Sheila Gunn-Reed and climate realist Michelle Sterling critique Canada’s NDP push to eliminate fossil fuels, calling Jagmeet Singh’s 2023 Ottawa plan "unrealistic" amid cold climates and sparse populations. Friends of Science reports—like Carbon Kleptomania (2019) by Robert Lyman—expose carbon tax failures, foreign-funded ENGOs exploiting wildfires for political leverage, and the EU’s far more viable renewable transition. Gunn-Reed frames carbon taxes as a "green trade war" and "tariff on ourselves," with Alberta’s oil ranking globally while provinces like Quebec avoid costs. Their argument: Canada lacks infrastructure, funding, or time to justify such drastic shifts, and taxing fossil fuels isn’t moral when they sustain livelihoods. [Automatically generated summary]
You're listening to a free audio-only recording of my show, The Gun Show.
My guest tonight is Michelle Sterling from the climate realist nonprofit group, Friends of Science.
If you like listening to this podcast, then you will love watching it.
But in order to watch, you need to be a subscriber to premium content.
That's what we call our long-form TV-style shows here on The Rebel.
Our subscribers get access to watching my weekly show, as well as other great TV-style shows, too, like Ezra's Nightly Ezra Levant Show and David Menzies' fun Friday night show, Rebel Roundup.
It's only eight bucks a month to subscribe, or you can subscribe annually and get two months free.
And just for our podcast listeners, you can save an extra 10% on a new premium membership by using the coupon code podcast when you subscribe.
Just go to the rebel.media/slash shows to become a member.
And please leave a five-star review on this podcast and subscribe in iTunes or wherever you listen to your podcasts.
Those reviews are a great way to support the Rebel without ever having to spend a dime.
And now, please enjoy this free audio-only version of my show.
You're listening to a Rebel Media podcast.
The federal NDP wants to get us all off fossil fuels, and Environment Minister Catherine McKenna is trying to declare a climate emergency in the House of Commons.
Has everyone completely lost their minds?
Yes, probably.
I'm Sheila Gunn-Reed and you're watching The Gunn Show.
I'm going to show you a clip from the federal NDP leader Jagmeet Singh from earlier this week in a press conference he held in Ottawa.
Just watch.
I believe the future of Canada does not include fracking.
We cannot be fracking.
We cannot be relying on fossil fuels to burn as an energy source at all in our country.
We need to move to a future that is renewable.
That's why I'm calling for a complete end of all fossil fuel subsidies.
We need to invest in green energy.
We need to invest in clean energy, renewable energy.
That is a future for our country.
This, of course, is crazy and unrealistic.
I mean, Canada is one of the coldest and least densely populated countries on the face of the earth, and fossil fuels are essential for our success as a thriving nation, but also, you know, like just basically for our survival sometimes.
But that hasn't stopped otherwise relatively smart people from saying things as dumb as what Jogmeet Singh said without an ounce of self-awareness.
I mean, Jogmeet Singh is the member of parliament for Burnaby, British Columbia.
So his weekly commute is like the entire country on an airplane.
Now, thank goodness for people like my guest tonight.
She cuts through the progressive fantasy of life without fossil fuels to tell us what life would really be like without them.
So joining me tonight in an interview we recorded yesterday morning is my friend Michelle Sterling from Friends of Science.
So joining me now from Calgary is my friend Michelle Sterling from Friends of Science.
She's such a wealth of information.
I mean, Michelle has encyclopedic levels of information about the environmental movement, but not just the people and the players and the environmental NGOs, but the practicality of it all, how their bad ideas fall apart when you examine, well, how do we get to the fossil fuel-free utopia that they really are pushing on us?
And it is my show, and so I'm going to be a little self-serving today.
I have Michelle on because she actually did, well, I have Michelle on for a few different reasons, but she actually did a report about Mark Cameron, who is Jason Kenney's new policy wonk.
But Mark Cameron, before he joined Jason Kenney's bureaucracy, was the head of Canadians for Clean Prosperity.
And that is a pro-carbon tax lobby group that really advocated for Kathleen Wynn's cap and trade scheme, Justin Trudeau and Catherine McKenna's carbon tax, and advocated for increases in Rachel Notley's carbon tax.
Carbon Kleptomania Revealed00:14:52
So I'm having Michelle on to kick off the show by briefing us on her report, but then we're going to get to a bunch of different places because, like I said, Michelle really knows it all.
Michelle, thanks for joining me and sitting through my long preamble.
Thank you, Sheila.
No problem.
It was an interesting long preamble.
And I must say the report we did regarding Mark Cameron's work was issued actually last September, I believe.
And it's called Carbon Kleptomania.
And of course, the foundation principle of Cameron's proposals on carbon taxes are that it's a carbon dividend.
So actually it's a benefit to you to be taxed, which has most people, you know, scratching their head.
But then these offers of generous rebates to people, dividends, does attract the attention of some people.
And some people who are not good at math think that's grand.
But I want to say right off the bat, carbon kleptomania was based on a compilation of works of Robert Lyman.
And as most people know, Robert Lyman is a frequent contributor to our blog and to our reports.
And I just want to give a bit of background just so that we know who Robert Lyman is.
He was a public servant for 27 years and prior to that a diplomat for 10 years.
So people go, oh, okay, he was a public servant.
Well, you know, maybe he was stamping envelopes.
But in fact, he has been involved in energy markets for over 44 years.
He was the executive assistant to the Deputy Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs in the 70s on the Berger Commission, the first secretary in the Canadian Embassy in Washington in the 70s.
He worked as an economist in the energy policy branch of energy mines and resources, led a group of economists responsible for analyzing international oil prices, executive interchange for two years in Ottawa as the representative of the Canadian Gas Association during deregulation.
Director of energy policy.
He worked on the early cap and trade or sorry, the early carbon capture carbon dioxide work, provided expert advice to the Kyoto Accord, was Director General of Environmental Affairs and Transport Canada, performed major studies for Transport Canada and navigable waters, and he's written lots and lots on energy and climate.
So here's somebody with 44 years of experience on these very issues.
He's studied the GHG file inside out and backwards.
Carbon kleptomania shows that carbon taxes are a dead weight on the economy.
They hurt the poorest the most.
And there's no such thing as a carbon dividend that will benefit you more than what you spend.
And that's mostly because of the cumulative nature of these carbon taxes and the fact that the carbon dividend proposal proposes that there will be a huge pot of money from business and industry.
And so they'll steal from that to give back to the poor while stealing from the rich to also give back to the poor.
But what happens is business just says, you know what, too expensive for me to operate here.
I'm leaving town.
So then you have fewer jobs, no big pool of money.
And of course, in the middle of that, governments go, oh, what tasty funds we have available to us.
Why don't we just siphon this off?
And Robert did a report on the global panorama of carbon pricing.
And he found that in most cases around the world, governments have ended up absconding with all or most of the money.
So, you know, it is a cash grab.
So I hope people will read our report.
If you don't want to read, we have a short video called Carbon Kleptomania, quite a cute little thing.
But it's a very important issue.
People have to understand.
There's no such thing as a carbon dividend.
It doesn't work.
Well, if people want to see my full coverage of the Mark Cameron situation in Jason Kenney's government, they can go to firecameron.com.
They can actually sign my petition there and see my full coverage where I break down actually who was on the board of Mark Cameron's Canadians for Clean Prosperity.
And they have one of the directors of the Ivy Foundation on their board.
And we know the Ivy Foundation gives money to Tides.
And Tides is the foundation that is explicitly attacking Canadian oil and gas.
So to have someone with these sort of links now injected into the bureaucracy here in Alberta, I think is completely antithetical to the things Jason Kenney promised us he would do.
But that actually brings me into one of the next reports out from Friends of Science recently, and that's a report on climate charities.
Right.
Yes, we actually have a series of four reports.
They were also put together by Robert Lyman.
One is called Money Matters, one is Dark Green Money, one is Big Green Money, and the last one is the Green Titanic.
And they, overall, they look at the different aspects of these ENGO charities, most of which are foreign funded in part, and then subsidized by taxpaying Canadians.
So taxpaying Canadians in the oil patch are funding these guys, subsidizing these guys to block pipelines and to put in a tanker ban.
So these four reports are all listed on one Easy blog post.
We have another report there called Manufacturing and Climate Crisis, which is about a specific case study of West Coast environmental law and how they instituted the tanker ban.
And who wrote on the coattails of the tanker ban to victory in elections?
Well, it was the prime minister.
So you can see all of that in these four reports.
And really what people don't realize is the tax base is being drained by hundreds of billions of dollars to these charities.
And now in our last report, Green Titanic, we show how now they have almost 100% free reign to engage in political activity with their money.
Before it was limited to 10%.
But there was a change in law last year that was slipped through an omnibus bill.
And now, hey, it's open season.
So if you see Politicians climbing on the bandwagon about green energy and such like, they're trying to attract these followers and this money to their cause.
You know, and isn't that really convenient as we head into an election year that there's that change in law?
Go ahead.
Oh, I was, yeah, yeah, it's very, very convenient.
And it was slipped through in this omnibus bill, so there wasn't open discussion about it.
We did issue a letter to Minister Mourneau noting the implications of many of these ENGO charities, how they block development, block jobs.
And these are things that we consider to be far outside the operation of a charity.
Now, it's funny because West Coast environmental law calls this a Victorian view of charity.
Their view is that charities should be able to do anything they want, I guess.
Our view is more traditional that a charity is intended to offer assistance to the poor, like Heligonians, right?
Let's say the Halifax food bank being supplied with X number of food baskets for X number of Heligonians.
So, you know, it's local, it's tangible, and it actually serves a public good.
What's the public good in blocking tankers?
Don't know.
Well, I guess that brings me into the next thing I wanted to talk to you about.
You know, we've got a lot of good segues today, more than my normal clumsy ones.
This idea that there's like a spate or like an epidemic of these motions, both at the municipal level, provincial level, and now at the federal level, that there needs to be some sort of debate and declaration of these things called climate emergencies.
But they never really actually define what the emergency is, just that we may all die.
I think we're down to 11 and a half years, Michelle.
So we better get checking things off our bucket list now.
But I mean, Catherine McKenna and Bartish Chager, they are pushing for an emergency debate on the climate emergency.
And I think it's so ironic that this is what they want to talk about, but they're rejecting the Conservatives and the NDP's motion to have an emergency debate on the things that are real and tangible, like the Liberals did to Admiral Norman.
They bankrupted him, they ruined his life, they sidelined his career, he almost went to jail for breach of trust.
Nobody wants to talk about that, but we have to talk about the emergency of the weather that is completely undefined.
Yes, well, this is based on a very big movement by the environmental group, and this book is called Unprecedented Climate Mobilization.
So they're trying to do two things by declaring an emergency.
You know, they set up kind of a war measures situation where then the government has more sweeping powers.
If you look at the pact for the Green New Deal, which is being promoted by about 60 different environmental groups in Canada, including Dogwood, Dogwood is promoting the idea that we should expropriate the Oshawa GM plant and turn it into an EV manufacturing plant.
Expropriate.
Okay, so this is like their starting point.
So this idea of declaring a climate emergency, then you can do two things.
You can move into kind of a 1930s New Deal situation where the government takes control of many things as Roosevelt did in the States.
You have to realize in the States at that time, unemployment was 30%.
In some places, it was 80 or 90%.
And farmers were struggling because of the drought and the depression.
So it made sense at that time to really take over everything, put people to work on make-work projects and just get something going.
One of the things they did was a lot of dam building in the Tennessee Valley to electrify and provide electrification for everyone in that region.
Then the next step after that is war mobilization, a World War II type of mobilization to industrialize, but with renewables, to retrain people from oil and gas to set up wind farms and solar panels.
Well, you know, Robert Lyman did a report on this for the Global Warming. policy foundation on the transition to renewable energy and the best estimate might be 50 to 70 years is how long it would take to do that.
These guys are advocating trying to do it in 11 years.
This is why they're pushing this climate emergency thing and I think at the back end of it if we follow the money we can probably see that there are investors with investments in the failing renewable sector who are desperate to prop it up, who are desperate that now the climate change mantra of CO2 is gradually being diminished as a scientific theory.
They're desperate to find a way to make sure that they can get money back somehow, even if it means sending you into heater poverty.
So we have to dissect these things and stop them in their tracks because these are impossible things.
Well, like for instance, the push for EVs in Canada, aside from them being non-performance vehicles for this type of environment, we don't have enough power generation in Canada to back it up.
We don't have enough trillions of dollars in Canada to build out all the necessary transmission lines, distribution lines, the additional dams.
I mean, look at Site C Dam.
Look how long that's been going on.
How could we build additional power generation when these projects take at least 15 years to get rolling?
And they're stopped every step of the way by the same environmentalists who are demanding that we go green.
Yeah, I was just reading, working on another story today, actually, about the electric car subsidies that McKenna is giving out at the federal level.
And it really is just a handout to wealthy people, so much so that they increase the cap on the price of cars that qualify for these subsidies from $45,000 to $50,000.
And then there's a report in Black Locks Reporter today that says that the demand for electric vehicles is actually decreasing worldwide because they are, like you point out, impractical in Canadian climate conditions.
Despite the fact that they tell me it keeps getting warmer, the electric cars keep getting more unreliable and we just don't have the grid associated with it.
I mean, it's just these pursuit of ideas that are just so impractical, but they also say to us that we can make these changes overnight.
I mean, the Liberals want all the cars that are sold in Canada to be zero emissions by 2040.
That's 21 years away.
That's insane.
Yes.
Yes, we have two reports that we issued.
One is by a power engineer, very experienced person in Kent's error.
It's on our blog.
And he does the math calculation so people can follow his logic.
And we also have a report from William Kay, who followed the electroglides, as he calls them, in the EU.
Now, the EU has completely jumped off the cliff into electric vehicles, but it makes some sense for them to try and do that.
Because, first of all, Norway has tons of hydro, France has lots of nuclear, and it's a very dense population.
They are already wired and they want to reduce the fact, not so much the pollution, but they want to reduce the fact that they import every year hundreds of billions of dollars of oil.
So they want to cut that out of their budget.
It's killing them.
It's like, you know, slitting their wrist and draining the entire budget of their industrialized society to have to import all this oil.
EU's Leap to EVs00:10:11
So it has some sense there and it may be workable.
The temperatures there are far more moderate than those in Canada.
The distances are short.
They're already wired.
In some cases, they may be able to attach charging stations and powering up to existing light rail transit systems that they have crisscrossing most cities.
So, you know, they have an infrastructure that has potential to actually feed this need.
But here we don't have that.
You know, I also was just reading a blog from Czechoslovakia, Lubros Motel, and he was saying in Czechoslovakia, they have three Tesla power stations and 7,000 gas stations.
So, you know, this is the parody that you cannot fix overnight.
And these are real considerations because it costs a fortune to implement this kind of infrastructure.
It's not cheap at all.
Yeah, and I was looking at a news article about the liberal subsidy program for these electric cars.
And Tesla is reworking one of its models so that it qualifies.
Like they're designing their product now around making sure that the buyer qualifies for the subsidy.
So if that's not your proof that this is just, you know, a scam from the very beginning, trying to market a product nobody really would buy, and nobody really is buying without all these incentives, I mean, there's your proof right there.
But that actually brings me sort of back to the climate emergency stuff.
This week, the New Democrats are, you know, also trying to bring forward an opposition day motion to declare or argue about a climate emergency.
And Jagmeet Singh has been saying some real, real crazy things.
He said in a press conference without, you know, an emoticon of irony or self-awareness, he said that he wants a complete abolition of the use of fossil fuels.
Does he know what country he wants to be the prime minister of?
I mean, we have a resource-based economy and it is pretty darn cold all the time.
Yes, well, even if he was not in Canada, I mean, would he want to represent someplace like Sudan or Bolivia or Iraq?
Because, you know, these are places that live with very limited access to fossil fuels and the people have a very low GDP and live, much of them live a hand-to-mouth existence.
Everything in the modern world is made from fossil fuels, from oil, gas, and coal.
Every wind turbine is made from oil, gas, and coal.
So if you ramped up and went to 100% renewables, you would actually be using way more oil, gas, and coal and way more natural gas.
Because, as Robert Kennedy, the environmentalist, has pointed out, when you build a wind or solar farm, you put up a gas plant.
You're actually building gas plants because natural gas is the fuel that backs these up.
And this all goes back to the Enron scam of years ago.
This is where Enron found that they could make a lot of money on selling and trading carbon credits, the natural gas in the background.
The wind farms, what do they do?
They peak up and down.
What does that do for peaker plants?
means you erratically burn natural gas and peaker plants make more money because they can ramp up and down to meet those erratic flows of the wind.
So, you know, you're actually paying investors in the background.
This is the whole thing of this clean and green movement goes back to the UNPRI and these institutional investors being deeply invested in all of these things that they're trying to sell you via the climate catastrophe.
Now, I know you had another report that just came out called Climate Change Your Mind.
Do I have that right?
Yes.
Climate Change Your Mind is a rebuttal report to the federal government's Canada's changing climate.
And our report is fact-based.
The federal government report is based on modeling scenarios.
Our report shows that there's no increase in wildfires.
The Fort McMurray wildfire was not human-caused.
We show that there was warming in the Arctic years ago and there will be again.
And in fact, we have a report that I recently found where the Arctic was 4.6 degrees Celsius warmer in the 1930s than today.
The flooding that's going on, you can check with Robert Muir, professional engineer.
He has done an analysis of urban centers and most of them have paved over the city.
So there's no place for that water to go.
So it's actually an engineering problem.
It's not flooding that's related to additional precipitation or human-caused global warming.
It's not related to CO2.
Some of the flooding down east, as Dr. Kandakar tells in one of our videos, and also in BC, a lot of it is due to an increased snowpack.
So more winter precipitation, melting at a time when the ground is still frozen.
So of course you get more runoff and more pooling because there's no land to absorb that water.
So these are things that are not related to human causation, but they try to make it that way because people automatically respond to these horrible catastrophes.
I mean, these are terrible things that people are going through in the flooding and in the fires, but it's not human-caused.
And it's a problem when we apply climate change resources instead of practically fixing the real problems we can address.
Yeah, and I think it is, I think it's revolting to capitalize on human tragedy to push a climate change agenda.
I think it's terrible.
People's lives are being ruined.
They're losing everything.
And then along comes Catherine McKenna and Justin Trudeau and Rachel Notley and says, you know what?
If I had just taxed you more, maybe your house wouldn't have burned down.
I think it is appalling.
You know, it's funny that you point out that they are attributing these human-caused things to climate change.
When I wrote this down when I was preparing notes for our interview today, when the city of Vancouver, because of course it was the city of Vancouver, declared their climate emergency or whatever, they actually cited the forest fires in British Columbia as one of the reasons they needed to declare this climate emergency.
But as you know, those were caused by arson or a great deal of them were caused by arson.
Yeah, most of them in BC in 2017 were caused by arson and the volume of acreage being or hectares being burned.
One of our people did an analysis and showed that there is a very strong correlation with the pine beetle infestation.
So what's happened is there's a huge amount of deadwood that should have been cleared out.
Like if you threw a few hundred million dollars at that and got people to get out there and clear out this dead underbrush, especially in areas where there are populations.
If you built, our forestry consultant said to us, you know, if you built a one kilometer fire break around some of these forested communities, that would be a better use of money than running around trying to get the water bombers in there, paying millions of dollars in an emergency and having people lose property.
If people followed fire smart regulations, when you move to an acreage, you clear away all the wood around your house.
If you look at Pioneers, that's what they did.
You know, they did have a windbreak around the property, but they didn't have tons of trees and shrubs right around their house because they knew that if the fire came, up would go the house.
What do we see in these acreages?
Everybody wants to have a cabin in the woods.
What do we see in paradise?
Tragic images on Google now.
You can go and see that the power lines were running right up against the trees.
Those should have been cleared away.
Oftentimes, the people didn't want the power company to do that because they wanted to have this quaint little village.
So, you know, there's lots of practical things we can do to address wildfires.
And instead, we're throwing money at trying to catch carbon dioxide.
It's really, really stupid and a huge waste, huge waste and risk to human life.
Sorry, go ahead.
No, I was just going to say it feels as though people have forgotten how to live on the face of the earth outside of, you know, the urban jungle.
These are things that people who live in the country, like me, I know.
It's something we do every single year.
You know, you clear out all the dead wood, you burn down all the dead grass because I mean, it's something as simple as a cigarette butt thrown out the window that can cause catastrophic damage early in the spring or late in the fall.
And it seems as though politicians are counting on the fact that people have forgotten the lessons of our grandparents.
Yeah, well, again, you know, a lot of people move to the country to an acreage and they think, well, if there's a fire, I'll call 911.
Yeah, good luck.
Good luck with that.
You know, you actually have to have a local fire volunteer group committee and have a plan in place.
So how would your neighborhood, your acreages, how would you respond if somebody's, you know, barbecue got out of control?
You know, and there are ways that people who are living right there can actually respond and probably manage or contain a fire until authorities can get there.
But it's a long wait.
If you're anywhere outside the city, you know, it's not going to be three minutes or eight minutes.
That's the target, I think, for the City of Calgary Fire Department.
People's Sacrifice in Reporting00:04:58
And that's fantastic.
Yeah, I think it's about a half an hour for me.
You know, I have had some barbecues get out of control, but it's just resulted in a lot of hangovers.
Well, we probably have the hosts on standby, right?
I mean, you have things on standby because you go, you know what, the wind could come Anytime.
I better be ready.
It's true.
Do you know what?
Did we get to everything we had on our list to chit-chat about today, Michelle?
Not quite.
There's two other reports I'd like to mention.
Sure.
Been very prolific.
One is another report by Robert Lyman called Futile Folly.
And it looks at sort of the drip, drip, drip of Canada's emissions versus this ocean of emissions by countries like China, India, the US, and really assesses, you know,
why are we trying to break our backs and break our economy on this futile, expensive, and dangerous, economically dangerous, and politically dangerous mission to reduce our emissions to nothing when it's actually ripping the country apart and it won't make a difference.
You know, it will not make a difference because our contribution is so small.
And the other report we just issued yesterday responds to the climate emergency.
It's called Look Before You Leap into Climate Emergency Mode.
And it does a fairly detailed evaluation of some of the central claims of the pact for the new Green Deal.
So little old friends of science, our tiny little group, is taking on those 60 ENGOs and all their followers and trying to bring some common sense to the climate and energy policy discussions in Canada.
You know, and thank God you do.
You know, you do make a very salient point there that these debates around carbon taxes really are ripping our country apart.
It is dividing us.
It is stripping provinces of their autonomy to deal with their own problems in their own way, the way the people who elected the governments of the provinces have decided they need to be handled.
I think the carbon tax is just as detrimental to the unity of our country as the inequity of equalization.
Yes, of course, because, you know, the whole principle of confederation was that we would all work together and share our resources, not that we would penalize each other.
And we've come to a situation now, largely because of these foreign-funded ENGOs, where we have provinces instead of welcoming each other's contributions, where Vancouver Port would say, oh, thank God there's a train across Canada.
Thank heavens there's a road through the mountains because now our port is useful because now we can ship all kinds of things to other parts of the world and we always have a vibrant economy in Vancouver because of our port.
Instead of welcoming that and being reciprocal, when Alberta says we want to build a pipeline, they go, oh, well, sorry, not in our backyard.
You know, meanwhile, every single container ship that's in Vancouver Port puts out 50 million cars equivalent in emissions, 50 million for every single container ship.
Okay, so you and your little carbon tax, you're not saving the planet.
You're just being fooled.
And of course, as you mentioned, then it becomes a huge rift between the resource sector of Western Canada and down east where, you know, they have the James Bay Hydro and in Quebec, they're all very proud of their hydro.
Well, they've got two refineries there.
They've got a big cement plant there.
They've got a big ocean port there.
None of that counts, right?
They're not emitting anything in Quebec.
So, you know, it's created this resentment and rivalry, unfair imposition of taxes on different parts of the country.
And really, it's a crazy thing.
The best thing we could do is leave the Paris Agreement, quit Paris, save Canada, and build some pipelines because that's our economy.
are one of the top seven countries in the world.
Actually, Alberta alone is in the top seven of oil producing parties in the world and we're just a province.
So somebody's obviously trying to block us and it's a green trade war.
We should recognize that and respond accordingly and win.
We should win this battle and get back into the competitive world.
Yeah, you know, when you look at the insanity of Canada taxing its oil, it really amounts to us putting a tariff on ourselves.
I mean, and no self-respecting country would really do that to themselves.
Incredible Reports Available00:02:35
Michelle, I want to give you a chance to let people know where they can find all these incredible reports that Friends of Science is constantly putting out.
I mean, I look at these reports and just they're so labor and time intensive, it's hard to believe that you're a nonprofit.
I mean, that people are just giving of themselves to create these reports.
It's incredible, incredible, and so time consuming.
So how can they find you?
How can they support you in the work that you do?
Well, first of all, you can read and share our reports.
Our reports are posted.
Most of them are posted on our blog or our website.
We issue press releases every time we put out a report.
So you can find those on PR web under Friends of Science Calgary.
You always have to add Calgary on the end.
And you can support us by going to our website, www.friendsofscience.org, and click on the donate or membership button.
Become a member for a nominal price, $30 a year, $60 for three years, and then you will get all of our materials in your inbox or donate or both.
And we're not a charity, so we can't give you a tax receipt, but we love to have you on board and we need all the help we can get.
Yeah, I think also if you join, you get advance warning of the incredible banquet you guys put on in the spring.
I was just at that, I guess it was a month or so ago.
Great food, good people, and open-minded discussion.
I highly recommend becoming a member of Friends of Science.
Michelle, thank you so much for your time.
You're always overly generous with your time, but it's because I think you just have so much information to impart to us.
And I hope that we can take up a lot more of your time in the near future.
Thank you, Sheila.
I really appreciate your support and we think the rebel is great.
Thank you so much.
Thanks, Michelle.
I don't know about you guys out there, but I sort of kind of like that my life isn't short, miserable, sickly, damp, and cold all the time.
And that is in no small part thanks to our friend Fossil Fuels.
Taxing them is immoral.
Well, everybody, that's the show for tonight.
Thank you so much for tuning in.
I'll see everybody back here in the same time, in the same place next weekend.