FaceTime or Ask Patrick any questions on https://minnect.com/
PBD Podcast Episode 157. In this episode, Patrick Bet-David is joined by Adam Sosnick and Marc Morano
Join the channel to get exclusive access to perks: https://bit.ly/3Q9rSQL
Check out Climate Depot: https://bit.ly/3yG1aIS
Pre-order Marc's upcoming book The Great Reset: https://amzn.to/3PoBhDn
You can purchase Marc's book 'Green Fraud' here: https://amzn.to/3Mo6KDK
Check out Marc's documentary, Climate Hustle 2: https://bit.ly/3Lk4oo3
Check out Marc Morano on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3yFFlJu
Download the podcasts on all your favorite platforms https://bit.ly/3sFAW4N
Text: PODCAST to 310.340.1132 to get added to the distribution list
About:
Marc Morano is a writer and producer, known for Climate Hustle (2017), Climate Hustle 2 (2020) and Sizzle: A Global Warming Comedy (2008). He is the author of 'Green Fraud: Why the Green New Deal Is Even Worse Than You Think' and 'The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change'
About Co-Host:
Adam “Sos” Sosnick has lived a true rags to riches story. He hasn’t always been an authority on money. Connect with him on his weekly SOSCAST here: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLw4s_zB_R7I0VW88nOW4PJkyREjT7rJic
Patrick Bet-David is the founder and CEO of Valuetainment Media. He is the author of the #1 Wall Street Journal bestseller Your Next Five Moves (Simon & Schuster) and a father of 2 boys and 2 girls. He currently resides in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.
To reach the Valuetainment team you can email: booking@valuetainment.com
0:00 - Start
2:00 - Elon Musk's thoughts on climate change
10:00 - How the movie 'thank you for smoking' relates to climate change
18:00 - Big oil is supporting the Green New Deal
21:30 - How China is dealing with climate change
28:30 - What are Putin/Xi's next 5 moves
35:30 - How Gen Z'ers view climate change
40:00 - Russia's Co2 collapse vs. China
44:00 - Atmospheric Co2 levels
51:30 - The truth about the Green New Deal
57:00 - What is the solution to climate change?
1:03:00 - What's wrong with 100% of cars being EV's
1:08:00 - How capitalists are debunking the climate change theories
1:19:00 - Is Neil DeGrasse Tyson a fraud?
1:24:00 - Who is the Tony Fauci of Climate Change
1:27:00 - Is there a consensus on both sides regarding climate change?
1:32:00 - Jeff Bezos strikes back
1:36:00 - Pintrest will now ban 'misinformation'
1:46:00 - Digital currencies
1:52:30 - Marc Morano's legacy
I thought Stand by gents We're live Okay are we live or no?
We're visualized Okay we're live folks I literally just put the heads up.
Thank you for that, Adam.
The headphones are going up.
Okay, this is episode number 157.
Today we have with us Mark Moreno, which if you don't know who he is, he is one of five criminals against humanity, against planet Earth itself.
In 2009, the Eco magazine Grist said he was one of the five.
The other four were Bjorn Lomberg, Richard Lindzen, Senator James Enhoff, and President George W. Bush.
He was Rush Limbaugh's man in Washington, former Republican political aide who founded and runs Climate Depot and probably world's number one climate contrarian.
With that being said, Mark, thank you so much for being a guest.
Thank you, Pat.
I'm happy to be here.
Yes, it's good to have you on.
I was watching a lot of your content, and I've seen you with you and Bill Nye.
And you know what I did?
When you were speaking, all I did is focus on Bill Nye.
I'm like, when he gets upset, his facial expressions, I don't know if you, did you see that or no?
Have you seen it?
The way he was getting agitated by it was just entertaining to me to see.
And then, you know, I've been following this topic of climate change.
I think it's actually the next thing that's going to be used by the media a lot.
I think for some people that are creating content, I have a feeling they may, if there was COVID, there were videos that were being taken down.
I think climate change may be some of the next videos that may be taken down and censored.
But at the same time, what I want to get with you today is there are a lot of people that are very smart who fully believe this is taking place.
It's coming.
And I'm not talking about Greta Thunberg.
I'm not talking about AOC.
I'm not even putting Al Gore in that mix.
These are politicians.
I'm not talking President Obama, who said this is the, this is the biggest crisis that we should pay attention to.
I'm not talking about Bernie Sanders, Bette Midler, not John Kerry, not Jane Fonda, not Leonardo DiCaprio, but I'm talking about, and Elon Musk, the way he explained it.
You know, I don't know if you've seen the 12-minute speech he gives when he breaks down what's going on with the temperature where two degrees to some of us may not be a big deal.
And then he says, you know, five degrees of New York City, five degrees.
How's he explaining it?
New York City would be under ice, minus five degrees, and New York City would be underwater plus five degrees.
And that's not just a regular guy who says that.
He's a guy that'll call out bullshit.
So when he says it, he makes me think.
But prior to us getting into the questions that we have here, if you don't mind the audience who maybe doesn't know your story, give us a little bit about your background and how you came to the conclusion of this may just be a hoax and maybe they're selling it from the other side as the next massive crisis.
I will.
I actually just want to say one thing about Musk.
Fascinating figure.
I don't know what year that speech you're referring to.
Do you remember when it was done?
That was a year it was.
I'll get a four right now.
I'm going to hear what his views are now on climate post-COVID.
But Elon Musk was in a position for years.
He wasn't.
Five years ago.
That was five years ago.
But he wasn't always the rebel, especially the free speech rebel you see today because maybe he wasn't needed to be.
But essentially, he was relying on a lot of government contracts, a lot of support that he sort of played along.
He was a big promoter of climate change fears.
And it'd be interesting to see.
Now, what he's doing there, the two degrees, and we can talk about it later, is he's just using with the UN when that number, the two degrees Celsius temperature, was literally pulled out of thin air just to give the public something to latch on to.
This was admitted by top UN scientists in the Climate Gate emails.
So all Elon Musk, what you're referring to, is saying, well, two degrees is what the UN says.
And here's what could may happen if that scenario.
It's kind of like saying we're going to go on a family vacation, but if the car hits a tractor trailer, here's what could happen.
And they're going to show dead bodies on the highway.
I mean, that's basically, it's easy.
It's simple.
It's cheap politics.
And I like Elon Musk.
Now, same, by the way, just to say, Elon Musk, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., these are people that are huge climate fear promoters.
In my new book, I publicly, essentially forgive them, especially Robert F. Kennedy Jr., one of the jail climate skeptics.
In an interview I did with him, he said, we belong at The Hague with three squares and a cot with all the other war criminals.
And I forgive him because of the way he came around on COVID and was just one of the most incredible anti-type, anti-tyranny speakers.
Well, he got censored by Instagram, by everybody.
I mean, we've had him on multiple times, and every time videos would get flagged on what he had to say.
And this is the number one environmental attorney in America, apparently based on what a lot of people would say.
But please continue.
Okay, wait, that's all I wanted to say there.
Now, my background, I'm not a scientist.
I come at this as an investigative reporter.
My background actually is Ronald Reagan volunteer for his presidency in 1980.
I was going on 12 years old.
My older brother worked there.
So I just went on Saturdays in the fall of 1980.
And actually, that piqued my interest in media and politics because I was giving audio clips of Governor Reagan to all the local things.
And back then, it was real-to-reel tape cartridges.
That got me involved in politics.
I always liked the Reagan presidency, but I was always considered myself a Republican, except when it came to environmental issues.
And I had taken these tests.
I always wanted to be a park ranger.
I loved animals.
I love hunting and not hunting, but fishing and hiking.
And what happened was I, during the Reagan years, just literally was not happy with his policies.
But later on, I got caught up in the National Geographic, the Amazon's going to disappear, the species extinction.
It wasn't until the Rio Earth Summit that my eyes were essentially open when I heard claims.
Dixie Lee Ray, the nuclear physicist, was on, is actually on Rush Lindmo's radio show, of all things, but she was doing live reports and she was down there doing a whole bunch of media condemning the UN Earth Summit that George H.W. Bush went to in 1992.
And that was an eye-opener because she said the deforestation claims were all grossly exaggerated, that it was the most intact forest.
I remember starting to investigate that.
That led to an environmental awakening, which years later I did an Amazon rainforest documentary.
And I even got the Amazon scientists in Brazil to slam down the travel guidebooks by saying this is bullshit, bullshit, bullshit, throwing the book down because it was all about the computer models and how many football fields a minute of the forests were disappearing.
Turns out Amazon, most intact forests on the planet.
When you reforest using modern techniques, you can't distinguish between plant and animal species, according to studies.
And even the New York Times admitted later, I think it was 2006 or 7, that for every acre of rainforest cut, 50 are being regenerated.
Not to say there aren't challenges, but the biggest thing is people are leaving the jungle and moving to urban areas and suburban areas.
So that was the environmental scare I grew up with.
So by the time global warming came along, I was skeptical.
I worked for an independent news magazine show.
It was called American Investigator.
I started doing, didn't do climate at the time because I was doing wetlands and endangered species.
Amazon did a show on organic food and the impacts it could have on land use unless they get higher yields of farming and how they actually had higher bacterial content of food production.
And that was a fascinating thing because that was an interesting, because that cut across all ideologies.
But essentially from there, investigative reporter, then I worked for the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in the United States Senate.
And as such, I worked for the ranking member at the time was Senator James Inhoff, who's actually retiring this year.
He's one of the five.
Yeah, one of the five.
My mom had a funny comment when that list came out.
There's a couple other lists.
She said, how come I'm the only one on that list that isn't, you know, either very powerful in terms of a position or a lot of money?
Because I was dealing with all these, you know, people.
She was always saying that, which was silly.
But my role at that point was the spokesman for essentially the Senate GOP on the top environmental committee.
And in that position, did a report of authored a report of 400 dissenting scientists where we got voices from around the world and then we updated it to, I think it was 600, then 750, then later 1,000 after I left the Senate.
And the gist of it was we were being told a fabrication.
And I became very, so my whole career then became from general investigative reporter with a focus on environmental to then focusing almost exclusively on the environment.
Then I founded Climate Depot after I left the U.S. Senate.
But essentially, one of the biggest things we did was the dissenting scientists, we were told there was only a dozen scientists, the same amount as the Flat Earth Society, who didn't think that the Earth was doomed by mankind's carbon dioxide.
And that was said by the United Nations climate chief, Regenda Bachari.
That was said by Al Gore.
That was said by a lot of the climate activists.
There's only two dozen or so.
This is nonsense.
There's a consensus to settled.
So we came out with a list.
We included Nobel Prize winners.
I did sub-reports about UN scientists who turned against the United Nations, talked about it being a political body, masquerading as a science institution, talked about how the scientific authors would have to bow their report and summaries to the politicians and bureaucrats.
So we exposed the whole UN process for what it was.
So anyway, that's how I got started, started Climate Depot.
And my goal was to just provide an alternative to most of journalism out there.
And, you know, I was doing this since 1992.
I started with Rush Limbaugh's TV show, and I was his man in Washington.
There's his D.C. reporter.
I wore a hat and trench coat.
It was very much a silly entertainment segment.
I'd go to all the Capitol Hill stuff.
I got thrown out of the Clinton White House and my camera confiscated.
And actually, Helen Thomas, the UPI bureau chief, marched me into the White House press office, the Clinton office, and demanded they return it and apologize to me.
This really offended the media.
Now I don't know.
I think most of the media today would cheer if Peter Doocy had his microphone taken away.
But I was essentially, you know, I was a blogger before they had blogs.
And I did that with Rush Limbaugh's TV show.
So that I got kicked out of Democratic fundraisers.
I did a lot of coverage of Earth Days and all the marches in D.C. for Rush Limbaugh.
So I've tried to fuse politics with entertainment and also science.
And one of my goals with Climate Depot and with climate science and with the Green New Deal and even with COVID is to make everything understandable.
So that's my whole niche, if you will.
I try to make it entertaining and understandable for the average person.
You don't have to be a scientist.
Don't let them intimidate you.
And that's where this 97% and all that comes from in the climate world.
They try to silence you like, you don't know more than same with COVID.
You can't tell me you don't want to mask your kid.
Anthony Fauci is an expert with decades of experience and degrees.
You don't know more than him.
He knows what's best for your kids.
You're nothing but a redneck in Kansas.
That's the way, that's the mentality of our public.
So did you ever see that movie about cigarettes back in early 2000?
What was that?
Thank you for smoking.
Thank you for sharing.
Thank you for smoking, right?
So I've been.
What a sick movie, right?
I mean, sick in a good way, like great action, right?
Yes.
And I watch it.
I'm like, okay.
First of all, I can't stand cigarettes.
I mean, I'm somebody that, you know, if a salesperson comes to my house, they smoke cigarettes.
If I shake their hands, I'm not buying from them.
That's just me.
I don't like cigarettes.
I've never been a fan of cigarettes.
To me, the smell of cigarettes is very different than the smell of wheat, the smell of cigar.
There's something about cigarettes.
It's all chemical.
And it's my personal opinion.
Some people say, I can't believe you just said that.
I smoke.
I'm offended.
That's my opinion.
It's how I feel.
But when I watched that movie, I sat there and I said, what a freaking great job lobbying to convince millions of intelligent people with common sense that cigarette doesn't harm you.
You're just watching.
You're like, wow, what a great job lobbyist did, right?
And then you know, commercials and all this.
And then finally, people are like, listen, you're full of shit.
Here's a lung smoking cigarettes.
Here's one not smoking cigarettes.
Oh, that's not the case.
That's something else.
No, no, this is the reality.
They always hit you with anecdotal.
Well, I have an uncle who lived in 95.
Yeah, so then, but what that took me to was what other industry or product have we been convinced that's good or bad because of brilliant men like him that are great salespeople, great communicators, great persuaders who go around being witty, sharp, smart.
You're like, oh my God, this guy knows what he's talking about.
He's just kind of back down and the average person can't debate and have an interaction with somebody at that level.
Just like, dude, you know what?
I'm not even going to have the conversation.
Whatever.
I'll leave it alone, right?
So for me, when I think about climate change, I look at both sides.
I try to reason.
I look at both sides.
So on one side, they're shoving it down our throat like Neil Tyson, what's his name?
Yeah, he's like, well, at this point of the game, the question isn't whether it's happening or not.
There is no such thing as anti-climate change, whatever, deniers.
It's happening.
Those people don't know what they're talking about.
So now that we know it's happening, let's address it, right?
You can't even have the debate.
And then the other side, you know, is who wouldn't want that to happen?
Who doesn't want the debate of climate change to happen?
Well, I'm from, you know, I lived in Texas five years.
There's a lot of oil guys that probably don't want this to happen.
I would assume that a part of Elon Musk selling the fact that we have to be careful with this is his company is Tesla.
So the incentive is I sell insurance.
I have to sell you what the benefit of life insurance.
He sells life settlement.
He's going to sell you on what life sets.
You have something you sell.
You have to sell us on it.
And we all have to persuade each other, right?
But there has to be somebody that's right and somebody that's wrong.
So I had Paul Manafort here two weeks ago, last week maybe.
You know who Paul Manafort is.
And he's a lobbyist.
He's made millions of dollars just off lobbying.
I'm uncomfortable with lobbyists as well.
You know, if they're going to use it, you're going to use it as well.
Fine, no problem.
Your argument that you make, one may say, Mark, I mean, you're from Rush Limbaugh's side.
I mean, we know where Rush stood.
You know, Rush is as right-wing and Republican as he can get.
He pissed off a lot of people for 20 years.
Okay, great, fine.
He's a hero to many, but he's hated by many as well.
I mean, the hero and hated is in the same category, meaning as far right, far left, both sides.
Some may say, yeah, you know, you're probably just defending your oil guys and people who are on your side of the aisle.
They're your friends.
You go to parties with them.
So you have to say something like this because if something happens, those guys may use billions of dollars.
So you're just helping those guys out.
What do you say to people who say that?
I get that all the time.
In fact, if you go to my about page at Climate Depot, it actually someone said, and I can't remember who now, but some professor, that I was Nick Naylor in the flesh or embodied in the flesh on the climate issue.
I am not a lobbyist.
I've never been a lobbyist.
I don't lobby.
I don't go to, I stay as far away from DC as possible these days.
But when I worked there, I was a communication director for the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
My organization, I work for a company called Committee for Constructive Tomorrow.
Chiefly, and when I say chiefly, 85%, 90% of our money is from direct mail to the public.
We are strictly grassroots.
The rest of the money might come from foundations, but we do not.
And you can look at my about page on Wikipedia, which I have no control over.
They'll say that the group we had was funded by ExxonMobil.
Well, they're very careful in their wording.
I've never gotten money that I'm aware of from ExxonMobil.
ExxonMobil gave to everyone back in the day.
And they've tried this, it's a trick that they say.
They'll say ExxonMobil is given to, you know, all these conservative, all these climate denial groups.
And you'll look at it and they'll say they've given to the Heritage Foundation.
They've given to Cato.
And a lot of these have like 5%, 10%, 15% of their budget go to that.
But then you look at it, and ExxonMobil gave to a lot of liberal groups.
They gave the natural gas industry, gave money to the Sierra Club so they could fight coal.
Money's like that all the way out there.
But in terms of me being courting fossil fuels or being a spokesman for fossil fuels, it's utter nonsense.
They hate me.
They've hated me.
They want nothing to do with me.
I went time and took a tour of fossil fuel guys hate you.
Fossil fuel.
Yeah, because they're when I say that, they may have liked me in the 90s or something, or maybe early 2000s, but they gave up about 2004 or 5, long before I was even in the Senate.
ExxonMobil announced they were no longer giving to any groups expressing climate denial or whatever.
So here's the gist.
They stopped giving money.
And when they stopped giving money, they increased their money the other side.
They just got a grant.
It was from, I want to say, ExxonMobil gave to Stanford University $100 million to study climate change.
Another basic grant just came out, the largest single climate grant by an internet billionaire, and I can't remember his name right now.
It was not a household name, gave to another university.
So the money from that side and now from corporate, from the fossil fuel to appear green far outweighs it.
So I don't like that idea at all because I basically, my salary hasn't even changed that much on the same scale as it was when I worked for the U.S. taxpayer in the Senate.
So you could argue, you mentioned Rush Limbaugh, you could argue I'm ideologically motivated.
And I think there's truth to that.
Everyone has an ideological motivation, I think, particularly people involved in politics.
But if you go back, I look at what happens.
If you could even just remove the science, forget about the science.
And this is what I like to do.
To your point about you don't want people, Rush Limbaugh was an entertainer, and I don't, you know, but I'm trying to, I'm trying to actually, you know, let people see the other side to this whole issue.
So one of the ways I do it, I just say to hell with talking about the science for a moment.
If we actually face the crisis, nothing they've proposed in their own words, by their own methods, would have any impact on the climate and save us.
In other words, if we were facing a climate catastrophe and we relied on them for the Green New Deal, the UN-Paris Agreement, carbon taxes, et cetera, we would all be doomed.
And I can go through and I can point to you quotes from the United Nations.
I can point to you quotes from the EPA.
I can cite their studies, their magic, that's an acronym for magic for their climate models that show that even if we fully committed to all this, there would be no impact pretty much on CO2 emissions, let alone the climate if you actually believe CO2 was causing it.
So that's the way I like to go about it.
And I, again, they don't like me.
ExxonMobil likes the UN-Paris agreement.
All the oil companies support it.
They support carbon taxes.
Donald Trump's first pick at Secretary of State was Rex Tillerson, an absolute disaster.
One of the first things he did was made no sense.
He goes to the Arctic and signs on some UN climate agreement.
Rex Tillerson made no sense.
Do you know who he is?
He's big oil.
CEO.
I mean, how do you, that didn't make any sense.
But he wasn't even, it wasn't like climate skeptics were like, oh, he's great.
He was horrible.
ExxonMobil, they will have nothing to do with anyone.
They would never give to us because they don't support our agenda.
At this point, big corporations support the woke agenda.
20 years ago, they were all 20, 30 years ago, the left hated big corporations.
Now, big corporations quake in the boots of the left and the progressives, and they love them now.
So they're not with us anymore.
And anyone who claims that, oh, these climate denial groups are fossil fuels.
So explain that.
Very important what you just said.
So tell us why.
Why would ExxonMobil, why would the left or ExxonMobil support the left?
That doesn't make any sense because what they're saying, the Green New Deal, is there's no way in any shape or form does a Green New Deal help in ExxonMobil's business model.
Well, yes and no.
The more solar and wind we do, the more backup you need for fossil fuels.
And it's who controls it.
There were reports years ago of Soros groups buying a lot of the old coal plants that were going out or buying them and buying fossil fuels to have them for backups.
Because what's going to happen here is ExxonMobil has the best lawyers, has the best lobbyists.
They can control the agenda.
So they're not afraid of massive increases in regulation, massive government control, because they partially control the government.
It's hard to tell in today's world whether government is taking over corporations or corporations are controlling the government, especially when you're talking big pharma or you're talking now even big oil or a whole range of these issues.
And then you get into things with the environment, social governance, the Chinese style credit scores of all these companies where the boards are infiltrated just like school boards were with parents found that out.
It's the same thing with these corporate boards.
So that's one of the pressures they have.
They want to look green to the media, and they also know that they can handle it.
It crushes the smaller competition.
Biggest success for American energy, we led the world in CO2 reductions because of fracking.
Initially, it was a lot of smaller fracking operations.
In recent years, there's been consolidation and taking over.
What's happening, and it's the same with when a lockdown happens, what happens?
Small mom and pop restaurants get crushed.
That's a government-designed planned recession, and they've called for that to fight climate change.
So that's why big corporations support government intrusion.
It gets rid of the small competitors.
It allows consolidation, causes bankruptcy.
They can go in, buy up toxic assets.
Why do you think BlackRock loves economic chaos?
Because they can then buy real estate.
Why does Bill Gates love farmers having difficulty?
Bill Gates is now the single largest farm owner in America.
So it's a consolidation, and all of these government policies support that consolidation.
And the ultimate one was climate.
I've noticed I'm talking past tense.
Climate, in fact, I lead a chapter in my new book with a quote from Richard Lindzen saying, it's hard to imagine a better leverage point for the control of society than carbon dioxide.
Humans exhale carbon dioxide.
It's involved in everything from plastic to all aspects of our life to human energy, economic development, long life, and human health.
But they imagined it, and that was a virus scare.
And that's what they ended up doing.
So that's how that happened.
But essentially, big business loves big government at this point.
And that's why ExxonMobil will never support your average climate skeptic.
Now, there might be some climate skeptics out there who are lobbyists or something like that, but that's not in my world.
You know, I trust my enemies a lot.
I trust them a lot because I know my enemies have a very honest outcome, right?
They want to eliminate you.
They want to eliminate you and they want to beat you.
So you have to trust your enemies, right?
In that context.
Yes.
What makes sense?
Okay.
So if we trust our enemies and we look at today what's going on in the world, who doesn't like America, you may have to put Iran, China, and Russia in that group.
You know, as of right now, those are the three countries.
This is very fluid.
It changes sometimes, but as of right now, those are the three.
Okay.
What is, from your experience, what's China's, Russia's, and Iran's?
I'm talking Zhi, not talking the people of China.
I'm talking Putin.
I'm talking at the top.
What is their fear and paranoia and handling of climate change?
How are they strategizing to fight against climate change?
Are they putting any time into it?
Are they putting any resources into it?
What are they doing?
Okay, I've extensively studied Russia and China.
A little less clear on Iran.
Iran, I don't think, you know, cares that much about it, but they're the beneficiary.
We can start with Iran.
Iran is the beneficiary of climate policy.
So the more the West commits itself to Green New Deal, to net zero, to build back better, we're going to be more reliant on rogue regimes, if you will, like Iran and also like Venezuela.
In terms of the way Russia and China, China and Russia are the biggest beneficiaries of this entire climate agenda at the moment.
It's incredible.
When price of gas barrel goes above oil, goes above $40, Russia then starts getting funding, and it's a huge exponential increase.
When it's below $40 a barrel, Russia doesn't get extra money in their coffers.
So what's happened is with our shutting down Europe and the United States and Canada of our domestic energy.
Now, remember, Europe is way ahead of us.
They literally started shutting down their fracking.
They shut down their coal.
Price of electricity has been skyrocketing across Europe.
You have a few bright spots in places like France where they allow nuclear and support nuclear.
But essentially, what they've done, and you had UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson, I always want to say Tony Blair.
Boris Johnson in 2019 pouring concrete into fracking wells in the UK as a virtue signal to how they were going to be committed to net zero climate goals.
50 years of natural gas from these wells poured cement over.
Now, what happened during the 10 years?
Radical increase in reliance on Russian energy.
And that included Germany, some countries, I think Germany is 40, near 50%.
All of Europe is like 38, 39, near 40%.
Their reliance on Vladimir Putin's Russia.
Why is Russia able to do all this?
Because they're not following the dictates of the United Nations.
They don't have a domestic Green New Deal.
You don't see Putin will pay lip service as needed.
But it has been the greatest boon to Russian aggression, Russian national interest.
China, basically the same premise.
China loves the premise of the once-free democratic West shutting themselves down energy-wise and doing what?
Making us more reliant on China.
90% of our solar panels come from there, 90% of rare earth mining.
China has cobalt mines in Africa that Amnesty International.
60% they own.
Yeah, kids as young as nine allegedly doing slave labor in China.
And then at the same time, you'll get your Starbucks mom or someone in America who's like, oh, we have to buy only things that are certified and ethical.
But at the same time, they're shutting down our domestic fossil fuels, which are the cleanest, greatest standards in the world because of everything we've done since the first Earth Day.
And I talked in my PowerPoint.
To your point, I think it was a very important thing you said today.
Because Rush Limbaugh was an entertainer and Rush Limbaugh had a core audience.
But I do come from that world where essentially four years of his TV show and I love Rush Limbaugh.
But I'm trying now, especially in this post-COVID age, especially in the censorship age, where we got to win people over.
And I'm very excited when I see people like Naomi Wolfe and Robert F. Kennedy and Jimmy Dore and Russell Brand, who, by the way, Russell Brand is my new favorite, number one favorite political commentator, probably followed by Jimmy Dore.
He's incredible.
Yeah, he is.
But never even heard of the guy pre-COVID.
I mean, I heard of him as an actor, but not as, I remember him as a socialist or something being on Fox News.
Anyway, I was sort of losing my train of thought on that one.
You said you agree with the point I made at the beginning.
Oh, yeah, that I'm actually trying now, especially in the last two years since Russia.
Yeah, to be less divisive and to actually, I have a whole chapter in my upcoming book, including all the progressives who agree with us on tyranny.
I now believe it's no longer a left-right political battle.
And that went on for way too long.
It's now basically tyranny versus freedom.
And we welcome anyone on our side with that.
So when I do presentations, you know, I'll praise the first Earth Days because the first Earth Day had a lot of wacky elements, a lot of ridiculous predictions.
But it essentially laid out a very big concern about filthy rivers, filthy air, and just major environmental problems that we had.
Well, we got the message, and it wasn't because of government regulation.
Was because we made ourselves aware and we had radical improvements in human air quality, human water quality, while at the same time, huge population increases and huge economic growth.
We did it leading the world, essentially, and so how it can be done through innovation, technology, and the more wealth you have, the cleaner the environment you have.
But back to China, my only thought, final thing there is China loves the climate agenda.
It makes it, we're going to get off American energy independence and dominance, which beginning of COVID, 2020, we were the world's largest oil and gas producer.
We had more energy production than consumption, more energy exports than imports for the first time since Harry S. Truman was president.
And that all, of course, toppled with COVID and then with Biden coming in and even further decimating fossil fuels.
And that wasn't just executive orders.
It was the defunding of it.
So China is sitting pretty.
Russia is sitting pretty.
And they'll always say climate change causes more war.
No, when you shut down your domestic energy and you rely on hostile regimes, that's what causes more conflict.
When now, instead of relying on American and Canadian oil and Europe relying on their own oil and then killing a pipeline for the East Med pipeline from Israel to Poland and Eastern Europe, they've been relying on Russia.
They're going to be increasingly relying on China.
And then, of course, the perverseness is they do sanctions on Putin.
We're going to stick it to Putin.
And when you pay more for gas, you're sticking it to Putin.
All it's done is hurt American consumers while Putin sells his energy to another country.
But that's not where I'm going with it.
What I'm going with it with is paranoia reveals a ton, right?
Like if you can know what Putin is afraid of, you'll know his next few moves, right?
If you know what Gi is afraid of, you'll know his next few moves.
If you really know the real fear, not the fear that we think it is.
Most of the time, it's the hardest thing to know is the real fear of the enemy.
But how are they, as a country that is overly prepared in many areas, China, right?
How are they fighting?
And what is the message from the top there about climate change?
Are they treating it the same way we are?
Are they putting it as a top five crisis that's, you know, we better be prepared for it and spend billions of dollars, if not commit a few trillion dollars of our resources the next decade or two to make sure we can fight off climate change?
What is their messaging with climate change?
That's a good question because it's a bit schizophrenic.
Because on one hand, they're building, they're 50% of the world's coal production.
They're building about one new coal plant a week in China.
They're going through their industrial revolution.
At the same time, rhetorically, they will go to UN climate agreements, which they have every annual meetings every year, yes, part of the Paris Agreement.
And they pay it lip service.
Why?
Because if you're making all the solar panels, if you're producing the rare earth mining and you don't have the same environmental standards, you can produce it cheap and get it out there.
And you know, the more the rest of the world signs on to the climate agenda, the more we're going to be reliant on China.
You think that's what it is?
I truly believe it's in their long-term strategic national.
So you don't think anything?
The rest of the world is becoming dependent.
No, I do not think they're not.
You don't think they have any fear of climate change?
I can't imagine that they do at all.
Do you think they don't have any fear of climate change the way the average person doesn't have any fear in consequence of eating too much cheesecake and too much food?
That's just, yeah, I'm going to live forever.
There's no way I'm going to have cancer.
There's no way I'm going to, you know, an average person who has a heart attack or a stroke or something happens, when they ate that food or didn't exercise, they weren't thinking that it's ever going to happen to them.
It's always the other guy that's going to have cancer, the other guy that's going to have a heart attack, right?
So do you think it's from that arrogant state that, oh, you know, we're going to be powerful forever?
Or is it we really think something's going on?
Let's do something about it.
No, I think if anything, they would welcome a climate nightmare or climate emergency because it would create a chaos.
If you listen to what the climate models claim and what you were saying, it would create a chaos that only government could solve in their mind.
So they win either way.
They benefit from the climate agenda economically and long-term strategic interest, but they also benefit even if the climate we're going to turn into the apocalypse that Al Gore or the United Nations or celebrities predict because chaos empowers the leadership in the long-term goals of China.
Then they can control every aspect using the pretext of a climate crisis.
Same way they love COVID.
People hoped COVID would be bad.
I mean, there are people, whole movements led, beginning with Paul Ehrlich, particularly about the overpopulation, people wishing that viruses would kill people off, that the habitat, the habitable population of the earth is only 1 billion.
So to answer your question, they win either way.
China's in it for the long haul.
And the whole thing with China, too, if you go back to NAFTA, it turns out Ross Perot was right.
George H.W. Bush was wrong.
Al Gore was wrong.
Ross Perot was right about all the free trade, so-called free trade agreements, because that shifted China from this old country we should be helping and developing world to now the global superpower that probably there's no turning back from at this point.
Yeah, go ahead.
No, I mean, with China, Tyler, if you want to pull this up, it's almost like you're saying, don't believe your lying eyes.
I mean, you see the images that are coming out of these major cities in China.
With the lockdowns you're talking about.
No, not with the lockdowns, with the smog and the pollution.
So anyone with eyes can see this is what's going on in major cities in China.
But that's so how does that not?
That doesn't translate to what you're saying, that they don't care about this.
They don't care about their people.
They have 1.5 billion people.
Okay, okay, there's two different explain that.
There's air pollution and then there's carbon dioxide.
And I think probably from the beginning, we should have laid out like a science definition of all this.
But essentially, they're going through their industrialization.
What you're looking at these pictures right now is Pittsburgh in 1885.
It's Detroit.
It's New York City.
This has happened during rapid industrialization.
When they sign on to the UN Paris Agreement, they pledged essentially, even though they're pledged to reach peak emissions, I think it was 2030.
And that's when all the estimates said that they were going to hit their peak emissions because they're going to then level off and then they're going to be able to start improving their environment.
But they probably have another decade or more of that kind of filth in cities.
That's traditional pollution from sources.
Carbon dioxide is we inhale oxygen, we exhale carbon dioxide as humans.
Carbon dioxide is a trace essential gas in the atmosphere that they're claiming too much of will create a greenhouse effect and cause this whole climate emergency, et cetera.
That's a little different, though.
That's a you know, you're saying there's a distinct difference between pollution, smog, grossness.
Yes.
And actual CO2.
And actual CO2, which is what they which is what they're talking about.
Because when you see these images, whether it's in China or whether it's in Pittsburgh, of funnels of smoke and smog just leaving pipelines into the air, anyone with a heart or a mind will be like, that's just not good for the environment.
Absolutely.
And that's what, but that, but that's what they're, they can't avoid that right now because they're going through rapid, insane industrialization of economic growth.
But just as a person.
Are you saying that does nothing to the environment?
That does nothing to do with it.
Yeah.
Yeah.
This is why I wanted to start.
In my opening of my PowerPoint, I showed the World Health Organization actually praises the United States for one of the cleanest air in the world.
I think we're top seven or eight of the cleanest air.
That's great to hear we're top 10 and something.
We've gone through that.
I'm talking about like 100 years ago in the United States and beyond 100 years.
But I'm saying that is not to be, don't conflate climate with pollution.
That's what Al Gore was.
Climate pollution.
We have a professor, Will Happer, the foremost expert on the greenhouse effect, actually said that this is an abuse of the English language to look at pollution and smokestack and say that's carbon dioxide and that's what's causing it's not pollution.
CO2 is probably the least objectionable thing to come out of industrial production.
Yeah, but China is just so rapid right now, and it's a horrible, it's horrible environmental standards.
That's what's so incredible.
I mentioned the Starbucks mom or the Starbucks liberal.
They want to be all careful.
They want to buy only stuff from certified forests, all this ethical buying and the whole movement toward that.
But yet they have no problem renewable energy and all the rare earth mining and everything coming from China and all the coal production or anything that Putin has been doing.
People have just been accepting it because we're outsourcing our pollution and carbon dioxide.
And when I say outsourcing pollution, it's the more we rely on energy from other countries, we're getting it from countries that don't have the same environmental standards as the U.S., Canada, Western Europe, Russia, Iran, China, Venezuela, OPEC, do not have the same technology and focus on clean air and clean water.
Let me ask you, and I'm sure we're going to have way more of a nuanced debate or a conversation.
Personal question.
You're married?
Yes.
You've got kids?
Yes.
How old are your kids?
Ranging from 11 to 20.
Okay, so you've got kids and they're in that Gen Z range of Gen Z has been indoctrinated, that the world is falling apart.
On a personal level, I mean, even having conversations with your kids or your kids' friends on a personal level, how does it feel to know that you're the guy that is rooting for Earth to not win, right?
Like this is the argument of whether you call it the left, that you're the bad guy.
What did Pat put it?
You're one of the top five people who are criminals against humanity.
So from a personal level, if I was branded a criminal against humanity, I'd have a very strong feedback or pushback on that.
But explaining to your kids, like, you don't want the earth to fail.
You want us to live right?
Yes.
I'm for human flourishing and earth prosperity.
And that's why I argue it's about technology.
It's about wealth.
The wealthier a country, the cleaner the environment.
It's that simple.
It literally, you know, there was a young South African activist I interviewed at the Earth Summit who's like, the rest of the world is BS.
We need to be doing everything.
Africa has it right.
They're living in harmony with the earth.
Well, are they really?
If you go, if one billion people don't have running water and electricity, Asia, South America, Africa, they have their use, the rivers are sewage.
There's filth, animal dung being burned, horrible air quality, low life expectancy, slash and burn agriculture.
Nothing about it makes sense.
So I consider myself a champion of the earth because we want to use everything from high-yield agriculture to sustainable forestry to use that word where you, you know, instead of doing swash, you cut areas, you make it so it's regenerative and as quickly as possible.
We've done incredible success stories on endangered species, rapid drop in species extinction since 1870 on every metric.
And there's a multiple reports.
One of the greatest person on this is Bjorn Lomberg, who runs the Copenhagen Consensus, who goes to all the ways in which planet Earth is improving and how we can improve it further.
And the way to do it is technology wealth, not a top-down destruction of economic growth.
So I'm not against solar, wind, and renewable energy per se, but I'm against mandating that energy and banning energy that's proven itself.
So because one of the greatest liberators of mankind has been fossil fuels.
But beyond that, it's been also a liberator of the earth because when you have people on earth and you have economic progress, you are going to, you are going to, if you're using the old methods, what saved the whale?
Probably whale oil, oil to use then in lamps instead of whale oil.
I mean, that was one of the biggest things in coal.
What saved, you know, what made our cities radically cleaned up?
Internal combustion engine.
There were projections in 1890 of every major city that horse manure could be two stories high in New York City and other cities.
Then what happened?
The internal combustion engine came along and basically had a massive cleanup of all these cities in that regard.
I mean, there's always other issues.
But so I don't look at it in terms of my kids.
You know, it's funny because people think like, oh, the whole world thinks this way.
I live in suburban Virginia, and you know, my kids have really, all their friends think they have to have the same view.
There's very few that are all worried.
Very few kids are all worried.
In my lifetime experience, I've even spoken at high schools and spoken at their schools.
I want to stay on this topic with China.
I want to say, I appreciate that.
I appreciate the question, but I want to stay on this topic.
Can you refresh this?
I want you to see this.
From 1960, where China ranked on carbon emissions and how it's grown.
Refresh again so people can see it.
Eric, I don't know if you guys put it live or not so the audience can see it.
I'll wait for you.
Okay, go for it.
So do one more time.
Dude, one more time.
This is where China starts off.
Yeah, the U.S. is still the world's largest historic contributor of CO2, but China is now the biggest by far.
And you'll see, and John Kerry's referenced this.
He said, even if the United States and all the industrialized world go down to zero, it basically won't make a difference in global emissions because of China, India, these other countries.
But look how much Russia dropped off, by the way.
And then boom, that acceleration in the 2000s with China and how it went up.
And Russia kept going lower and lower and lower and staying at 400.
So refresh one more time to see what happens from 1980 on, okay, to see what happens from 1980 on.
So look at Russia's climbing.
And then the U.S. has got a big lead.
And this is not something you want to be leading in.
This is CO2.
Yeah, this is CO2.
Look at Russia's going up to 50070, 580, 590, 600, 640, 645, 660.
And then boom, 680.
And then look at Russia drops.
So what did Russia do to drop?
And what did China do to increase from 2000, 1995 till today?
Okay, great question.
What did Russia do?
Russia collapsed.
What a great way.
You collapse your entire economy and all the Eastern satellites.
Same thing happened in Eastern Europe.
You're going to lower your emissions, but you're also going to have misery.
But you just said the more wealth there is, the better it is, right?
You just.
Well, that's under a communist system.
They didn't have Russia had a huge increase until what?
I guess 1989 where Berlin was again 91.
And then it collapses, but then all industrial activity stops.
So I don't, I'm not talking about CO2.
I'm talking about environment when I say huge income.
Okay, yeah, yeah, yeah.
But even environment, I mean, the U.S., because we switched from coal to fracking, natural gas fracking.
And that's why ours chiefly dropped dramatically, defied every energy prediction in 2010.
But I'm talking when I specifically said wealth, it's cleaner environment overall, but also CO2.
But Russia has nothing going for it.
They had a centralized communist system, then they collapsed, and now they're under an autocratic dictatorship.
I mean, they just have, it's not even a country that would apply to the same standards anyway, in terms of that.
Well, China, you asked what happened.
I can talk about China in a second.
Go for it.
I want to hear about China.
That's what I was going to ask about China.
Well, China, I mentioned earlier, Ross Perot was right.
In the late all these free trade agreements and all of the from NAFTA, the World Trade Organization literally allowed, and I blame a lot of the doctrineer free market conservatives as well, libertarians, who always said it's you can get your product cheap.
You buy your product from the cheapest place, doesn't matter where.
Those people who buy American is nonsense.
That would work in a world where the people you're buying it from aren't don't have an agenda to basically crush you and use it again.
Totally agree.
And I'm a student of Walter Williams, and I was always saying, I wish he was still alive.
He died about a year or two ago.
Economist Walter Williams and George Mason.
And I knew him.
I interviewed him.
But I wish I could have, you know, in later years, asked him about that because to me, that's what happened.
Gave away our industrial base through these agreements to not just China, but also India.
We transferred not just, remember I said outsourcing pollution, outsourcing CO2.
We outsourced our wealth, our job creation, and our industries to these countries under the guise of free trade because they were always going to beat us under cheaper.
And now what we're facing is China is essentially can rule the world.
In fact, when they do stuff like lockdowns and we all follow, when they control the World Health Organization along with Bill Gates, it's incredible how powerful they are, but economically, unbelievably powerful, all the supply chain issues.
We are so reliant on them now.
And I think we're just waking up to what we've done under Republican presidents, chiefly, I would say, and some and Democrats as well, with all these free trade and I call it free trade in quotes, but that was the huge economic transfer.
Can you go a little lower?
China's booming.
Watch this.
If you go a little lower, this is a great article by the way.
We go a little lower.
Challenge them to meet the climate targets that they have.
We keep going lower to the coal charts.
China continues to rely heavily on coal, which is what you just talked about, energy consumption in China by source.
You see where they're at.
Look at that.
From 65 till today, what it looks like, which is insane.
And then Xi on the bottom makes a prediction about what they're going to do with coal.
Go a little ore right there.
Make it a little bit bigger.
President Xi says China will face down coal use from 2026 and will not build new coal-fired projects abroad.
But some governments and campaigners say the plans are not going far enough.
Researchers at Tsingua University in Beijing say China will need to stop using coal entirely for generating electricity by 2050 to be replaced by nuclear and renewable energy production.
So, okay, so that's this part.
Now, can you pull up the other two charts that Musk put up, the two pictures?
So here's what Musk was explaining.
And I want to really kind of get your feeling on this.
What does this mean to the average person that's watching this?
So here is what CO2 looks like from 1960 to 2015, right?
And this is part of the speech that Musk gave.
You look at this, the average person is going to be like, well, Pat, that's not really a big deal.
But when you zoom out and you look at it from 1,000 till 2015, that's what it looks like, okay?
How this has grown in that time period.
So anybody that looks at this will say this is deeply concerning on the growth that we had from whatever, 1950s till today.
Can you unpack this, please?
Yes.
Do you want to go to my PowerPoint?
Beginning of my PowerPoint, I actually have this same chart, I think, from Al Gore's movie, basically.
Go keep going, keep going, keep going.
Right there.
Zoom in on that.
That's basically the same chart.
The second yellow, where Al Gore is, is where his projections are.
But I believe the chart you just showed is where that first yellow dot is.
That's what he on.
That looks intimidating.
A couple things there.
That's ice core data from Antarctica, and it's CO2 and temperature.
The red is the CO2.
But what Gore doesn't mention is that the temperature leads the CO2.
So as the temperature goes up, the oceans emit more CO2.
He makes you think that CO2 then drives the temperature.
That's point one, which is a technical point.
And even his producer in a children's book reversed that and said that CO2 leads temperature when it's the reverse.
Now go to the next slide.
And that's if you look back further in the geologic record.
There you're going back millions of years.
That's Al Gore's high point.
And this is a key point here.
And this is in, but when you talk to us, how many years back is this?
This is going back five, 700 million years or so, I believe that.
Who gets data from 700 million years ago?
How do you do that?
It's based on all sorts of basically data from everything from sediments, lake bed, rocks.
People have a hard time believing a book came out 2,000 years ago called The Bible and Jesus, little on 700 million years ago.
They could be off on the year.
I don't even know if they are off in the earth.
They're pretty confident in it, but that's a different argument.
You're talking about young Earth creators.
I wonder if they use XL back in the days like that.
But here's the key.
90% of Earth's geologic history had CO2 levels higher than today, and 90% of Earth's geologic history was warmer than today.
We're in the 10% coldest, 10% lowest CO2, where actually we've had scientists testify to Congress that we are in a CO2 famine.
So if you look at it, the Earth has been, 90% of the history has been too warm to have ice at either pole.
We're in the 10% coldest part.
So what Gore is showing you is a little snippet of Earth's geologic history.
Now go to the next slide.
What do I have?
I think.
This is according to NOAA.
This is an actual chart.
And the Biden administration's up on their website showing Earth's history much hotter than today.
And this is a quote from the NOAA website.
Past temperatures much too warm for ice sheets or perennials.
Exactly what I'm saying.
And they go back 500 million years.
Now, you can argue about that.
But if you're going to accept the other science, look at this.
I agree.
And you see the blue chart.
That's today.
That's an idea.
Now, if you go again, I think I have the UN chart, but I don't know that I do.
Yes.
This was in the first United Nations report in 1990.
Look at the medieval warm period.
Showed it as warmer than today.
This is important because this is what Elon Musk is using and what you brought up.
We had a scientist named David Deming, University of Oklahoma, come testify before the United States Senate Environment Committee that after that 1990 UN report, which this chart was featured in, the IPCC, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the gold standard, if you will, that the UN scientists started an email campaign and started contacting, we have to get rid of the medieval warm period.
Why would a climate activist scientist chosen to work with the United Nations want to get rid of the medieval warm period?
Well, because if current temperatures are not as warm as a medieval warm period, it's hard to scare the public about it.
So that led to the whole creation of the hockey stick, which was done by Penn State professor Michael Mann, who just recently moved to University of Pennsylvania, which was called statistical rubbish.
He went through and used all sorts of proxy data for climate, and he smoothed out the medieval warm period.
He smoothed out the, this is just the northern hemisphere because we don't have real good data for the southern hemisphere, but he smoothed out the little ice age and he made a hockey stick, meaning the 20th century showed this great big temperature.
These are temperatures, not CO2, this chart.
This was critical because people need to know that when originally the UN report, the science hasn't changed in the past.
You could argue our understanding of it, but then you get into what they did, the lobbying campaign.
The professors received an email saying we have to get rid of the medieval warm period.
Lo and behold, they got rid of it a few years later with a very controversial chart that has been roundly attacked, even by people who believe in a climate, you know, climate as a huge problem, discredit it.
And even Michael Mann's own colleagues in the UN ClimateGate emails revealed it.
So go to the next thing.
I don't know if I have any other chart here.
Actually, this is a chart exaggerating Chen.
Global temperatures in 1880.
We always hear, this is done by the Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore, who's now a big climate dissenter, if you will.
But that's showing you the global temperature.
And I believe that's tenths or half a degree.
The key here is when they claim that things have gone skyrocketing or unprecedented, the hottest year on record, the hottest decade, it's within tenths, hundredths of a degree, not even measurable.
It's within the margin of error, within the margin that they adjust the temperatures.
It's a fancy way for them to say, you know, 2006 is the hottest year on record, but it's not statistically different from 2005 or even sometimes it was 1998.
So essentially, it turns into the last 25 years, we haven't had since late 90s, we had very little warming.
But then if you go back to 1970s, where they started a lot of the baselines, we've had a lot more warning because that was a little ice age.
If you keep going, I believe I have an EPA chart.
Just one other point since we're doing charts.
Keep going a little faster.
More and more.
Keep going.
You'll see a temperature chart.
That's a tipping point.
Well, well, that's actually, let's stop there.
That's a good one.
I'll stop here.
This is a CO2 chart that shows you since 1960, the same chart.
But here's the other thing, and this is what I focus on.
These are UN meetings.
The UN Earth Summit, 1992.
You see Rio, Berlin, there's Kyoto, 1997.
If you go up, you can see Paris.
That's 2015.
You can see the lockdown.
Everything they've talked about, everything they've tried, has failed to reduce CO2 emissions.
It's all window dressing.
It's a fancy way of saying we need to convert to a technocratic socialist system in order to control the climate because capitalism will destroy the environment.
But nothing they've done or attempted to do has had any impact.
And Roy Spencer, a climatologist formerly with NASA, said it would take about a 50% reduction in CO2 total emissions for at least a year or more to actually make a dent in that kind of a chart.
So go to the Green New Deal.
The Green New Deal is not a bill.
It's something that was 14 pages.
What are they proposing is their solution for it?
Because to me, everything, fine, let's just say this is happening.
What's your solution?
What's your approach to fixing this?
The Green New Deal.
The Green New Deal looks at this, and it goes back to what I just said.
They believe that the Earth can't handle capitalism, essentially, and freedom, and that we need to have a socialist system.
But they know they could never sell their brand of socialism.
I don't even know if it's the right terms anymore, especially since COVID.
It's not really socialism.
You could argue it's technocracy.
It's a tyranny of a small elite group of people.
But essentially, the Green New Deal argues that they can't sell their ideas on their own.
So they argued that we have a crisis and that this is the solution.
In other words, if they had to sell the Green New Deal on its own merits, it would have no chance.
So they use the climate scare to say this is what's happening at the climate scare and these are our solutions.
What is these?
What is these?
The solutions.
Okay.
In my book, Green Fraud, I have a whole chapter on the 1970s Ice Age scare.
And it's eerie how the Green New Deal literally mirrors the same solutions to the Ice Age scare.
Sovereignty limiting treaties, economic degrowth, stopping of meat, radical restrictions on freedom of movement, radical restrictions on home ownership, radical restrictions on just on thermostat controls in your house, on the size of your home.
In other words, it's a micro-regulation of every aspect of your life.
They did this in the 1970s.
First of all, they said that man-made global cooling was caused by fossil fuels emitting aerosols, which were blocking the sun, causing global dimming.
Their solutions were sovereignty-limited treating, wealth redistribution, and literally the same virtue signaling of the climate.
In other words, it's the same agenda.
You can go back to overpopulation.
You can go back to the rainforest scares, whatever environmental problem, they always believe the government needs to step in and micromanage all of freedom, every aspect of our life, because people left alone will create environmental disasters, racial disasters, will create climate disasters.
And we need government to essentially keep a watch over on us.
And that's why the Green New Deal does everything from your dishwasher to your washing machine to your control of your home thermostat to your diet to your travel to the type of homes you can buy, whether they're sustainable, to the type of car, to eliminating the internal combustion engine, which is gaining, that's a huge issue.
That's gaining huge steam.
But all of this was part of the Green New Deal, it was a framework.
Importantly, though, they introduced the Green New Deal multiple times, but most recently when Biden was first elected, when he was sworn in, and you never heard of it again.
Why is that?
Because they know even Democrats won't support it.
It's the same way Democrats didn't support Obama's cap and trade.
Force is not going to work.
Force is not going to work.
And as much as they want to do it, can you pull up this article from Northwesterneducation.edu, the one I just text you?
Yeah, can you make this bigger?
So I just pulled up to see what are ways to stop global warming.
Okay, let's see what they have.
Number one, change a light.
Replacing one regular light bulb with a compact fluorescent light bulb will save you 150 pounds of carbon dioxide a year.
Number two, drive less.
Walk by carpal or take mass transits more often.
Number three, recycle more.
You can save 2,400 pounds of carbon dioxide per year by recycling just half of your household waste.
Number four, check your tires.
Keeping your tires inflated properly can reduce your gas mileage by more than 3% every gallon.
Okay, so far, nothing is force.
I'm okay with any of these so far.
Yeah.
Use less hot water.
It takes a lot of water.
Okay, fine.
Avoid products with a lot of packaging.
You know, okay, fine.
Adjust your thermostat.
Move your thermostat down just two degrees in winter and up two degrees in summer.
Could save you 2,000 pounds of carbon dioxide a year.
Okay, whatever.
Plant a tree.
Single tree will absorb one ton of carbon dioxide over its lifetime.
And last one, turn off electronic devices.
Simply turning off your television and the video.
Okay, fine.
It's a DVD player.
That's when we used to watch it.
It's the same list they would have given you in the 1970s during the year.
But what I'm saying is the following.
Okay.
Bill Nye said the year I was born, America, the world had 2.99 billion people living there.
3 billion people living there.
Today it's at 7.5 billion people.
Okay.
So then you go and you say everything's linked to the growth of population.
7.5 billion people.
Okay.
Then you'll hear the word being thrown around where even Gates said this in 2011, I want to say CNN, when he was talking to, is it Gupta?
Not Gupta.
He was talking to the doctor that was on Joe Rogan.
What's the guy's name?
Okay, yeah.
He's talking to Gupta and they're talking about depopulation, right?
Okay.
So if they're saying the problem is really serious, okay, so then the solution becomes you need to go from $7.5 billion, $8 billion back to $1 billion.
So what do you want to do about it?
Do you really want to fix it that way?
Because that seems to be the only solution.
Okay, so then let's just say you can't have that many babies.
Like China deal, and China went back to the one baby deal, and now they're back down to back up to like, listen, we need to have some babies because we've slowed down and average age is now 38.4 and we got India's at 26.
We got to compete.
We got old people.
We got to have more babies.
So what is really the solution?
Because the solution I'm hearing about is either more control.
You know, at least you look at what Tesla is doing, what Elon Musk is doing, right?
Credit to him.
By the way, to give him credit on what he said, even though he said that six years ago, the video I played, what I read about what he said, he said this October 18th of 2021, what I'm about to read to you.
He said, if you ask any scientist, are you sure that human activity is causing global warming?
Any scientist should say no.
This is Elon Musk.
Because you cannot be sure.
Let's say hypothetically CO2 was good for the environment.
And let's say hypothetically the United States possessed all the oil in the world.
Well, you'd still have to get off oil because it's a finite resource.
And as you start to run out of it, the scarcity would drive the cost up and cause economic collapse.
It's just, I just don't understand why we'd run that experiment, particularly when you considered that at some point we have to get to something that is sustainable.
We have to have sustainable production of energy and consumption of energy because tautologically, it is, is that the word by the way?
Tautologically.
What does that word mean, by the way?
It's like.
You guys are using big ESL over here, right?
Tell me what that, do you know what that word means?
I remember that earlier.
It's like a double meaning.
Tautologically involved.
It's redundant.
Okay.
Because tautologically, if it's unsustainable, you will run out of it.
So even he is saying that's a shift in his position.
Seven months ago, it's a shift of the first part of that.
The second part, okay, in the book I detail in my research, I went back.
Johnny Carson's show is a great source for people like Paul Ehrlich, who was a celebrity.
He was like the Al Gore of his day on overpopulation.
Well, in 1980.
Well, first of all, in the 1960s, he warned the same thing.
Peak oil, resource scarcity.
We're going to have famines.
We're going to have massive population disruption because we're going to run out of all these fuels.
He lamented people hopping in their car, driving to the grocery store, getting a six-pack of it.
This is all Paul Ehrlich.
He predicted the end of oil within 10 years in 1980.
There's been people predicting the end of oil for decades.
I think at least since the 1930s, 40s, maybe earlier.
The problem with what Elon Musk said, and there's not, I mean, if solar, wind, first of all, solar and wind, the last count, 2020, were less than 4% of the U.S. energy production.
We're still about 79% fossil fuels.
If you go back 100 years, we're about 80% fossil fuels.
Same with global.
Not much has changed.
So there is no chance.
People thought we were going to run out of natural gas or didn't think natural gas was that plentiful.
Where is it?
We can't get it.
They found a new way or they revised and improved upon an old way, fracking, hydraulic fracking.
We ended up in it.
This is in my book.
I think it was 2009.
Energy Information Agency made projections.
Not a single prediction was right about the trajectory of CO2 emissions because the United States led the world in our reduction.
That little chart, the little video animation you showed showed our rapid.
And that was because we switched from coal to natural gas.
A better technique was able to extract it.
So there's no way people can predict that when fossil fuel will run out.
Having said that, when you're powering a modern economy, you don't ban energy that's plentiful now and available.
And there's probably, who knows, with new technology, oil and gas could go for thousands of years, hundreds of years.
Who knows how many years?
But you always know 100 years ago, 200 years ago, technology is always changing.
You can never predict the energy mix.
The problem with the whole climate agenda, problem with what Elon Musk said, he's trying to use subsidies, government regulations, and bans on certain industries and to promote some and ban others, which means you're going to be shutting down one and forcing us to go to another.
They're going after the internal combustion engine.
The World Bank, Nicholas Stern, former president at a World Bank meeting a couple weeks ago, wants to stop the World Bank financing of institutions, organizations.
2030, 2035.
That's huge.
I mean, you can't just say, I'm not going to give up my SUV.
You're not going to have a choice when Chrysler, Ford, and other automakers aren't going to be able to get financing to even make it.
That's point one.
But then point two, of course, and this is where I'm still waiting for the woke, I shouldn't say woke, but the newly woke to skepticism, both in waiting for RFK Jr. and Elon Musk to come out and address this.
Naomi Wolf already has.
She's condemned the Green New Deal as fascist.
But I'm waiting to hear RFK Jr. and Elon Musk start condemning some of their previous positions on climate.
They haven't done it, but I do sense a shift in Elon Musk.
But essentially, you use what you have until you have something to replace it.
And that's the biggest complaint.
When people can go to Walmart and buy a solar panel, put it on their roof and get off the grid.
That's the day you don't need to have this silly argument.
But in the meantime, you're allowing bureaucratic bean counters, politicians, lobbyists, and big corporations to determine every aspect and say, we've got to get rid of this kind of car.
Your dishwasher is going to have to run for three hours.
We're going to have a thermostat control on your home because we don't want you to put the air conditioner too high.
We're going to have carbon ration cards.
And then you get into this whole post-COVID dystopian world, which I'd like to talk about.
We'd like to talk about at some point because that's changed the entire climate debate.
It's a quaint discussion to sit here and talk about the Green New Deal.
It's really irrelevant at this point.
It's probably never going to be voted on in Congress.
It's being implemented as we speak in every agency of the Biden administration through financing, through the bureaucracy, through executive orders.
But more importantly, climate is no longer the issue it was.
It is now a literally consumed by COVID.
Climate is a supporting player now.
Unchecked climate change leads to unchecked COVID.
If you don't support Green New Deal, you're a grandma killer.
But it's all about climate causing more COVID, sorry, climate causing more viruses because people don't care.
They tried for decades to get people scared on climate.
They failed.
According to Pugh, Harris, Gallup polling, a virus comes along, cut across ideological lines, terrified them.
And then the climate activists said, everything we're doing for COVID, we should have been doing for climate.
And now Harvard Public Health, Journal Nature, they're all saying unchecked climate change leads to more viruses.
So COVID is now consumed climate and what's wrong with having 100% of the cars being EVs.
The problem with that, okay, a couple there's first of all what's wrong with that.
Here's what's wrong with it.
Biden administration right now is trying to build a national charging station powered by the government and funded by the government and all over the place.
The problem with that is Henry Ford didn't envision a nationalized gas system.
What does that mean?
If you have a ban internal combustion engine and then you only have a national, especially a powertrain, or you have to plug in your house, which is going to be a huge electricity bill increase, you're going to have the government will have the power to turn off this electricity, number one.
They can stop movement.
But more importantly, when you're plugging in and charging your EV, not only are you relying more on China for all the rare earth mining, the cobalt, and for other components, but you're also literally charging your car currently on 40, 50, 80% fossil fuels.
So it's a coal car, it's a natural gas car, it's an oil car, depending on where you live and what your local generation is.
So it's just kind of a weird, nonsensical transfer.
People think, oh, I have an electric car.
I don't need fossil fuels.
I'm sorry.
And how are you plugging it in?
Where's the energy?
Michael Moore laid this out brilliantly in Planet of the Humans.
He said, oh, everyone's for solar and wind, electric cars, but where's that energy coming from?
And he would show like the solar panel displays.
They'd pull the curtain back, like in The Wizard of Oz, and show the diesel generators running the power as backup behind the scenes.
So, but an electric car, if you want to get one, fine.
I personally will never buy one because I drive stick shift until they come up with at least a faux stick shift in an electric car.
I have no interest in it.
But there's nothing wrong with an electric car.
I know people have Teslas, they love them in that regard, but don't try to sell them as planet saving and don't mandate it and don't use them to get rid of internal combustion cars.
But beyond that, huge number of government reports, academic, U.S. information agency, all these reports coming out calling for the abolition of private car ownership, which is where I think this is ultimately going to go.
Andrew Yang, the Democrat president, I believe you interviewed him like three weeks ago, four weeks ago.
Oh, it's a okay.
He actually, during the campaign, when he's running for president, said he wants to possibly look at eliminating private car ownership and instead turning to a roving fleet of rental electric cars for people.
That is where I think they want to go with this.
And an electric car, and there's also reports, and I haven't been able to verify this, but that Elon Musk should try to depower or turn off his cars that are in Russia as a punishment to the Russian citizens for living under Putin.
But the idea that you have to pay a subscription for certain elements, certainly the self-driving parts of Tesla, you're getting into this corporate government merger where your life's going to be more dependent.
One of the things that the automobile, i.e., the internal combustion engine, gave Americans was freedom.
The freedom to move, freedom of movement, freedom to drive.
Same way with cheap air travel.
They're going after that hard.
Under a declared climate emergency, you can only fly when it's morally justifiable.
In France, they're already eliminating short-haul flights due to CO2.
In the United States, they are literally talking about flying once or twice a year and all these government reports.
And I detail, and these are in peer-reviewed journal, these are in academic reports.
It's very clear where they want to go with this.
So they've got this threat of CO2 and they're using it for everything the same way they use the threat of a virus to shut down churches and backyard barbecues and weddings and funerals.
But hey, Walmart was open and hey, Amazon was making a lot of money.
And hey, go on online and Facebook.
This is part of their agenda.
They need crises.
And it's about crisis declaration.
If you go back in history, the Roman Republic descended into an empire from abuse of emergency powers.
Middle Ages saw centralization of power.
Germany, 1933, the abuse of emergency powers.
The Patriot Act, abuse of emergency powers, which essentially is leading to all the banning of free speech today.
But this is the world we face.
Now they want to declare a national climate emergency.
They want to have a pandemic treaty, which is the most frightening thing modeled after this UN climate IPCC report.
That's where we're headed right now with the COVID-climate merging of issues.
And Bill Gates is ex Bill Gates is calling it germ.
Bill Gates, single biggest funder, the World Health Organization.
They want a pandemic treaty where Bill Gates paid experts can declare a viral emergency, shut down essentially the world in a whim.
You can get rid of your outliers like Sweden or Ron DeSantis, make us beholden to some global treaty where we have to go on it.
That's what's scary.
They tried for decades on climate, utterly failed.
That's why they went after kids.
The whole Greta Thunberg movement was the climate's activists realization that they failed to convince adults, so they went after kids.
And they did a pretty good job with kids to scare them.
You know, a part of this when it comes down to climate change, I have a hard time fully buying it's that big of a threat.
And it's such a, Tyler, we can hear you, and it's such a different angle on why I have a hard time believing it, is I'm in the insurance business.
Okay.
The insurance business, these are capitalists, okay?
Yes.
These are capitalists that don't like to lose capital.
The reason why life insurance business has the tallest skyscrapers in top 20 metropolitan cities, and you'll see MetLive, you'll see New York Live, you'll see all these other companies, is because they don't lose money.
That's why life insurance companies have so much money.
So why don't they lose any money?
Because they have the best and brightest minds, actuaries who sit there and they look up data all day long, and that's what they do for a living.
And what kind of data are they really looking for?
They're looking for data to see when you and I are expected to die.
And then they insure us and they underwrite us, right?
Try calling, and people say, well, no, that doesn't matter.
The insurance companies will underwrite anybody.
Bullshit.
I can tell you personally, our company, we've sold nearly 500,000 insurance policies the last 13 years, right?
Give or take.
And I can tell you how many times I've had to call a carrier and say, hey, this person is, no, they're table D, no, they're table this.
No, they're not going to get approved.
No, we're not going to prove this.
But it's a big premium.
I'm sorry, we can't approve this person because it's a risk, right?
Okay.
So why are they, you know, selling life insurance to 20-year-olds and they're giving them a million dollars to pay 50 bucks a month because they're expecting that 20 year old to live 100 years.
And if that 20-year-old is going to live 100 years, that means the next 80 years, nothing's going to happen.
So that 2050, the end of the world coming, if it's so bad, why are insurance companies underwriting trillions of dollars of paper?
Why are they doing it?
So mine is more of a logical, mathematical where the capitalist is not going to give up money for the hell of it because it doesn't help them out.
So the moment, folks, if you really want to know, like here's what I'll tell you.
If the market's doing well, if the market's doing bad, if you want to know if the market's doing bad, look at annuity sales.
When annuity sales goes up, it'll tell you if people are afraid or not.
Okay, when annuity sales goes up, when people start buying annuities and they start buying insurance against things happening, people are afraid, meaning there's a downturn coming, okay?
If people stop going to Vegas and gambling, there's issues going on.
If people stop buying and gambling with NFTs, they're afraid something's going on, right?
Because that's part of a gamble.
It's a new thing, NFTs that's going out, right?
So if you ever see cost of life insurance go up and actuaries all of a sudden 3x the cost of life insurance, you best believe these insurance companies know something we don't know.
They have the best lobbyists, they have the best people that they hire that are sitting there wondering whether they can protect their hedge against the risk long term or not.
So as much as I hear both sides of the argument, I just go back to logic and say, if it's such a big threat, why is 100% of all life insurance companies still using the same formula as actuaries to underwrite clients?
Why?
If the world is coming to an end, why are they not so worried about it?
Well, I think they're looking at the data.
In fact, part of the COVID-climate merging is a doctor in Canada in a new doctor's group is now diagnosing patients with climate change, as suffering from climate change.
A woman in Canada, the head of the ER department of a major hospital in British Columbia, Canada, diagnosed her as having climate change.
What does that even mean?
It means she was suffering from heat exhaustion, so she's suffering the effects.
So they want to make it a clinical diagnosis.
World Health Organization said climate is the greatest.
Are you being serious about this?
A Canadian doctor has diagnosed a woman with climate change after she came to hospital, breathing problems.
Dr. Kyle Merritt came to the unprecedented conclusion after finding that a recent heat wave and poor air quality in Nelson, British Columbia contributed to a seven-year-old deteriorating health.
This is seven months ago.
Hypochondria, isn't that what this is?
Well, this is making up a problem.
What doesn't exist?
It's a legal thing.
The World Health 2018, pre-COVID, climate is the greatest public health threat we face.
Bill Gates has said publicly, COVID is going to have, climate is going to kill more people than COVID.
Following up directly on this, adding climate change as a cause of death to death certificates.
This is important.
This will give us a daily, annual, monthly, weekly death count of climate deaths, related deaths.
They want to put this as a cause of death, contributing factor.
The reason I'm bringing all this up is because you're talking about insurance and you're talking about actuaries and everything else.
Well, if you look at it, and I think what these underwriters you're referring to are looking at, if you go back 100 years, you know what the climate-related death rate for Americans, or I think it was global, has dropped 99% death rate drop from affected by heat, cold, storms, hurricanes, floods, droughts, you name it.
And that's chiefly because of better technology and better infrastructure due to fossil fuels.
The death rate from climate has dropped 99%.
So I think the insurance actuaries are looking at that.
If you want to find about a death certificate, that's pretty interesting too.
It's in my PowerPoint toward the end where you could just go to my website and look up.
Death certificate of this person?
No, it's a whole nother group of Australian academics want to add climate as a cause of death to death certificates.
That was done first, and then they're diagnosing patients with climate change second.
But here's the bottom line.
If you are worried about climate, it's like people always say John Kerry is always famous, but that's what could happen.
They're going to replace COVID.
If you actually, what does this one say?
Yeah, death certificates coming.
Yeah, I mean, you could even play my Murano Minute there if you wanted.
But anyway, if you have a situation where people are looking at the climate situation and they say John Kerry will say, well, we need an insurance policy in case the climate deniers are wrong.
Would you buy a premium on your home that costs more than the home and paid out absolutely nothing if your home burned down?
Because that's what they're selling.
And John Kerry admits that at different times.
But even if we zero our emissions out, it wouldn't even affect global emissions, let alone theoretically the climate in some way.
So I always say no one would ever buy a policy like that.
That's part of the reason the Green New Deal, the UN Paris.
None of this makes sense.
Even if every nation does what they want, we're committed to in the UN-Paris Agreement.
By the year 2100, you wouldn't even notice a barely detectable temperature change, slightly cooler according to the UN, within like tenths or hundredths of a degree, not even measurable by any way, shape, or form.
And that's using their own data.
And the same goes with the Green New Deal and everything.
So it's just a misdirection.
They're scaring you with climate, and they come up with a solution that if you actually face the climate crisis would have no solution.
And that goes, yeah, calls to add climate change to death certificates, Australian National University.
Take this seriously because they're talking about making it a public health threat.
230 medical journals.
Anthony Fauci has said that COVID was a result of our not mastering nature, that human beings have to now master nature.
It's all about control.
They want to control every aspect of human endeavor.
These are the new fascists.
These are the new tyranny.
They're using climate, COVID, any kind of crisis.
They can declare an emergency.
They become all-powerful.
That's literally what we're facing.
And that is why I think the eye-opener for Elon Musk, Naomi Wolf, Jimmy Doerr, Russell Brand, and a whole host of Bill Maher.
I mean, look at Bill Maher.
I mean, it's shocking his transformation.
And once you start exactly, there's no way someone like Robert F. Kennedy, Bill Maher, can talk about COVID, the exaggeration, the lies, and the so-called solutions and the tyranny, and then not say, oh, but climate change, and then say climate change is real.
It would make no sense.
Once you see the light and once you express it, I'd love someone, and I've not heard it.
And I've even talked to people in research.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. talking about climate recently.
I don't know of his position.
Does he support the Green New Deal?
Does he support a UN Paris Agreement?
Because it's the exact same solutions.
There's a book in the 80s called Everything I Learned, I Learned in Kindergarten.
It was a famous pop culture book.
Well, everything I learned about COVID, I learned during the climate debate.
You come up with a scary prediction based on faulty models, and you say, this is what's going to happen, catastrophe, and we need this draconian solution.
They did it for climate.
No one paid attention.
They did it for COVID.
Everyone listened to Neil Ferguson, including, pathetically, President Donald Trump, who signed that emergency declaration in March of 2020, who empowered the Fauci et al.
The lowest point of the Trump administration was Larry Kudlow being asked, I think it was CNBC, when is the economy going to open back up?
And he's like, oh, I don't know.
That's up to the health people.
Literally, the president of the United States ceded our United States economy, probably the greatest economy we had in 50-plus years, lowest black and teenagers, to the public health people.
To Larry Kudlow, the brilliant economist, even fell prey to this.
And that was how this happened.
And that emboldened, if a Republican conservative president could fall for this, this is where the climate activists began to pounce.
And you'll see in the Green Fraud book and in my new book, multiple chapters just on how the green, the climate activists praised the COVID lockdowns.
John Kerry himself said it's the same thing.
The parallels are screaming at us between COVID and climate.
Jane Fonda said COVID was God's gift to the left.
It gave them everything they wanted.
And that's the scary part.
That's where we are right now in this world.
Jane Fonda said climate change is God's gift to the left.
COVID was God's gift to the left.
COVID.
In part because it gave them their agenda, in part, I guess, because it helped defeat Donald Trump.
You can look that up.
Look up Jane Fonda, COVID, God's Gift to Left.
But this is the world which we're facing.
And I still can't believe Republican.
I mean, I spend most of my time these days just bashing Republicans on climate and COVID.
Jane Fonda calls coronavirus God's gift to the left.
Yeah.
Two years ago.
Can you go to the Neil the Grace Tyson article?
Okay, so deGrasse Tyson says it might be too late to recover from climate change.
This is the one where we had an emotional.
This is five years ago or something.
Can you go a little lower to read it on how he puts it?
Make it a little bit bigger so I can read it.
So Neil Tyson, Neil deGrasse ends on some of the devastating floods and hurricanes.
Make it a little bit smaller.
Okay, there you go.
In an interview with CNN GPS, Tyson got emotional when Fareed Zakari asked about what made Homeland Security Advisor Tomza refusal to say whether climate change has been a factor in Hurricane Harvey or Irma's strength, despite scientific evidence, pointing to the fact that it had made the storms more destructive.
50 inches of rain in Houston, Tyson claimed.
This is a shot across our bow.
A hurricane the width of Florida going up the center of Florida.
What will it take for people to recognize that a community of scientists are learning objective truths about the natural world and that you can benefit from knowing about it?
And he continued to say that he had no patience for those who, as he puts it, cherry-pick scientific studies according to their belief system.
The press will sometimes find a singular paper, single paper, and say, oh, there's a new truth if the study holds it, but an emergent scientific truth for it to become an objective truth, a truth that is true, whatever, whether or not you believe in it, it requires more than one scientific paper.
It requires a whole system of people research, all leaning in the same direction, all pointing to the same concept.
Anyways, so he goes on, you know, saying the two, the day two politicians are arguing about whether science is true, it means nothing gets done.
Nothing.
It's the beginning of the end of an informed democracy, as I've said it many times.
What do you think about when you hear this?
This is considered to many people one of the smartest guys in America.
Okay.
So some people, this guy's got billions on top of billions of views.
Adults, kids watch his content.
They're taught by many teachers.
If he's saying something like this, the average person says, Nino has to be smarter than you, Mark, to say something like this.
And they said the same thing about Anthony Fauci when he first came on.
This is what you call science by expert decree.
He comes out with this.
He does it passionately.
He's a science spokesman for decisions that have essentially already been made.
He's a science lobbyist.
And that's what I call the United Nations Climate Panel.
This is a group of people who are self-selected, who join up and they try to make the report.
We have multiple UN headsets.
Wait till the next report.
They'll be so alarming, the world will have to act.
So what he's saying, first of all, what he's saying about hurricanes, it's not, first of all, it's not about, well, this new study, oh, skeptics are right.
We have a paper in our hand.
It's about data and it's about the complete picture.
What ends up happening in climate alarm, and he's talking about a hurricane the width of Florida, when current reality fails to alarm, you make up scary predictions of the future.
And if you look at this, and first of all, on all weather, hurricanes, floods, droughts, tornadoes, wildfires, there's either no trend or declining trend.
And this is sourced from United Nations reports.
And there's no way the worst hurricane decade of the last hundred years was the 1940s.
The UN has done multiple extreme weather reports where they bury this information, but essentially shows there's either no trend.
Global droughts, there's no trend, global floods, there's no trend.
But they scare you because they predict it's going to happen.
And then he mentioned Houston having 50 inches of water or whatever it was.
The whole nature of extreme weather is you can always find some extreme somewhere.
There's always going to be a record broken.
Liken it to a lottery.
The odds of you winning the lottery are low.
The odds of someone winning the lottery are almost 100% at some point, or maybe some weeks they don't, if you're doing a pick six or something.
But what his job is, is to highlight the lottery winners and make it look like everyone's winning.
In this case, he's highlighting one city with 50 inches of rain and making it look like that's happening globally, when in reality, it's not.
Global floods.
So if you look at the actual trends of all the underlying data, it's not there.
And by the way, I'm seeing sea level go by here.
Sea level's been rising since 20,000 years ago, the end of the last ice age.
Sea level by tide gauges.
Level has been rising since 20 years ago, 20,000 years ago 20,000, the end of the ice age yeah, it's been a natural rise.
So, first of all, sea level has always been rising for 20,000 plus years.
Second of all, if you look at tide gauges, it's about the thickness of a nickel rise per year.
And if you look at satellite, which they started in 93, I think it's like triple or maybe double that rate or maybe one and a half times that rate.
But there's dueling data sets and even if you accept their high end, it would take 3,500 years to get the sea level rise that Al Gore warned about in his film and Inconvenient Truth.
3500, 3500 years if you were to believe humans were accelerating it.
But the point is, sea level rise is natural.
If you're worried about sea level rise, you could look at what the Dutch did.
There's all sorts of things you can do with that, and that requires development, economic growth and also wise building plans.
You don't want to put all these houses on the beach, because it's a natural thing happening anyway.
So, but it's important to go back to the Neil Tyson Degrasse, because that is expert judgment, expert consensus.
That's the way they've done this.
That goes back to the whole 97 consensus.
These are scientists.
People trust them.
You know four out of five dentists recommend this toothpaste.
97 of scientists say.
We had Richard Toll, who I interviewed, who was a lead author of the United Nations report, looked into the 97 consensus done by an Australian named John Cook, the underlying data.
He said the consensus in that paper was quite literally pulled from thin air.
There's another paper uh 97, and they got a survey of 10 000 scientists, whittled it down to 77 and they came up with 75 answered the.
The survey is the earth warming.
Do humans contribute?
And they came out with a 97 consensus.
That way, even though there were questions a lot of skeptical scientists would answer yes to.
So this is important because when you cut to the covet debate, you put out a credentialed expert who makes these claims, puts a little bit of data in, but and then tries to scare the public because they're lobbying.
He's lobbying you for a policy position there.
Are you basically saying that Neil DeGrasse Tyson is the Anthony Fauci of climate change?
I don't know enough about him.
I don't think he's that bad.
No okay, but I do think he's lobbying for policy.
It's not just.
He's not that bad, he doesn't have that kind of power.
Right, he doesn't have that Anthony Fauci.
He, Anthony Fauci, has actually power and influence.
Okay, Neil is is a more careful, I think generally, than Fauci.
Fauci was just all over the place.
I, I don't know I I, he doesn't come on.
But who would be?
Who would be the Anthony Fauci of you know, climate change?
Who would that voice be?
Well, it depends on again, it's not NIH, it's not going to be CDC.
Who's that person going to be?
Who's leading the Paris Climate Accord?
Well, you have John Kerry and uh, Gina Mccarthy are in the Biden administration.
So John Kerry is the sort of the climate, the international climate envoy.
And then you have Gina Mccarthy, who's like the domestic one.
And wasn't Kerry also the head of the Iran Nuclear Deal?
Yeah, he was yeah, so so he's doing climate and nuclear.
And John Kerry, he's the perfect spokesman for this.
But John Kerry, you know he's, he comes off, he doesn't do the cause any good for the climate movement.
But it comes.
And I have a whole chapter in my new book on this whole idea of credentialed scientists and the, the whole process and essentially what they do is they're using science as a lobbying tool.
And I think it was Thomas Sole whose famous quote was, you know, science, government science, or they bring in the science to support decisions already made by bureaucrats, essentially, or by government.
And that's what they do.
It's very easy to find any position you want when it comes to science like that.
And you line up an administration.
Give you a case in point.
Biden has an EPA advisory board that was there.
They didn't like any of the Trump appointees.
So I think they're getting rid of like 50 plus of these scientists because they wouldn't agree with Biden's view on climate and environment.
So once they get rid of them, within a year, when Biden proposes a new Environmental Protection Agency climate rule, they can credibly say there wasn't any dissent.
And I need 100% of our scientists all agreed with it.
Well, if you'd been paying attention a year ago, they just eliminated a third of the scientists because they knew they wouldn't agree.
They just removed them from the board.
This is how they create science consensus.
You have these National Academy of Science, the American Meteorological, the American Geophysical Union.
Look at this.
They came out with a statement in support of Al Gore in the UN.
Tens of thousands of scientists endorse the view that climate is causing harm.
Oh, really?
It was a governing board of two dozen or so elected officials voted without direct vote or input of the members, tens of thousands of members of these groups.
In the case of the American Meteorological Society, there were studies that up to 75% at one point were skeptical of man-made climate change, at least 50%.
But it didn't matter because the two dozen governing board members steeped in politics, lobbying, and government connections voted that we agree with the UN Al Gore view.
And so that whole organization, there's another one of the consensus.
Can thousands of scientists be wrong?
That was the whole point of the way.
It's just about stopping debate, stopping stuff, so that we have to accept the premise.
And then we have to accept their forced rushed solution because we don't have time to act.
We're running out of time.
You've used the word consensus multiple times in your last statement right there.
So I just want to hone in on consensus.
You see the stats.
97% of scientists believe this, right?
Obviously, you take different positions than these people, but like even if you use the abortion debate, you know, pro-life, pro-abortion, pro-this, pro-life, pro-choice.
You know, they find consensus that they both agree in the life of the mother, okay?
The health of the mother.
Whether you believe in pro-choice, pro-abortion, whatever, pro-life, you believe you want the health of the mother.
Where do you find consensus with the people you wholeheartedly disagree with?
Is there anything that at least the general public can understand this, this, and this is actually real?
What is it?
We've warmed since the end of the little ice age in 1850.
I think that's not, no one disputes that.
So on either side, nobody disagree that would be accepted.
Copy check.
It's just now disputed about the medieval warring period and the Roman warring period because they went back and revised all of that history.
We generally, there's a broad agreement that more CO2 would equal a warmer world theoretically, meaning if it's not canceled out by something else.
But then you get into disagreement.
So there's agreement that CO2, bad.
No, that it would add to warming, not necessarily bad, because there's theories about saturation point once you hit a certain point of CO2.
More does not make it warmer.
It sort of levels out.
There's also the whole geologic history.
We've had ice age with many times higher CO2.
But generally, there's a whole contingent of scientists who say, no, there is no greenhouse effect, but they're small.
But otherwise, that's generally agreed upon that CO2 adds warmth.
But there's also so many factors, hundreds of factors that influence the climate, tilts of the earth, clouds, water vapor, ocean cycles, volcanoes, and the sun, obviously.
So the idea that you can tease out one and say, this is the cause.
This is the finger of our climate catastrophe.
CO2 is the finger control of the climate.
Not the case.
And that's in terms of the scientists that are dissenting.
That's where you get the dispute.
But essentially, that CO2 warms, temperatures gone up since 1850.
Beyond that, Arctic ice has dropped since the 1970s.
Again, that was the height of the global cooling scare, but then it's disputed because there may have been similar levels of Arctic ice in the 20s, 30s into early 40s, including Greenland.
Polar bears, I think it's generally agreed that the numbers have gone up.
And you know why that, but that's not a public agreement, but I'll tell you why it's agreement.
Polar bears are disappearing, but they're disappearing from Al Gore's books and movies and climate activist brochures.
Why is that?
Because conservation and all these different environmental groups all admit that we've never had this many polar bears.
It's the highest they've ever counted.
They did a hunting ban back in the 70s, late 60s, 70s, but the numbers have gone up dramatically.
We're up to over 30,000.
Gore made it the poster child in his first film, never mentioned him in his second film or his book at the same time, 2017.
So that's generally agreed upon, but they won't talk about it, you know, that kind of stuff.
So, in terms of beyond that, if you listen carefully, John Kerry agrees that the UN-Paris agreement, zeroing out industrial emissions for the West would have no impact on CO2 emissions, but these are all said disjointed at different times and reaction, moments of candor.
But otherwise, I'm trying to think what else is general agreement on.
The debate you did with Bill Nye was seven years ago?
Yeah, it was on Bill.
It was on, well, I did three meetings.
One was on John Stassel, one was on Piers Morgan, and one was do you do debates like that?
Great question.
Used to do them all the time.
I mean, all the time.
I mean, from 2000 to 2016, it was regular debating.
Donald Trump won.
The media said we can never allow someone like him to win again.
We can no longer allow dissent.
And they just stopped it all.
But I was doing that regularly.
ABC News, CNN, regularly on CNN, Don Lemon show.
They would have me on.
But then it's just, they decided that Scott Pelley, CBS News anchor, then CBS News anchor, said, I will not interview a climate denier for the same reason I won't interview a Holocaust denier.
Well, that's the first time.
When's the last time that you did a debate?
Well, with the guy at the Heritage, but the only debates they allow now are with other Republicans who believe climate's a problem and want free market solutions.
Now, I'm trying to think.
That's a problem.
I was on John.
They're silencing.
Yes, they have the outlier debate was Dan Bongino wanted me to debate the UN report last summer in August of 2021.
They couldn't find anyone.
They ended up getting some surrogate Biden spokesman who didn't really know anything about the climate.
He just read a couple talking points.
But beyond that, it's been years because they will, and there's no one, it's not just me, but no one's allowed to debate.
It's very, very rare.
Well, listen, I got some devastating news that just came in, and I hate to ruin your days.
Anthony Fauci said he will not continue if Trump becomes a president.
And I don't want you guys to be disappointed by that.
I know America's probably.
Look, we're probably going to lose 1,000 people right now getting off immediately because this is going to be very disturbing for them.
But, you know, I don't know if you read what he said yesterday.
He said, if the question was asked, if Trump wins, will you stay?
He says, no, I'll resign and move on.
He's also 85 years old.
It's time for him to move.
No, The video was specific about him not continuing if it's Trump.
I'm sure.
Again, I hate to do this to you because I know it bothers you a lot, but I don't want to do that to you.
And another number came out yesterday.
I don't know if you saw the other number that came out yesterday because you know how every time they'll say Biden's approval rating is the worst we've had except for Donald Trump.
Well, officially, you can't say that anymore because it's the worst ever measured.
Dude, again, two things back to back within a minute.
Adam, Biden's approval rating has been the worst in the last 100 years to the point where you know things are bad when MSNBC puts stories up saying if this goes the way the 75% is not happy about the direction it's going with Biden.
Yesterday, there was a question asked of the new press secretary having to do with the shortages and inflation because they're trying to blame inflation on corporate taxes.
And then Jeff Bezos, I don't know if you saw the Jeff Bezos store, if you want to put that up.
Bezos has never, I don't think I've ever seen Bezos say anything negative about a president on the left.
And yesterday he just popped off on Twitter.
I'm like, dude, were you having a bad day?
Did you and your girl get into a big fight?
Can you make that a little bit bigger and click on the Jeff Bezos tweet, not the other one?
Is that the right one or no?
I'll find it.
Just type, click on his profile.
It'll go to, because he doesn't tweet that often.
Just go up a little bit.
You'll see it.
Yeah, zoom in.
You'll see it right there.
Just zoom in.
Zoom in.
Go up a little bit.
The one right above it, I think.
Two owners of Amazon.
No, that's not it.
Can you find what he says to Prime Minister?
Is it the one that says the best way?
I think that was it.
Hey, there it is.
The newly created disinformation board should review this tweet by Joe Biden.
Or maybe they need to form a noon non-sequitur board instead.
Raising corporate taxes is fine to discuss.
Taming inflation is critical to discuss.
Mushing them together is just misdirection.
By the way, this is a man who hates Trump.
This is a man who him and Musk go at it all the time.
You know, they're opposing sides.
And this is a man who supported this guy.
And he's saying this publicly on Twitter.
Look how many likes.
It's his most liked tweet of all time.
Is that right?
Where Joe Biden, click on Joe Biden.
If you look at Bezos' tweets, he doesn't get a lot of likes.
Look at the like before, 13,000, 6,000, 3,500, you know, 2,000, 5,000.
And then boom, 170,000 people agree with this guy.
Click on Joe Biden's tweet, by the way.
Click on Joe Biden's tweet.
You want to bring down inflation?
Let's make sure the wealthiest corporation pay their fair share.
Do you realize even if you taxed 100% of the wealthiest people, it still wouldn't do nothing.
If you taxed them 100%, it wouldn't do anything with where we're at.
So by the way, in regards to climate change, did you hear what Pinterest just said?
Pinterest just said last week, I think.
Pinterest will now take down content spreading climate change misinformation.
This is a, let me go to what story, what page is that on?
It's on page three.
I'll read this to you and then I'll get your commentary on everything we just discussed right now.
So Pinterest will take down content spreading climate change misinformation.
The announcement shows Pinterest, known for providing a space to share ideas about clothing, food, and furniture, is also getting into sustainability.
The company is launching a preemptive strike against climate change misinformation, becoming the first social media network to prohibit users from sharing inaccurate data about climate change.
The site will now use a combination of automation and human review to find misinformation, remove it, and replace it with accurate articles about climate change.
Yeah, well, my only first comment is I can't believe they weren't doing that already.
I just thought, I assume they all were.
It's just sad because YouTube just recently demonetized any climate skeptics from even getting anything.
Not that that didn't affect me, but the same thing, everyone cheering on what they did for Russia right after the invasion into Ukraine, where banking, government, corporations all got together and immediately just went after and essentially shut it.
Same thing that Trudeau did to the truckers in Canada.
Be very afraid because they can use that directly back on someone if you hold anti-COVID views, if you hold anti-climate views, anti-viral scare views.
This is all part essentially, you know, Davos crowd, Klaus Schwab, small narrow window to reset our world.
Disinformation control of it is probably one of the most important things.
A lot of their training sessions for COVID, they talked about shutting down the internet to stop misinformation.
So I'm sure Pinterest probably has a COVID policy, very similar.
And these are just the first steps.
They're going to keep going.
And any, I almost said idiot, but any person out there who says, it's a private company, they should be able to do what they want.
Nothing's private anymore.
Big tech censorship is government censorship.
When the White House issues lists of names for big tech corporations to censor and then they follow suit and do it, this is no longer private companies.
So that's where I get really angry with a lot of the people on the libertarian conservative who just think, oh, this is their choice.
They can do it.
I don't know.
The way to fight it is, I don't think Elon Musk is buying Twitter, by the way.
Everything I'm seeing is I think he's looking for an out.
He's saying it's full of bots and the whole deal is on hold.
I have a feeling he's going to walk from this.
I think he just probably doesn't want the hassle.
And I think in the long-term interest, just personally of him, it would probably destroy Tesla.
If he did what he's talking about doing at Twitter, the establishment's pet company, they will destroy that company.
No matter what he's done on climate, no matter how popular he's been, they will get him.
And they have the power to do that, even to the world's wealthiest man.
They will dismantle him.
I don't think it's a good move if he doesn't, if he backs out of it.
Well, he's looking for a way to get it.
I know what he's doing because the whole $120 million that they're trying to say, because you waited a few days, you save yourself this much money by doing that.
And now they're trying to investigate him.
So obviously, the one thing that's obvious, forget about the fact that whether he wants to buy it or not.
No one on the left wants him to buy it.
Nobody.
Yeah, no one.
Even yesterday, did you see what the Twitter CEO of Twitter tweeted yesterday and how Elon Musk reacted to it?
So yesterday, the CEO of Twitter put out how to address the fight off all the bots.
And he wrote out a series of tweets and Elon Musk.
So he says, let's talk about spam and let's do it with the benefit of data, facts, and context.
Okay.
And he explains it in this 10-part tweet or 15-part tweet that he puts.
And then on the bottom, how does Elon Musk respond to it?
With a, go up, go up, go to replies.
No, go all the way up and go to replies, right?
There's a second one that says replies.
And zoom in a little bit because we can't see anything.
Zoom in a little bit.
Okay.
Keep going, keep going, keep going.
And yeah, there you go.
Move it.
This is how he responds.
Not that one.
Keep going.
You have to see what he responds with.
What emoji?
There it is, right there.
Okay.
So Prog says, unfortunately, we don't believe the Senator Donald is on performance.
So the part about the bots, Elon Musk responds with a, what emoji is that?
Poop emoji.
A poop emoji.
Okay.
A poop emoji.
That's essentially if he buys a company, that's a CEO, but he responds with a poop emoji.
I don't think it's a good move for Musk to back out.
I don't think it's a good move for Musk to back out.
I just read a whole Alex Berenson did a thing.
Alex Berenson thinks the deal's over.
It's not going to happen.
I don't know.
He was probably looking at a collapse of his whole enterprise, possibly.
I mean, they would be ruthless in going after him.
I mean, he could lose.
They're going to be ruthless no matter what with them.
Well, even now, but less so now, because if he backs down, I think.
It appears to me he's looking for every out, but I don't know if he'll get an out.
We'll see.
Because now I think Twitter's suing him for the original deal.
It's getting messy.
I hope Twitter actually forces him to buy it.
I hope they do.
I hope so too.
The calls I'm getting, the calls I'm getting is I'm getting calls and I'm getting on, you know, Morgan Stanley's leading this whole thing.
Goldman is involved, but it's really Morgan Stanley's deal.
And he's looking for guys to come in.
This is the calls I've been on, rounds of 100 million cash because he wants to leverage some of the folks to get in as well.
But you don't get to say anything.
But I hope the deal goes through.
I think it's going to be a very, he may, if he buys Twitter, he may be the most influential man in the world because he's going to use his voice if he buys it.
If he doesn't buy it and he's smart enough to know how to get out of it, if there's anybody smart enough to get out of a deal, it's probably a guy named Elon Musk.
Let me ask you about, you're saying he's basically looking for an off-ramp to get out of the deal.
It's what it seems like to me because he's talking about these bots.
And it's no issue.
It looks like the point of contention are these bots and these fake accounts.
I've seen it.
I've seen that.
Is that really what he's worried about or is there a bigger problem?
I think he's just worried.
I think all his investors, all his partners, everyone is telling him this is the end of Tesla.
And very well, I mean, I don't put anything past them.
In terms of when I say them, I mean the established.
It'll be the end of Tesla.
Why if he goes through Twitter?
I just think that they're going to do everything they can in terms of government contracts, regulations, support could affect his space end this rises because a lot of his whole world has been good will between government and private.
That's exactly why taking money from the government is not a freaking good move because they eventually strong army like he's talking about.
Did you get that?
SpaceX, who'd you think money is going to be?
They'll eventually say, if you do this, here's what we're going to do because we fed you this.
That's exactly why the nationalized system doesn't work.
Exactly.
That's exactly why that doesn't work.
It punishes individuality, any dissent, you have to toe the party line on everything.
Same thing we saw on every, I mean, everything from climate, COVID.
I was selling health insurance.
Obamacare comes out.
And all these guys in LA were like, oh my God, I'm selling Obamacare information.
Let me tell you, I just sold 100 policies.
We're making money.
So much money, man.
You got to get in.
I'm like, yeah, bro, there's one person I don't compete with, and that's the government.
I'm out.
I left.
I'm like, I'm not touching health insurance at all.
They forced everybody to use three or five different insurance companies.
Every year I saw my premium going up for what I had to pay for as an employer.
I'm like, yeah, I'm not competing with you guys.
You're right.
You win.
Obama, you win.
I'm out.
We'll go to a different industry that you're not going to be involved.
So what's the correlation there or the lesson there with Elon Musk and what he's doing with Tesla and potentially with Twitter?
The correlation is, man, look, I'm watching, you're watching this, Amber Heard and Johnny Depp.
What a sweetheart of a girl she is, right?
Just listen to her.
The more I watch her, like they showed a recording yesterday of how she's like, you know, the attorney says, do you know why Johnny doesn't look at your eyes?
Do you know, by the way, do you have to use a restaurant?
No, no, fine.
Do you know why Johnny doesn't look at your eyes?
And he's like, no.
Do you look at Johnny's eyes in court?
I do.
Does he look at you?
No.
Do you know why?
I don't know.
You should know.
I don't know.
Then she plays the recording and it's a recording of Johnny and Amber.
And she's like, please, stop touching me.
He's like, come on, please.
I just want it one more time.
I want to hug you because I know I'm so stop touching me.
He says, you will never see these eyes look at you ever again.
Never.
You hear it in the recording.
Johnny got to a point that I will never.
Can you imagine a loved one telling you, I will never make eye contact?
Because, you know, love, the eye contact, I will never look at you ever again, right?
You've seen all these things being revealed about where it's at and how power structure and manipulation when somebody gets a hold of you.
Dude, Amber Heard is a small government controlling a guy that she almost ruined his life because he came out and said, this guy beat me.
You know what was a question that the lawyer asked?
I love the question.
He says, hey, does Johnny always wear these rings?
As long as I know, he always has these rings on.
Is it fair to say these are not small rings?
No.
Is it fair to say he wears very big, gory rings, not gory rings, like just gaudy rings?
Yes.
Has he always, for as long as I know, he's always worn this.
He says, okay, great.
This is the picture you showed that he hits you.
What would happen if he hits you with these rings?
You're like, what a freaking great point.
If he has hit you as many times as you claim he's hit you, how come you don't have any scars for them from these rings?
This guy, this girl ruined the guy's life for what she did.
And he comes out.
It's so weird.
Can you imagine a man saying, yeah, I'm suing my wife for domestic violence?
Yeah.
You're emasculated, right?
Anyways, the government is doing to Musk what potentially Amber Heard did to Johnny.
And I hope Musk responds like Johnny did.
I hope Musk responds like Johnny did because somebody has to stop the bullying.
And if that is really what is going on behind closed doors, if there is a guy that can do that, it's this crazy guy.
It's him.
And that doesn't mean they're not going to stop coming after you.
That doesn't mean they're not going to stop playing games with them.
That doesn't mean they're not going to stop trying to get SEC tax.
They're going to find some shit on this guy that if they want to do it.
But the alternative is what?
You're officially owned by the government.
You officially have to get a tattoo that says, I'm government-owned property.
Yeah, again, my book on the Great Reset, I go into the whole digital currency, what they're trying to do.
And they're actually done it now in several countries.
I think it was Zimbabwe and obviously Canada, where you're going to be government, Joe Biden just in an executive order about three months ago about a central bank digital currency to essentially compete with cryptocurrency.
The idea here, though, is you're going to be relying on this government.
Your credit card will be shut down.
Your banking will be shut down if you don't get a COVID vaccine, if you don't support or fall out of favor with the party.
And there's actually a partnership now between the United Nations and MasterCard called a dichotomy, a credit card, where it's going to monitor your carbon footprint.
And the card, the World Economic Forum is very excited about this.
The card cuts off your spending when you hit your carbon footprint max.
In other words, if you get too much gas or if you fly, buy airline tickets, your card stops working.
Now, it's voluntary at the moment.
It's for people who want to monitor it.
But how long before that, six months, a year before that becomes mandatory as all part of it?
Control your banking, control your thermos.
This is about human freedom.
And that's ultimately what the climate battle is about.
And now the real battle and the next transition to this is going to be the viral battle and this pandemic treaty, I think, is the greatest threat.
I don't think they're going to win, though.
I don't think they're going to win.
It's a question of how many years of darkness before they lose.
That's the question.
The Soviet Union didn't win, but they had 70 years.
Think about building one of the most ridiculous technologies of all time and not wanting any credit for it.
What are we talking about?
Bitcoin.
Bitcoin.
Oh, yeah.
Okay.
And I'm not even a Bitcoin guy.
I have some Bitcoin and Ethereum, but I'm not the guy that's going out there saying, you know, that's if you.
But think about producing the greatest, one of the greatest technologies out there and not caring for people to say who you are.
Like, think about that.
Talking about Satoshi.
Yeah, yeah, whoever the Satoshi Nakamoto is, right?
Think like, you know how some people write these books that's not their name?
What do they call it?
There's a word for it.
Pseudonym.
What is it called?
Pseudonym, right?
And eventually what comes out, yeah, I wrote that book.
You know, is it really me that wrote that book, right?
This guy still has not come out.
So how do you process that?
Here's how I process that.
For you to produce something like that, where you create a revolution in the world, essentially, because everybody, governments are buying, everybody's talking about this Bitcoin thing.
And you're sitting there.
Imagine him on the, you know, sitting in his living room and is watching and saying, ha ha ha, yeah.
Okay.
You know what?
I should come out and tell the world I build it.
I bet I'm going to get more girls.
I bet I'm going to get more of this.
I bet I'm going to get more respect.
I should go out there and say, no, I really don't give a shit.
That guy who produced it is driven more by being left alone than recognition.
Yeah.
They're not going to win.
You don't win.
There's people behind closed doors who are just sitting around who are so powerful and they don't even need to impose their power on you.
They don't care for the recognition.
They don't give a shit for you to tell them how special they are.
Those are the people that they're waking up.
So for me, I think common sense prevails and I think they're waking up the wrong people.
And those wrong people are ones who know how to stand up to them.
I hope, I hope whoever is in Elon's ear and is talking to him.
Elon's a man who's going to make up his own mind.
He's going to do what he's going to do.
I hope he realizes buying one of these virtual governments is very, very important to not let all of those guys be on the same page.
It's very important for somebody who is reasonable in the middle to own one of the big social media companies.
It would be revolutionary.
It would put a massive debt in all their places.
So to the point where even if the people who have money, like this is the part that you got to give credit to the left and not the right.
You know what the left would do, right?
Say Elamos was on the left.
Say Elamos was on the left.
And they had to figure out a way to come together and get that money to make sure this deal gets done or whatever it is.
You know what they would do?
They'd be doing Zooms and calls and conference calls to make sure everybody came together and they'd be raising money for each other to make sure they got that money to make sure they own Twitter.
I hope the people on the other side are also making calls and doing whatever they can to help this man end up owning Twitter.
But at the same time, you know, with what you're saying with Tesla the Fears, I don't know, man.
I hope he stands up and he picks up Twitter because somebody opposing from the mob needs to own one of the social media companies.
Someone needs to do it.
He's pretty much the only one at this point because they're so big and powerful.
By the way, let me tell you what kind of very weird thing happened in the last 24, 48 hours.
Kind of like the fact that Bezo kind of threw himself out there.
Maybe Bezos is sitting there saying, shit, I'm not as loved as Musk is because I'm playing it so damn safe.
You know what?
I'm the new rebel and I'm the new guy.
You know what?
Screw this shit of trying to be the Mr. Nice guy worth $300 billion.
And you know what?
Forget about it.
I'm in the game of recreating myself.
I'm about to show you guys what I'm really all about.
I'm going to push my weight as well.
I hope that backbone comes out.
But you're just hoping when that backbone comes out, people are not bought on the back end or afraid of all these other fears that people are going to bring.
Who knows what's going to end up happening?
Anyways, today's been a blast having you on.
Thank you.
We've talked about a lot of different things.
Folks, if you enjoyed today's podcast, give it a thumbs up and subscribe to the channel.
And the book that's, can they get your book on Amazon?
Or is your book available on Amazon?
The book is Green Fraud.
It's available on Amazon.
And my new book is The Great Reset and the Permanent Lockdowns coming out August 28th, I believe.
So this one they can order.
I know this one because it's audible.
Yes, this will lay out the entire climate agenda, including the history behind it.
Going back to the 1970s, it goes through the kids' indoctrination.
It goes through COVID climate connection.
It goes through how the UN was corrupted with these extreme scenarios to scare everyone.
Forward by Mark Stein.
And then the other book is The Great Reset, which goes to the World Economic Forum, Prince Charles, all the big corporations all aligning essentially for a very narrow window to reset our planet.
You'll own nothing.
You'll be happy.
You'll have everything delivered by drone.
You'll have no privacy.
You'll be eating insects and printed meat from a 3D printer.
It's all their words.
And I try to do as much mainstream sourcing.
But again, this is where I talk about the new politics.
It's not left-right anymore.
Last question for you.
Assuming the Earth's still here, you know, in the next 50 years, what do you want your legacy to be?
What do you want to be known for?
I want to be known as the man who questioned authority.
And in the new book, I go back to the 1960s.
It was the left who showed the way to go after the Pentagon, to find the Pentagon papers, to challenge the administration's claims on the Vietnam War, who knew that government agencies lied to the public.
I want to return.
I want to be the man now championing that return, question authority, question the consensus, question what you're told, whether it's climate, COVID, vaccines, or all these so-called solutions.
That's what I would like to be.
Let's have an open society once again.
Well, I look forward to you actually being in a heated, fierce debate with somebody that you guys can go back and forth with.
For a year and a half, we've been trying to invite people to debate.
We've had plenty of people to debate on this side from the other side.
No one wants to do it.
For a year and a half, we've been trying this.
No one said no.
If you know anybody that's an influencer and is on the opposing side and is willing to debate, I'm sure you wouldn't mind having a debate with them.
We'll host a debate right here.
If you know anybody that you'd like to see this debate, YouTube keep it on, though, is the question.
If it's a debate, they'll keep it on because they kept Alan Dershowitz and Robert Kennedy.
Well, I would like to see a round two debate with Mark.
