Michelle Sterling of Friends of Science dismantles Liberal climate policies, exposing Ontario’s $3.6B smart grid waste and $133B in global adjustment fees tied to renewables, which cost 75,000 industrial jobs without environmental gains. She links Gerald Butts’ past role in these failures to his current federal influence while mocking the Wines and Nicola report’s impractical 2017 recommendations—like veganism and fewer children—now quietly dropped. Canada’s 2040 EV mandate, with $5K subsidies and a hidden $350–$433/ton carbon tax, ignores global emissions realities: no major polluter except the EU meets Paris targets, yet Canada risks economic collapse while competitors like the U.S. expand fossil fuels. Sterling calls the 12-year ice-free Arctic claim a "scam," arguing critical thinking—not indoctrination—is key to energy policy. [Automatically generated summary]
Hello Rebels, you're listening to a free audio-only recording of my show, The Gun Show.
My guest tonight is Michelle Sterling from Friends of Science.
Now, if you like listening to this podcast, then you will love watching it.
But in order to watch, you need to become a subscriber to premium content.
That's what we call our long-form TV-style shows here on The Rebel.
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 just 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 or subscribe in iTunes or wherever you listen to 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.
Environment Minister Catherine McKenna thinks we're all going to die in 12 years from climate change.
So if that's the case, what the heck is her government doing ordering new icebreakers to cruise around the Arctic?
I'm Sheila Gunn-Reed, and you're watching The Gunn Show.
The war promised us all the Arctic would be ice-free already.
Back in 2008, former Vice President Al Gore predicted that the Arctic would be ice-free in five years from then, so 2013.
Nearly two decades later, Canada is now buying more icebreakers to deal with increased Arctic ice conditions.
Actually, the federal government is going on quite the little icebreaker buying spree.
Late last year, it was announced that Canada would be acquiring three new, or rather new to us, used icebreakers from Norway, and then spending $600 million to retrofit those ships for Canadian conditions.
Then, very recently, earlier in August, Trudeau announced that his government was opening up the search for a shipyard to build completely new icebreakers for the Canadian government.
So, to recap, last year we added three more icebreakers, and now we're looking to build a series of more icebreakers, and yet, Canada's environment minister keeps telling us that if we don't pay her carbon tax, the Arctic will be no more.
Looks like even the liberals don't believe that garbage.
My guest tonight is someone who adds facts and figures to counter the constant fear-mongering from the left on the issue of climate change.
When the climate change minister is fishing off a rock in high heels with no line on the end of her rod, my guest tonight is helping crunch the numbers to tell you exactly what would happen to you and your family and your lifestyle if McKenna really got her way and phased out all those fossil fuels.
Joining me in an interview we recorded earlier is my friend Michelle Sterling from Friends of Science.
So joining me now from Calgary is my friend Michelle Sterling from Friends of Science.
I'm so grateful to talk to you, Michelle.
And we really should do this more often since we only have 18 months to live, or apparently.
That's what the climate change fearmongers would have us all believe.
I wanted to talk to you about a video that Friends of Science has just made.
You're turning into quite the little spokesmodel for Friends of Science.
I'm really enjoying your videos, actually.
As someone who's on camera all the time, I really am appreciating the evolution of the work that you're doing.
You did a really great video on Elizabeth May, Green Party leader Elizabeth May's crazy comments about how we can just all of a sudden transition to this new green economy and nobody is going to be left behind.
But you added some facts to her contentions that that is even possible.
Oh, well, yeah.
I mean, first of all, when she says no one will be left behind, if you look at the volume of energy consumption in the world, well into the 80% of it is fossil fuels.
And wind and solar are perhaps like somewhere between 2 and 6%.
It depends what country you're in.
But it's a very, very low percentage.
And even things like geothermal, which is we keep hearing people banding that about as a way to replace all the oil workers who are out of work, just have them work on deep wells and we can have geothermal like magic.
Well, even in the United States, which has the most geothermal power generation in the world, it's only 0.4% of the power mix there.
So it's a very small, very specific type of power generation.
It can be useful and there are some places where it could be done here, but it's not a be-all and end-all as being presented.
And there are many complexities.
So, you know, the whole thing of Elizabeth May saying no one will be left behind.
Well, as I sent you that report on Ontario, people were left behind in Ontario.
So do you want to talk about that part now?
Yeah, you know, what a great segue.
Again, see, you're getting really good at this video thing.
Yeah, that's, I had that on my list of things I wanted to talk about.
A report that I think is highly relevant right now as we approach the federal elections campaign.
And it's highly relevant because of the number of people who were responsible for the green energy catastrophe that unfolded in Ontario.
A lot of those people, namely Gerald Butts, are now working for the federal Liberal Party, the government, or the campaign.
And they really do want to replicate what they did in Ontario in the rest of the country.
The report is called the Ontario Government Climate Legacy.
Yes, and this is another report by Robert Lyman, and he's looking at the energy transition that took place there.
And if you look back at Elizabeth May's history, she was the executive director of the Sierra Club from its foundation in Canada in 1989 to about 2006.
And the Sierra CLUB was funded by the OAK Foundation, which is a terrace campaign funder out of a foreign funder, to, I think it was for about $217,000 to coordinate the ENGOs at the time and get them to make sure that greenhouse gases were legally legislated as a pollutant,
so that these groups were working with foreign funding to make problems for Canada down the road.
Now, that was not our policy at the time.
And even if you look right now at the air pollutant list in Canada, you won't find CO2 on that list.
But anyway, so she was part of that campaign.
She was the executive director of the Sierra Club in 2005 when they gave Alberta an F and they gave Ontario a B plus for the Rio report, which is based on the Rio declaration of the big Rio confab in 1992, where the whole global warming movement began, shall we say.
So she gave Alberta an F, despite the fact that Alberta was in fact a leader in everything related to climate and environment at the time.
So in the process of the Ontario Green Energy Act being implemented, you find all the same parties that are implicated in the tar sands campaign implicated in the Green Energy Act.
And what was the outcome of that?
Well, I just want to read some of the figures from Robert Lyman's report just to give people a sense of what happened.
$9 billion for poor contracting practices, $133 billion in global adjustment fees from 2015 to 2032.
And at least 20% of that is related to the renewable sector.
$3.6 billion to build the smart grid and smart meters and up to $55 billion in deferred costs that will hit future ratepayers.
And here's the kicker.
Elizabeth May says that no one will be left behind in her plan to go green.
Well, 75,000 lost industrial jobs in Ontario.
And as Robert says, that's quite the tally for zero global environmental benefit.
So when people are saying, oh, our plan won't leave anyone behind, well, we've already left behind 75,000 workers in Ontario and complete economic devastation.
So don't believe her.
Ask her questions.
You know, I think the thing that really bothers me is that I see the media letting her loop of her blaviating about how she won't leave anyone behind, going on and on.
Who's asking her these hard questions?
No one, not that I can see.
Yeah, you know, isn't that the truth?
J.J. McCullough, journalist J.J. McCullough, he often points out that Elizabeth May is held up like she's some sort of saint, that she's some sort of parliamentary procedure expert, and that she is this benign and benevolent figure in Canadian politics.
And as you rightly point out, she really isn't.
She's got her hands in all of this devastation in Ontario, and she wants to replicate it nationwide.
Yes, yes.
And not to condemn the woman as a person, but these are the policies that we're addressing here.
And they're not founded on anything but unicorn farts and fairy dust, really.
No, no one is asking these hard questions.
You cannot go from 2% renewables driving the world energy to 100% renewable overnight.
You can't do it.
You can't do it in 10 years.
And actually, Robert Lyman has another report out that was published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation.
It's called Transition to Reality.
And he points out that all the energy transitions over time have been at least 50 to 70 years.
And renewables have been sponsored, like subsidized now for 40 years for trillions of dollars.
And they still haven't made any significant market penetration because they can't do the job.
They can't support basic society.
And yet we have public figures, candidates for office advocating for these policies.
And journalists are not asking these hard questions.
That's their job.
Ask.
Yeah, I mean it is their job, but when you're getting $600 million in bailout money from the federal government to not ask the questions, expect silence.
Now, I wanted to transition into, again, another really great video that you did.
I just watched it before we popped on air here.
And it is about the Wines and Nicola report.
And that's about, I suppose it's about climate change in and climate change education within the curriculum.
And I found out an interesting fact.
Friends of science is somehow part of the Manitoba curriculum.
And that heartens me a lot that there's still like that little bit of common sense in the public school curriculum when it comes to science and telling both sides of the story.
But that wasn't Wines and Nikola's position on Friends of Science, no, was it?
No, no, they were quite upset to find that a so-called denier organization was even mentioned.
And I haven't seen the specific curriculum document, but according to how they described it, it was brought up by the school curriculum developers that there is a diversity of views and it's quite contentious between scientists and quite different between many groups of scientists.
And we were offered as an example for students to read some material and, you know, consider it and then consider the other side as well.
Which the thing that I found very odd in the Wines and Nicholas paper is that they were upset that the curriculum had not done enough to convince students that climate change is a real emergency.
Well, you know, as far as I know, education is not about convincing people.
It's about teaching them how to think critically.
And, you know, this is a pair of researchers who turned out a paper in 2017 that was very well publicized.
You probably remember it where you should drive less, you should be vegan, and you should have one less child.
Now, Canada only has a birth rate of 1.6% or 1.6 children, sorry, 1.6 children.
So if you're telling people to have one last child, you're basically telling them to wipe out Canadian society and you're giving teachers a pink slip.
So, you know, what kind of advice is that?
And interestingly enough, in their most recent paper, they conveniently leave out that part.
So I wonder why.
You know, they must have known that teachers wouldn't take kindly to it.
But the other thing is, if you're talking about critical thinking, they fail to mention that container ships put out the pollution of 50 million cars and your child is never going to do that.
So having one last child is not going to save the planet.
Going vegan is not going to save the planet.
Driving less, you know, might save you some gas money, but it's not going to save the planet.
So these people are getting a lot of profile in the press.
And again, the press is not asking any critical questions.
When you look at some of our other reports that I hope we'll discuss soon, you find that these big countries like China, highly industrialized, developing nation, I think it's all of Canada's output is equivalent to what's put out in China in three and a half months.
So, you know, having one less Canadian child is not going to save the planet.
Stupidity Taxes00:02:42
And think that these people are critiquing school policy.
I think the curriculum developers are doing great so far.
Yeah, especially in Manitoba.
I'm shocked.
And I really enjoyed the title of that video.
It was called Climate Diversity is Our Strength.
And it's so funny because when the other side of the argument, liberals say things like, you know, diversity is our strength.
We hear it all the time.
But they literally only mean diversity of gender and diversity of color.
But they never mean the real things that really should matter.
Because really, I think most people don't care what color you are, and they really don't care what goes on in your bedroom.
But we should be able to tolerate people who have differing ideas about us, who examine the evidence and come to a different conclusion.
We should be able to exist in society with those people and they should be entitled to hold those views.
And I'm refreshed to find out that the Manitoba curriculum actually teaches that some people can look at evidence and collect other evidence on their own and come to an entirely different conclusion.
And that's okay.
And it's still part of the scientific process.
Well, yeah, science is about inquiry.
It's not about compliance.
So, you know, it's really shameful to think that anyone is trying to impose on teachers or curriculum developers that you should only teach one way, one way, you know, my way is the highway.
And, you know, there are also some advocates in the school system.
We ran into this a few years ago in Alberta where one person was advocating that not only should children not be given diverse views on climate change because it might confuse them, but also the media should not publish anything that is contrary to the alleged consensus because it might confuse the public.
So, you know, how stupid do they think people are?
That's just absurd and absurd that there's that view in schools.
You know, it really, there really is that sort of elitist sentiment, isn't there?
These are the same people who want meat taxes, sugar taxes, fat taxes, salt taxes, because you and I are too stupid to listen to our doctors, listen to science, listen to medicine, and come to our own decision about what we should eat and what we should put into our bodies.
But at the same time, they're the people who are legalizing drug injection sites all over the place.
They want to tax my burger.
Why EVs Mean More Charging Stations?00:11:00
They want to put vending machines in Vancouver now.
You know, nobody wants to help these people restore their life to wholeness.
Let's just keep them on the street and drugged.
You know, and it's a terrible crisis.
I'm not mocking the opioid crisis at all.
It's terrible.
It's terrible.
And it is affecting so many families.
I mean, and across demographics.
But there's a lot.
I think that's sort of the pervasive theme of those who are really strongly pushing climate change.
And that is this idea that they need to control your life.
And, you know, and it comes in many forms.
It comes in, well, you should eat less meat to save the planet.
You should have one less child to save the planet.
Meanwhile, the Canadian replacement rate for our population collapses and the healthcare system implodes on itself.
But no taxpayers, no taxpayers left.
And you see it in all sorts of things.
Like I brought up the not eating meat, but there's also this desire to force people to get off cars for some reason.
And Canada is this huge country, sparsely populated.
You know, between Alberta's two largest cities, there's a three-hour drive.
You know, it just doesn't make sense.
And you guys have a really great report out.
It's called the 85 million ton obsession.
And it focuses a little bit on this desire to rid society of cars instead of just, you know, like making cars better, making the technology more efficient, making the technology more affordable.
No, we're just supposed to revert back 150 years and hoof it everywhere.
Yeah, and a lot of these policies stem from looking at Europe, you know, where they say, oh, look at that.
In Europe, you can go everywhere by train and everybody's got a high-speed train.
Well, look at the population density there and look at the distances there.
It's absurd.
I mean, when you look at a city like London, it's 2,000 years old.
So, of course, it's a highly densely populated area.
They've built up public transportation systems and they lead a very different life than here.
And it's also quite temperate compared to Canada.
I mean, there's that book that I referred to before called Cold Welcome about how people who came from Europe to the new world were expecting to find the new Andalusia here, hoping and thinking that it would be the same as in nice, warm southern Spain, only to find out that it was damn cold.
And, you know, that's a very big difference.
People don't make those comparisons and understand the difference.
So, yes, the 85-ton obsession, it's another Robert Lyman report.
And he notes that 15.6 million Canadians compute back and forth to work.
And after five decades of the government trying to get people out of their cars, the commuting by car has fallen from 80.7 to 79.5%.
So far, we're not making big progress.
But now, you know, the Trudeau government in April 2019 announced new targets for 100% new vehicle sales, 100% EVs, right?
Zero emissions.
And they're granting all kinds of money, $2,500 to $5,000 per vehicle.
But, you know, what this does, it brings up the carbon price equivalent to $350 to $433 per ton of emissions avoided, which is many, many times, of course, the present $20 carbon tax.
And people don't understand this hidden carbon tax that's happening through these various subsidies and legislation.
And as we've seen in the past, you know, so after five decades of trying desperately to get people out of their cars, it's not working because we're not built for it in Canada.
It's a vast place.
We don't have the population density to support the idea of high-speed train everywhere or buses everywhere.
We just don't have it.
How many people would be on your bus from where you live out in the country?
Just me.
Yeah, I mean, you'd be driving once a week, maybe.
You know, but if you got to go to town to get some equipment or, you know, got to cart some hay around or pick up some egg supplies, you're not going to go by bus.
You need a truck.
So it's ridiculous.
Anyway, it's a great report and it puts things in perspective on the fact that this kind of nominal, very expensive effort will only result in an 85 million ton reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, which is nothing in the context of the things that we've been discussing so far.
It seems like a lot of pain for absolutely no gain.
And they keep doing it over and over.
They say, okay, well, we tried it this way.
We didn't see any success.
Let's try it this way.
We don't see any success.
They keep trying it without, like you say, addressing the realities of what life is like in Canada.
It's cold, it's far apart, and we're a car culture, that's okay.
And if you look at much of Alberta, it's all boomtowned.
Either it's coal boom towns, oil boom towns, gas boom towns.
These places pop up overnight.
Leduc popped up overnight.
Devon popped up overnight.
Edmonton, for the most part, popped up overnight after years of just being this loose conglomeration of little towns.
It popped up overnight.
And so you're dealing with housing people and then you deal with getting them around.
And then, so, how do you do that with existing communities?
How do you create high-speed rail when you've got existing communities and highways already built to get them around?
And people are happy to do that.
It just doesn't make any sense.
They want us to be European bike riders and we're Alberta pickup truck drivers.
Well, you know, you can ride a bike in Europe pretty much year-round.
Most of Europe you can, but you can't do it here.
I mean, there are some hardcore people who do, but the average person cannot.
It's not very safe and it's just way too cold.
And the other thing to think about there, oh, I just lost my train of thought.
You were just talking about, oh, yes, when you have EVs, one thing that people have not thought about is that let's say we have enough EVs in Alberta that now we need to set up more charging stations.
Well, now we're going to have to run high-power transmission lines here and there.
And the thing that people hate worse than pipelines is high-voltage transmission lines.
So, you know, when you start putting in all these transmission lines to bring power for EVs, first of all, it's a huge cost.
You're talking billions of dollars.
Like just the line from Calgary down to the Pincher Creek wind farms, $2.2 billion.
That's only about 200 kilometers.
So imagine wiring Canada for EVs.
And not to mention, one of the things that I find really bad about the whole legislation of these 100% EV or no-emission vehicles by 2040 is that we have to build more power dams.
We have to build more power generation to meet that demand.
And that's trillions and trillions of dollars.
Those projects take decades to build.
Like look at Site C Dam.
That started 1988.
That was when the first proposal went forward.
It's still not finished.
So we will not have enough power to support this grand plan of everybody driving these net zero cars.
And we will likely be bankrupt and in the dark.
So, you know, people really have to think about this.
It's a serious problem and we are going to run into it.
Well, Michelle, I want to transition now as we close up our interview into one of the things that's on the top of everybody's mind.
It's the election.
It's looming.
It's coming.
Whether we are ready for it or not.
And I think a lot of people are pretty ready to cast a ballot against Justin Trudeau.
And I wanted to talk to you a little bit about how Justin Trudeau has been publicly, I guess, pro-pipeline, but at the same time, he's choosing anti-pipeline candidates, whether he's nominating them or selecting them or whatever the Liberals are doing these days.
Namely, Stephen Gilbo, the Liberals actually went out and actively courted him to be a Liberal Party candidate.
And he's been involved in the anti-oil, anti-fossil fuel movement for, I guess, the better part of two decades.
Yeah, I would say easily.
You know, he was formerly with Greenpeace, then he was with Equitaire in Quebec.
They call him Jesus of Montreal, I guess, because of his beard.
Maybe because he's going to save the planet.
But, you know, he and Marlow Reynolds were the first two to write an op-ed that called Alberta Oil Dirty Oil.
That was in 2008, I believe.
Still posted on the Pembana site.
You know, and he was also part of the Liberal government.
I don't know if he still is, but he was one of the advisors on climate action.
So he and a woman from Van City originally.
And so they were the ones who said we should have electric vehicles and go all EV by 2040.
So, you know, when you look at the background of both the tar sands campaign and the push for electric vehicles, again, you find the climate works billionaires who are on the one hand denigrating existing markets and on the other hand promoting new markets as a way, I guess, to drive investment and drive funding for themselves.
But, you know, we're not told that in the front.
And he's one of the proponents of all this because these groups that he was with have been funded for millions of dollars by the tar sands campaign and by the climate works billionaires for these pro purposes.
So there's the tar sands campaign, con and against purposes, and then there's the pro purposes like EVs.
And again, as we spoke before, it sounds good, but they don't really work in Canada and there are many problems attached to them that people aren't talking about.
Yeah, I mean, and Justin Trudeau, for all his preening about, whoa, I bought you Alberton's a pipeline.
Insane Climate Targets00:05:10
Don't you love me now?
Well, that pipeline isn't built.
They don't have the approval permits to even start construction on the Sherwood Park side of the pipeline, which exists within one of Canada's largest petrochemical facilities, and it's a secure facility.
So God help me tell me what conditions need to be met for the NEB to approve that pipeline.
Justin Trudeau is saying a lot of great things, but his actions really speak louder than words.
Well, and then you see on the other side, the environmental groups now are banding together to hammer the insurance companies.
I believe it's Zurich Insurance.
There's 32 groups.
I got, you know, there's a message from Banktrack that they're all going after these insurance companies.
So if you can't insure your big infrastructure project, then you can't build it.
And I don't know how this is legal.
You know, to me, this is tremendous market manipulation.
I don't know what authority any of these people have in terms of doing this.
To me, it would be some kind of harassment, you know, because it's not somebody sending a single letter saying, please consider these points we make.
These are point-and-click harassment emails by the thousands that these companies are getting.
So you can't have a government legally authorize a company to be an insurance company or a pipeline builder or an oil sands developer or an infrastructure builder or a coal plant operator or natural gas plant operator and then also allow all of these tax subsidized ENGOs to hammer and harass these companies endlessly so that they can't do their job or they just give up on the territory and say,
you know what, let's go work in the middle of nowhere because they won't bother us there.
It's the mob tactics of the internet, but in real life, it's very peculiar.
It's very bizarre.
And I don't think we're really going to see any sort of change in these tactics or at least a renouncement of these tactics until we see a change in government.
Michelle, I want to thank you so much for being generous with your time today.
One more report?
Of course you can.
There's one more report that Robert Lyman just did.
Sure.
And I think it's very important at this time that people know that all these countries apparently promised to meet certain targets in 2015 at the Paris conference.
So every five years they're supposed to update their targets.
Well, it's almost four years now since that agreement was made.
And none of the large emitting countries, the 10 large emitting countries, of which Canada is one, except the EU, which is counted as one country, will meet their emissions standard.
And why will the EU meet it?
Because they're suffering an industrial massacre.
So that means that like if all the other countries of the world completely eliminated their emissions and indeed ceased to exist within 12 years, the two degree C target would not be met.
So have a look at this promises versus performance report.
It's his latest report.
And I think it helps put things in context when these ENGOs are saying, oh, we have to meet our climate targets.
Nobody else in the world is meeting their climate targets.
And the only one that's close to meeting it, the EU, is suffering an industrial massacre.
And so that's not going to be good for them.
In fact, I just saw that one of the banks in Germany is about to have a route so things are not good over there.
And it's partly because of their ridiculous climate policies.
So we should not follow their path.
Anyway.
Isn't that funny how the only road to success in meeting climate targets is completely destroying your own economy?
Yes.
Like that's the measure of success.
I mean, it's just so crazy.
And our competitors are laughing all the way to market.
You know, they're just gathering up other countries to be their market share.
We're supposed to be in the top six providers of oil and gas worldwide.
But, you know, all those other competitors of ours have none of these restrictions.
They've accepted none of these restrictions.
Just look at the United States.
They've become an exporter of oil and gas and they remain our one and only customer.
What do we think that's going to mean for us in five years?
We're not going to be needed at all, and yet we can't build pipelines to get to foreign markets.
It's really, it's insane.
It is insane.
No grown-up country should be doing this to themselves.
Right.
And I mean, look at Europe.
Where are they getting all their oil and gas and coal from?
Not from us.
And that's odd because we are, you know, a former colony of theirs.
We have always had trade relations.
We've got La Francophonie.
We've got the Commonwealth.
Why wouldn't they say, welcome, come and talk with us?
But they're, no, they're happy to work with Iran, with Qatar, with Russia.
Something strange going on there, don't you think?
It's very strange.
Strange Trade Relations00:02:32
Michelle, I want to give you a chance to let people know where they can find some of Friends of Science incredible, just information-packed reports and how they can support the work that you do.
Oh, thank you.
Well, these recent reports are posted on our blog, and you can find our blog through our main website, www.friendsofscience.org.
So you'll find a little spot there for the blog.
And you just have to search through it to find the names, although maybe you guys can post a link or the cover of the reports.
And to become a member or to donate, there's also a little button on our homepage.
You can donate there.
And we'd love to have more members, love to have donations.
We run on a very small amount of money, $150,000 a year from our members.
And we don't take government contracts.
We don't have corporate donations of any denomination.
And so we do need your help.
And we try to provide insights on climate science and energy policies.
We are not dogmatic.
We don't want you to agree with us.
We want you to think.
So, and that's a dangerous thing, I guess.
Well, you know, isn't that great that for me, when I'm reading these reports, there's not a lot of emotion in them.
They're just jam-packed full of information, which is so much the opposite of the gloom and doom, the fear and scare of the other side of the debate.
It's real numbers, hard facts, and real analysis of the data, which we don't get from the other side of the debate.
Michelle, I want to thank you so much for coming on the show.
I want to thank you for being generous with your time.
And hopefully, I can check back with you in the recent future if we're all still alive.
I think we will be.
I think the 12-year thing is a scam.
So, we're going to be fine.
Thank you.
You're welcome, Michelle.
We'll talk again.
Okay, thanks, Sheila.
Bye-bye.
Well, everybody, there you have it.
If the liberals continue to have their way with energy policy in this beautiful country, expect your life to get more expensive, less fun, less free, and less delicious.
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 very same place next week.