to get into the science itself.
What is often presented as facts to the general public are actually themselves based on a lot of assumptions as to how to aggregate and adjust raw measurements.
How do we calculate measurements such as, say, the global mean temperature, which we all hear about?
What do those measurements tell us about the so-called consensus and the certainty of the scientific community?
It's not as easy a question as you...
It takes a career to figure this out, if one even can.
I mean, part of the problem is the metric of global mean temperature.
Obviously, there's no such meaningful thing.
That is, say, you can't average Mount Everest with the Dead Sea and get anything meaningful.
Right.
You don't lift your finger into the air and say, ah, yes, I found the global mean temperature.
It's 42 degrees.
Obviously, you can't do that.
And they try and do something that's a little bit more sensible.
You know, at each station, they take the average over 30 years and look at the deviation from that average, then average those deviations over the globe, usually with the area averaging, at least.
But, you know, it's never perfectly clear.
The most amazing thing about that number, by the way, is that it's It's very close to zero.
I mean, you know, one degree, half degree in a century, or one degree in a century, that's very tiny.
You know, every day here in New England you are talking about the cold.
Today it's actually above freezing.
Lucky you.
It went up about 15 degrees centigrade.
You can't perceive one degree.
As I've pointed out to people, variation in such things is essential.
I mean, for instance, if you tracked your body temperature compulsively, you would discover it's not constant.
If you look at a skyscraper, it's always swaying.
Natural systems have to vary a little bit in order to maintain stability.
So to treat, you know, as people did in speaking of the hottest year on record, it's a hundredth of a degree warmer than it was another year.
This is insane.
And you're counting on the fact that people have no idea of what these quantities mean.
I'm sorry, go ahead.
No.
So you have something that hasn't changed much, but you have people arguing, did it go up a hundredth degree?
Did it go down?
I'm not sure this metric means anything.
And frequently, I think the consensus view, the popular consensus view, is that the only way that we have stability in complex systems is total stasis, perfect stasis.
But, of course, there's no reason to assume that.
Obviously, these systems have variability, as you say, just to maintain their own stability.
Exactly.
And also on the uncertainty of these...
Oh, I'm sorry.
Go ahead.
If you had a rigid skyscraper, what would happen to it?
It would collapse.
So the stasis you're talking about would be extremely dangerous.
Your body temperature fluctuates because it has a restoring force.
And in terms of the uncertainty of some of these measurements in calculating some of the variation and some of the cost, William Nordhaus, maybe the foremost climate change economist, he has observed the massive uncertainty in calculating the cost of global he has observed the massive uncertainty in calculating the cost of global warming and policies to combat
So depending on the model you pick, and depending on my own lack of talent at reading these papers, but it appears that the social cost of carbon, which is the amount that you would tax carbon to efficiently capture all of its externalities, is anywhere from around, say, 50 cents per ton of carbon is anywhere from around, say, 50 cents per ton of carbon dioxide to around $50 to around $48 per ton of carbon They're way off.
That range is way off?
Sure.
It could be...
The wrong sign.
I mean, carbon dioxide increases agricultural productivity.
Markets warming is a net benefit.
You know, within a plausible range, this might be a benefit.
The really crazy thing about it is we're talking about something that I think in all likelihood is beneficial as something that we're supposed to be horribly afraid of.
Well, that's an excellent point, because as I was looking at those numbers, I was just thinking of how the government would try to tax it to keep some sort of stasis or whatever.
And that's often what is talked about is the cost of global warming.
But as you point out, it could be a benefit to the economy, and it could be a benefit to the environment.
It could be a benefit to humanity.
I mean, after all, I mean, you know, basal fuels...
Have provided the means for people to improve their life, extend their life expectancy, and so on.
So, you know, even if there were drawbacks for much of the world, it would be an immense boom.
You see this in Germany at the moment, in the UK at the moment.
They have all these tax schemes and schemes to use renewables which increase the cost of electricity.
Suddenly have people who are poverty-stricken because they can't afford energy.
Right.
That's right.
And my colleague Andrew Klavan often talks about how the environmental left, they love Avatar.
They love the film Avatar.
They say, why can't we live like that with lights coming out of trees and things?
And he says, we can, and that's been given to us by oil and by fossil fuels.
We do live in that world.
That world is a product of our own ingenuity and using our resources wisely.
And given that there is always uncertainty in modeling these long-term outcomes, is it a benefit, is there some cost, in these complex, real-world systems, how would you say our lawmakers should think about making so-called science-based policy?
Well, let me give you an example that we've run into.
You know, lawmakers are increasingly asking for regional forecasts.
How are things going to be in Colorado or California or Southern California or Massachusetts?
Now, they're using models and they're running them.
If they look carefully, they find that the models are giving them any answer they want.
They're all over the place.
The fundamental question they should ask is, you know, for instance, in any given season, There's a regional distribution of the seasonal climate.
Do these models depict this correctly?
The answer is no.
Can they handle the seasonal cycle in general?
The answer for most models, in fact all of them as far as I can tell, is they do that very poorly.
So if they don't even meet elementary tests, you have to accept you don't know.
And then you run into the insanity of the precautionary principle, says you don't have to know, you just have to worry, and that's enough to legislate.
And that's something that's sort of more scary than global warming.
Absolutely right.
And with organizations like the IPCC, with which you have been involved, and organizations that seem to be largely influenced by politics and largely are trying to influence governments to take preventative measures and damage their own economies or the global economy,
is there any way To get the politics out of it and to get the demagoguery out of it, or are those groups and organizations formed by, say, the United Nations, are they too hopelessly foregone to be brought back to any sort of academic freedom and rigor?
You know, I don't know the answer to that, and I'll explain why I don't know the answer to that.
The part of the IPCC that I was associated with for at least the first three It was working group one, dealing with the science.
And to be sure it was biased, but in general it wasn't that bad.
It had this sort of summary statement, and you should think about that a little bit.
You know, they came out with a statement, they're pretty darn sure that most of the warming over the last 50 years was due to man.
And you had politicians like Lieberman and McCain and so on saying, see, we've got the smoking gun, we have to do something, the world is coming to an end.
That statement had no such meaning.
In fact, it was most consistent with the statement, that's where there's no problem.
The politicians have taken the view that if man has any impact at all, That's a disaster.
That's a disaster, and it has to be corrected.
And this gets to another real politicized aspect of this science, which is that term consensus keeps being thrown around.
We talked earlier about the 97% number.
Lord only knows where they got that number from and which surveys went into arriving at that number.
The same place they got polar bears from.
I'm sure it was focus groups.
What number will have the best impact?
Those poor polar bears.
We must have really done something right, because I hear their populations have increased, actually, over the last century.
Lucky them.
Sure.
Yeah, it's just, you know, they'll attack human beings without provocation.
But they look cute, and they look good for propaganda.
Yeah, very cuddly, you know.
At least the plush animals of them are very cuddly.
But this word consensus...
The word consensus is bandied about.
It reminds me of that scene in The Princess Bride where you say, you keep using that word.
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Why the focus on consensus?
The last time that I checked, scientific advancements are not made by democratic or popular vote.
Why have they glommed onto that?
And does the so-called scientific consensus have much bearing in the pursuit of science itself?
No, not as a rule.
It tends to influence things like funding and so on, because peer review is something that is very much designed to maintain consensus.
That is to say you have to convince your peers that you agree with them.
In that sense it's important, but no, in terms of scientific progress, It's always been pretty much something that goes outside the consensus that turns out to be important.
I think what this is appealing to is that people have a herd instinct and if you tell them everyone agrees with something that will convince them.
That's right.
And my final question, I suppose I'm asking for a prediction, and I know that all of the climate predictions have been so far off, but I say I'm a big fan of yours, not because of any of your immense body of scientific work, about which I know absolutely nothing and I understand very little, but I'm a big fan that you are heterodox.
In the academy, at the university, you have contravened academic and political orthodoxies of recent years.
Do you see that situation improving on the American campus in the near future, or are things going to just keep getting worse and worse, and it's always darkest before it gets even darker?
I like to think it's always darkest before the dawn.
One hopes.
That's the other view, I suppose.
But yeah, I don't know.
I mean, what I find with students is they realize that they've been pushed into a corner.
I find that the activists among the students are not a majority, but they certainly have the power to intimidate their peers largely through the accommodations of the administrators at universities.
University administrators have become a kind of disaster area.
And they keep increasing.
They keep hiring more and more assistant dean of this.
Oh, it's outrageous.
I mean, at MIT, I don't think the faculty or student numbers have changed all that much since 1960, but administrators are all over the place.
And, of course, they need the grant overhead to support themselves.
You know, it's not a good situation, and I think students to some extent realize that, so there's some hope.
Maybe they'll take inspiration from, you know, An uprising in Iran and realize that they have moolahs that they have to overthrow as well.
They do.
And you identified the problem.
I noticed that people ask all the time because all of the craziness on campuses these days, I'm sorry to report, comes from dear old Yale.
And they say, well, when you were there, was it as crazy and the students on this?
So the problem really wasn't the students.
And I never found it to be the faculty.
I had wonderfully Marxist faculty who were quite accommodating and serious and dealt with me very well.
It's these administrators who have let the whole place run amok and have really hollowed it out from within.
So I suppose we can hope that they get what's theirs and we riot in the streets and throw out our academic mullahs.
That's a wonderful, hopeful note to end on.
Richard Lindzen, thank you so much for being here.
You've cleared this up a lot for us.
We really appreciate it, and we'll have to have you back on sometime.
Have a good year.
You as well.
Okay.
We have got to get to this day in history.
But first, before we do that, I'm sorry, folks.
If you're on Facebook or YouTube, we appreciate having you.
But you've got to go to TheDailyWire.com right now.
If you're already subscribed, thank you.
You keep the lights on.
You keep Covfefe in my cup.
If not, go to TheDailyWire.com right now.
You will get me.
You'll get the Andrew Klavan show.
You'll get the Ben Shapiro show.
Blah, blah, blah.
But you will get...
The Leftist Tears Tumblr.
Now, look, there is a cyclone bomb in the East Coast.
There are deluges of floods on the West Coast.
There is very bitterly cold global warming.
All of this extreme weather is going to end in a Noahide, a Noah-like flood of salty, delicious Leftist Tears.
Do not be caught unawares.
You do not know the day or the hour that it will come.
Get your Leftist Ears Tumblr.
Go to dailywire.com right now.
Speaking of the climate, variations on a theme.
It's time for This Day in History.
This Day in History.
On this day in history, nearly an inch of snow fell every hour for 16 consecutive hours, starving cattle and ruining ranchers in the American West.
No, that extreme weather didn't happen last year, or the year before that, or the year before that.
Nope, the worst day of the worst winter in the West took place 131 years ago, long before Democrat hacks ever blamed weather events on unfalsifiable apocalyptic theories.
Plains ranchers in Montana, Wyoming, and the Dakotas knew nothing of the ozone layer or the greenhouse effect or political demagogues seizing upon any natural phenomenon to tighten their grip on power.
If they had, surely they would have blamed the unseasonably hot and dry summer of 1886 on, I don't know, industrialization or deforestation or whatever.
That unseasonably dry autumn left the range almost completely barren of grass, with vulnerable cattle herds wandering around hungry.
Worse yet, the snows came early that year, beginning in November and blanketing the plains by January with record snowfall.
The cold front even reached the Pacific Ocean, dropping an all-time record 3.7 inches of snowfall in downtown San Francisco on February 5th.
Although a warm wind briefly melted top layers of January...
That actually turned out worse because the returning cold created a thick layer of ice over the entire ground, making it virtually impossible for cattle to dig through to the remaining grass beneath.
Futile attempts on the part of man to predict the weather years out compounded the problem.
By the mid-1880s, after several consecutive warm winters, the warmest winters on record, they probably thought, proto-climatologists in the West started overstocking the ranges with cattle while they simultaneously stopped storing away winter feed for a snowy day.
Modern climatologists can simply change their models, hide the decline when their predictions don't come to fruition, while political hacks explain away their failures and at the same time double down on their own hysterical claims.
The Plains ranchers of 1886 and 1887 weren't so lucky.
They had to sit by and watch as their cattle slowly died.
Historian Joseph Kinsey Howard recalled,"...starving cattle staggered through village streets and collapsed and died in dooryards." 5,000 of the animals stormed the outskirts of Great Falls, devouring what little the townspeople had only just planted and crying from hunger as they died.
The Great Die-Up, as it came to be called because the American West is very whimsical, killed off millions of cattle, including half of Montana's entire herd.
Their carcasses lined the countryside.
Hundreds of ranchers fell into sudden bankruptcy.
Some modern climate prognosticators are willing to send whole national economies into bankruptcy, even as their predictions continually prove just as inaccurate as Western speculators in the 1880s.
But the alarmists keep up their hysterical drumbeat.
The science has settled, they say.
The solutions are obvious.
It's just common sense.
We have seen the future, and it works.
Right.
Also on this day in history, in 1776, Thomas Paine published his pamphlet, Common Sense.
In it he writes, quote,"...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom.
Time makes more converts than reason.
Paine may have been more right than he knew.
In decadent times, common sense is anything but sensible." As the predictions of self-appointed elites prove wrong time and time again, don't be fooled by superficial appearances and do not forfeit your own capacity to reason.
That's our show.
I'm Michael Knowles.
This is The Michael Knowles Show.
Get your mailbag questions in for Thursday.
Tune in tomorrow and we'll do it all again.
The Michael Knowles Show is produced by Marshall Benson.
Executive producer Jeremy Boring.
Senior producer Jonathan Hay.
Supervising producer Mathis Glover.
Our technical producer is Austin Stevens.
Edited by Alex Zingaro.
Audio is mixed by Mike Coromina.
Hair and makeup is by Jesua Olvera.
The Michael Knowles Show is a Daily Wire Forward Publishing production.
