Tom Harris of the International Climate Science Coalition argues ocean acidification is a misnomer—seawater remains basic (~8.2 pH) even with extreme CO₂, benefiting phytoplankton and marine life, while natural fluctuations dwarf projected changes. He critiques wind/solar as destructive, citing Ontario’s 0.01% wind capacity and China’s coal expansion despite green tech dominance. In Canada’s Conservative leadership race, Harris praises Derek Sloan for rejecting the Paris Agreement (costing $800M/year) and advocating adaptation over wealth-transfer taxes. The episode ties climate alarmism to UN agendas, economic shifts, and political inertia, urging sensible policy over ideological carbon pricing. [Automatically generated summary]
Hello Rebels, you're listening to a free audio-only recording of my weekly Wednesday night show, The Gun Show.
Tonight, my guest is Tom Harris from the International Climate Science Coalition, and we're talking about the new front in environmentalism.
But don't worry, the solution is still taxes on your SUV.
Now, if you like listening to the show, then I promise you're going to love watching it.
But in order to watch, you need to be a subscriber to Rebel News Plus.
That's what we call our long-form TV style shows here on Rebel News.
Subscribers get access to my show, as well as Ezra's nightly Ezra Levant show and David Menzies fun Friday night show Rebel Roundup.
It's only eight bucks a month to subscribe.
And just for my podcast listeners, you can save an extra 10% on a new Rebel News Plus subscription by using the coupon code podcast when you subscribe.
Just go to rebelnews.com slash subscribe to become a member.
And now please enjoy this free audio-only version of my show.
The new catchphrase in environmentalism is ocean acidification because that climate change thing majiggy really isn't working out the way the environmentalists said it would.
I'm Sheila Gunn-Reed, and you're watching The Gunn Show.
Well, I guess the good news is that the coronavirus pandemic must be over.
Because we're back to talking about environmentalism.
And by we, I definitely don't mean me, but the people who want to control your life and take money out of your family's pockets with policies that transfer wealth from you to the United Nations under the auspices of a cleaner, greener earth.
There's a new frontier in environmentalism and it's being touted as the reason that global temperatures aren't increasing the way environmentalists said they would.
It's called ocean acidification and my guest tonight is Tom Harris from the International Climate Science Coalition.
And he can see these kind of ideas coming a mile away.
He joins me tonight to explain exactly what ocean acidification is and why the environmentalists need this thing to push their cause.
We're also going to talk about the Conservative Party leadership race.
So joining me now from his home in Ottawa is good friend to the show, good friend of Rebel News, Tom Harris from the International Climate Science Coalition.
Tom, thanks for coming on the show.
I wanted to have you on because you have written, I think, what is going to be sort of the next, you've written about the next front of, I guess, environmentalism because climate change isn't really working out the way that they told us it was going to.
And so you call it global warming's evil twin.
And you say it's gathering momentum and it's ocean acidification.
I've heard a little bit about it for probably the last five years, but I'm hearing more and more about it all the time.
I don't really understand or know all that much about it because people are telling me my straws are going to kill all the sea turtles.
So tell us first what ocean acidification is, and then please tell us how the environmentalists tell us it's going to kill us all.
Yeah, sure.
Oceans Not Acidic00:09:32
Well, first of all, it's named wrongly because the oceans have never been acidic.
I mean, you could go back billions of years in the geologic record and we see no evidence of the ocean ever being acidic.
Now, first of all, here's how it works.
When carbon dioxide molecules enter the ocean water, they create a bicarbonate ion plus a hydrogen ion.
A bicarbonate ion has one carbon, three oxygens, and a hydrogen.
And of course, a hydrogen ion is just simply a hydrogen ion.
And that results in a slight decrease in pH.
Now, it's important to understand what pH is because it's the way they measure the degree of acidity or alkalinity, which is the opposite when things are basic.
The ocean has been basic for as long as we know.
Okay, as long as we can see the records, they've always been basic.
So pH, small p, large h, is a measure of how acidic or how basic water is.
And the range goes from 0 to 14.
7 is considered neutral.
In other words, if you have pH that's totally neutral, not acidic or basic, you'd have a pH of 7.
Now, pH is really a measure of the amount of free hydrogen ions there are.
And unlike sort of what you'd expect, a low pH, a pH below 7, is in fact acidic.
And a pH above 7 is basic.
Now, right now, the world's oceans are in the neighborhood of 8.2, and we can talk about that later.
So they're very definitely basic right now.
Now, each number in the pH scale represents a change in acidity of 10fold.
In other words, if you had a pH of 5 and the pH dropped to 4, remember going down is becoming more acidic, that would be 10 times more acidic.
Okay, so one pH drop actually is quite significant.
It's a 10fold change.
Now, it's interesting.
Many people think that the oceans are going to become acidic due to the CO2 coming in.
And it's true that temporarily when CO2 goes in, it increases the hydrogen ions, but that's reconverted back into CO2 because it's used as plant food for phytoplankton and seaweed and all sorts of things.
And so the pH then rises again to become less acidic.
Now, it's interesting that, you know, if we look at the geologic record, we can see times when there were not very many forests on the Earth.
Like when the glaciers covered half of North America, of course, there weren't any forests taking up carbon dioxide.
So you would expect, you know, the CO2 levels being higher in the atmosphere.
But in fact, they weren't higher in the atmosphere.
They were lower.
So where did all that CO2 go?
It obviously didn't go into trees because the trees are all wiped out by the glaciers stumbling across the mile and a half of ice over my head, for example, here.
But what happened is the oceans absorbed the CO2, and that's a very good thing.
People don't realize that, but the oceans absorbing CO2 actually is plant food.
The idea that we could ever get to a pH of even seven, which is neutral, because right now we're 8.2, down below 7 to become acidic is essentially chemically impossible.
And it's interesting, a biologist by the name of Jim Steele, he's from the CO2 Coalition.
People can look that up on the web, co2coalition.org.
They're pretty wonderful.
He was the former research director of the San Francisco State University's, it's called the Sierra Nevada Field Campus.
And he's shown that even if atmospheric CO2 concentrations were to triple from today's level of about 410, and he says that would take about 600 years, today's pH would drop from 8.2 down to only 7.8.
Okay, so even with tripling, we're going to still have a basic ocean.
So we don't actually see any opportunity of it becoming acidic.
And in the meantime, CO2 is important for the health of the ocean.
So, you know, this, I always call this global warming's evil twin, because, you know, we can do all we want to adapt to CO2 rise and temperature rise.
But in fact, if, oh man, if we're going to kill all the fish and the corals and all the sea form because of increasing acidification, where it's never acidic, yeah, this will give them something else to talk about.
But as I say, it's all baloney.
Yeah, I mean, it's just more moving the goalpost, isn't it?
They keep predicting that we're going to experience this catastrophic warming.
I think we're onto our second warm day of the year here in Alberta and it's almost the end of July.
You know, they keep promising all these doomsday scenarios.
And when they don't materialize, when CO2 in the atmosphere doesn't materialize, oh, well, the ocean's acting as a sponge.
It's sucking it up.
And now it's going to do this terrible, horrible thing to the ocean.
But as you point out, it's still plant food, even in the ocean.
And, you know, I should just tell you, just to give you some idea of how this is really blown up into a big issue.
Last month, there was something called the Virtual Oceans Dialogue.
And this was the first completely virtual global conference for ocean action.
And they really focused hard on ocean acidification.
This is organized by the World Economic Forum and a group called the Friends of Ocean Action.
And, you know, they live streamed to over three quarters of a million people.
Okay, I sat in on it.
It was quite interesting.
Oh, bless your heart.
Yeah.
And the participants in the conference was 1,300 people.
These are the participants, not the viewers.
1,300 people from 90 different countries.
And they're saying this is going to be the big issue.
In fact, the UN have declared the next decade, starting in 2021, as the decade of the oceans.
And of course, ocean acidification is going to be a huge part of that.
And then three days later, they had something called, it was on the World Oceans Day.
They had, let's see, how is it called?
This first virtual ocean literary summit.
Now, this is starting to sound like a UN conference of the parties.
Yeah, because it says ocean experts, sports and business people, high-level government representatives, and artists from all across the globe exchanged ideas and insights into the future of blah, blah, blah, concerning the ocean and the UN Decade for Ocean Development.
So, yep, we're going to see a lot more of this ocean stuff.
And Sheila, if I can just quote to you something, you know, a lot of readers might say, or a lot of viewers might say, well, it's just your opinion.
And that's this, this Mr. Steele.
But, you know, this document here, as you can see, is well over a thousand pages.
It's called Climate Change Reconsidered to Biological Impacts.
And it has a nice section on ocean acidification.
I'll just scroll down here and read it to you.
Please.
It says, this is put out by the non-governmental international panel on climate change.
They say, and this is at climatechange reconsidered.org.
They say the findings of hundreds of peer-reviewed research analysis suggest a much better future is in store for Earth's aquatic life, you know, than that focused by the IPCC and the UN.
Many laboratory and field studies demonstrate growth and development improvements.
Okay, so even if you think that we are going to see warming, and even if you think that the CO2 is causing increased pH, they're saying here we're going to see improvements in response to higher temperatures and reduced water pH levels.
Other research illustrates the capability of coral and other marine and freshwater species to tolerate and adapt to rising temperature and pH decline of the planet's water bodies.
When these observations are considered, the pessimistic projections of the IPCC give way to considerable optimism with respect to the future of the planet's marine life.
And there are like thousands and thousands of references that support that kind of statement here.
So, yeah, let's not worry about that either.
Yeah, but what will the artists say?
Right.
They got to show something catastrophic happening for their art.
But it's not likely.
We're not going to see it.
I mean, there are parts of the ocean where the pH changes more in the course of a day.
And of course, the plants don't all die out and then I'll have to come back the next day.
They survive.
So they're adaptable.
And the pH changes more in the course of a day than the worst forecasts of the 21st century.
So yeah, oceans are pretty darn robust.
Not with respect to some things, like, you know, chemical pollution and things like that, but forget about pH.
We're not going to cause an ocean catastrophe.
And at the end of the day, ultimately, it'll still be a tax on my SUV that the fancy people and the control freaks at the UN are telling me will be the only way to save the whales from ocean acidification.
That's their one and only solution.
Tax the little people, transfer wealth to any number of micro-nations.
Apparently, that's how you save the world.
Continuing Coal While Promoting Solar?00:14:49
Now, you have another article at America Out Loud, which you and I were talking off air.
I really enjoy that website.
It's visually appealing.
It's not cluttery like some are.
And you and your frequent writing partner, Dr. Jay Lair, you have an article there about leaders being hopelessly misguided on wind and solar power.
And I'm not sure we touched on this.
Well, I think we touched on it just a little bit last time that you were on the air.
But I think you sat in on one of these unfortunate Zoom conferences with environmentalists, as you tend to do.
You're out there doing the Lord's work.
Yeah, LEAD now held a conference online and there were a thousand people on the Zoom call.
There were 40 pages of 25 people per page.
And what they're trying to do is lump in with all the recovery actions the imposition of wind and solar power.
But you know, while I think their heart's in the right place, I don't think they really have a clue what they're talking about.
Because yesterday, it'll be on the web, actually, I guess tonight or tomorrow.
I interviewed a bird bat expert about wind turbines on my podcast.
And people can find it.
I'll actually put it up on our webpage as the first entry.
Our webpage is climate scienceinternational.org.
Climate science.
I should have remembered my own page.
Anyway, this guy, Jarl, from Norway, is talking to me about the enormous numbers of birds and especially bats.
Bats are killed very easily by wind turbines.
And that's just one element to show that they're anything but green.
The fact is, they don't provide much power.
And if you actually look at a graph of how much of the world's energy is produced by fossil fuels, it stayed pretty steady at around 80% for the last 30 years.
And guess what?
In that 30 years, we've built 300,000 industrial wind turbines across the world.
So even if you thought we had a crisis that was caused by carbon dioxide, the wind turbines are not reducing the amount of fossil fuels we're using anyway.
Okay, 300,000 turbines, and it's pretty well straight across around 80%.
So, what's happening, of course, is that whenever you build a wind turbine, you need to have backup power.
And typically, even Robert Kennedy Jr. says, if you build wind turbines, you're building natural gas stations.
Because, you know, Parker Gallant, who does analysis of Ontario's energy systems, he was showing me the other day that for several hours during the day, the amount of power actually generated by wind power in Ontario was something like one-tenth of one, well, one hundredth, I think it was, of one percent.
So, we're spending billions of dollars for an energy source that requires backups that don't decrease our carbon dioxide and other emissions, anyways, and causes incredible environmental damage with things like the rare earth elements that are in the magnets mined in China under terrible conditions.
And of course, even in the ocean, even in the ocean, what do you think happens when they're pile driving to put the foundations in?
Whales can hear that pile driving for 100 miles away, and it deafens them.
We're seeing, in fact, yesterday's interview with Yarl was saying that whales are being beached all over the place because they're being upset.
Their sonar is upset by the sound waves put out by wind turbines.
So, environmentally friendly?
My God, it's probably the most environmentally destructive energy source on the planet.
So, yeah, let's not only stop building them, let's get rid of them, take them down.
I'm with you.
And my SUV is helping grow the plankton that the whales eat.
So, I take some maternity over the care of the whales by letting the Jeep idol every now and then.
You know, it's funny, we have a Twitter account here in Alberta, and I don't know who's behind it, but it's pretty clever.
I think it's called Affordable Energy Alberta or something similar.
And what they do is they just tweet out the capacity of green energy on the hour, every hour, just about.
And it's like 4% is being produced by solar and 1% is being produced by wind, and then like this enormous amount that's being created by fossil fuel.
It's so smart.
And I wish more jurisdictions would do it because it's real-time analysis of the grid showing you, like, look, they're building these panels.
They're putting in these big, huge solar farms.
And yet, still, after all this investment, here it is: 90% of your power today is coming from coal.
Yeah, and that's the same all across the world.
Yep.
Now, I wanted you somewhat, not entirely, but you've stuck your toe into the Conservative Party leadership race with an article that was published in the Toronto Sun.
And kudos to post media for publishing it.
I know that things are a little tough for them sometimes.
Sometimes they have open revolts when their papers publish things that are sort of going against the prevailing sentiment amongst the journalists.
I don't think these are prevailing sentiments against the mainstream.
I think these are pretty mainstream ideas, but the journalists don't much care for them.
And you've published an article that says conservative candidates need to push back against the climate scare.
Tell us about this article, and I'll tell you my plan to see where they are on the climate scare.
Well, exactly.
With the exception of Derek Sloan, who is very sensible on this issue.
He's saying he'll take Canada out of the Paris Agreement, you know, and he's not buying into the idea that we're causing dangerous climate change.
And of course, what you see is the other three candidates to varying degrees are completely absorbed by the climate scare.
I mean, the Conservatives in the past would bring in regulations, for example.
Oh, no, we are against carbon tax, but then they're going to give in regulations.
And some analysts, some economists have shown that regulations would be more expensive to the consumer because, of course, who do you think pays for the increased costs for the manufacturers?
They transfer it on to us.
So that's not a solution.
You know, they're all afraid, except for Derek Sloan, they're all afraid to simply call a spade a spade.
Look, if you believe that Canada, sorry, if you believe that there was a climate crisis, Canada produces 1.6% of world emissions.
So what we do is going to have no impact whatsoever, no measurable impact.
So the only approach that makes sense for Canada, and this is the policy I really wish the Conservatives would take, they could say very easily, oh, of course, climate change is real.
We believe in climate change.
And so Canada had better adapt to climate change.
We'd better do things like bury our cables underground.
Okay, because around Ottawa, all you need is a severe windstorm and we have all of our power out.
So, I mean, it doesn't make any sense.
And, you know, a really good example in the U.S. where parts of a city had cables buried underground, cables like telephone and internet and things like that.
And a part of the city that didn't was Hurricane Sandy when it hit New York City.
Parts of Manhattan, which had all their cables underground, did not lose any of their facilities.
You had lawyers at work still typing away saying, yeah, I'm working fine.
What's wrong with you?
Well, it's because their cables were all above ground.
Here in Ottawa, they estimate that the price per kilometer to put cables underground that are currently above ground was something like two to five million dollars.
And they said, oh, we can't afford it.
But, you know, just last fall, Ottawa was wiped by these tornadoes.
And I'm sure the price must have been in the many billions of dollars.
So yes, of course they can afford it.
They just have to redirect their monies away from the fictitious idea that we can stop climate change to adapting for climate change.
So, you know, Derek, I think, has got the right approach.
And I think the rest of them don't have to deny climate change.
They actually don't even have to question the cause.
They could say, much as I think they should, you know, to be honest brokers, but what they simply could say is, look, what Canada does has no impact on world climate.
So it's going to come.
There's going to be changes.
Of course, climate always changes.
So of course there's going to be changes.
So we have to adapt.
We have to prepare for the kinds of climate change that could happen, where, by the way, cooling would be a lot more important to prepare for for Canada.
I mean, there's nobody farming north of us.
If it warms, well, we can adopt farming practices in Arkansas or something.
So yeah, I think the Conservatives, it's sad because the leading candidates are really in some ways just a carbon copy of the Liberals, maybe Liberal Light with respect to this.
But man, they got to tell the truth because the base of the party clearly want us out of Paris and they don't want us wasting billions of dollars.
They don't want carbon taxes going up 50%.
They don't want carbon tax at all.
So let's get off this and focus on real issues.
I am happy that Derek is doing that, but the rest of them, man, you got to appeal to the conservative base, folks, if you want to become the real leader and the base don't want this stuff.
Well, yeah, and they have to put some distinction between them and Justin Trudeau.
You need to give people a reason to vote for you so that you're different than Justin Trudeau.
I read Leslie Lewis's, I believe it was her part of her dissertation, which part of it focused on the Paris Accord.
And she said repeatedly, like, we don't need to get out of the Paris Accord because the targets have no teeth.
Well, then that's a perfect reason to get out of the Paris Accord.
If the targets mean nothing, then why are we participating in this virtue signaling?
But secondarily, even if the targets don't have any teeth, the money sure flows from Canada to the United Nations.
I think it's $800 million this year.
Yeah, exactly.
Will flow to the United Nations because of the Paris Accord.
That's a great reason to withdraw.
Well, exactly.
And, you know, people who say, oh, well, by 2030, China and developing countries will have to have limits to their CO2 emissions.
But that's not true, actually.
Underlying the Paris Agreement is another treaty called the Framework Convention on Climate Change.
This was signed in Rio by Brian Mulroney back in 1992.
And what it says is that for developing nations, and China, believe it or not, is still considered a developing nation, even though, by the way, they put out more than twice the CO2 emissions of the United States.
But developing nations, and this is the treaty that underlies all UN climate treaties, including Paris, developing nations, their first and overriding priority is poverty alleviation and development.
So what's going to happen is that come 2030, China's going to say, well, our top priority is not greenhouse gas reduction.
We have to continue to pull people out of poverty, give them electricity, and alleviate the kind of social problems we have.
And what they'll do, of course, is say that the cheapest way to do that, the most effective way to do that, is with coal, because India and China, of course, are mostly coal when it comes to electricity generation.
So of course, they're going to continue to build coal stations no matter what we do.
And so if you believe that CO2 was a problem and climate change, dangerous climate change was coming, well, we better adapt because we have no control over it.
And China and India are going to continue doing exactly what they're doing.
You know, as you're speaking there, I just made a connection that I wish I had made earlier.
There's a real national security implication in all of this, if you care about China and its imperialist designs on the rest of the world.
The Western world is going to continue to buy things from China because China can manufacture things a lot cheaper because they're using the cheaper electricity.
And this focus towards green energy will continue to cripple North American manufacturing, continuing to enrich China while they use cheaper electricity, which is fine, and cheaper labor because they use, in effect, slave labor in some places.
So if you care about national security, you really should reject green energy.
Oh, yeah, exactly.
And of course, China has the biggest wind turbine companies in the world.
And where do you think they get their power to make the wind turbines?
It's from coal.
China makes more solar panels than anybody in the world.
So of course they want us to move to solar and wind power while they continue to grow coal stations left, right, and center.
No, you know, some people actually speculate that to a large extent, the climate scare benefits China so much that they probably behind the scenes were a major promoter of the whole thing.
Now, it's always difficult to know exactly where these things start.
But yeah, I mean, the whole climate scare benefits China enormously because they're the world's supplier of solar panels.
And yet solar panels, you know, Elizabeth Anderson, a PhD in geology, I saw her give a talk at Carleton University about the environmental impacts of wind and solar power.
And it's just incredible.
I mean, the amount of toxic materials that are used to make solar panels, for example, the city in China that's considered the green capital of the world, they make so many of the world's solar panels and other green energy, and they have, you know, solar panels on every building.
It's also one of the most polluted cities in the whole planet.
Okay.
And that's because when you make them, especially under the terrible environmental conditions there, you produce enormous amounts of pollution.
People should watch Michael Moore's film, Planet of the Humans.
You can do a Google search on it, Planet of the Humans.
He has one little segment there of about 90 seconds.
And with exciting music, he shows all the toxic materials, all the processes that are used to build wind and solar power.
And then, of course, they massacre birds and bats by the millions.
In California, Altamont Pass, they've killed thousands of golden eagles.
But the U.S. government gives something called a kill permit to wind turbine operators so they can kill endangered species and they can't be sued by the environmental groups.
So, boy, they have really pulled the wool over the whole environmental establishment.
And that's another thing that the conservatives could say: Do you know the impact of wind and solar power?
My God, these are terrible for the environment.
Sensible Climate Policy Discussion00:04:22
And so, they don't have to question the science of climate change.
There's lots of things they can do to have a sensible policy.
Now, my plan, because this will air, I think, just about during the conservative debate put together by the Independent Press Gallery.
We're going to be there, and it's going to be my personal mission to nail these people down on their climate change policies and the Paris Accord.
That's what I want to ask them about because, at the end of the day, that's, I think, one of the single greatest policies that robs Canadians of their wealth and impacts struggling Canadians the most.
And it's putting people out of work, especially here in Alberta.
So, I want to hear what they have to say.
And I'm curious about Leslie Lewis because, on so many issues, she's so right on the money as a conservative, except on the Paris Accord.
And I don't understand how she justifies it.
So, I'm going to give her the opportunity to answer us honestly.
Well, you know, I think I can almost forecast what they're going to answer, except for Derek, who I expect will give a sensible answer.
But I think they're going to say, Well, everyone knows climate change is real.
Of course, that's irrelevant.
Climate change is real, or we'd be still in the ice age.
No, we're asking, are humans causing dangerous climate change?
And could Canada do anything about it?
You know, could we stop it?
And if not, well, then what are we wasting all this money for?
You know, so you really have to pin them down because otherwise you're going to get a lot of baffle garb saying sort of motherhood things that don't answer the question.
I found they're really expert at that.
That's what I'm going to try to do.
Tom, wish me luck.
Tom, I want to give you a chance to once again let everybody know where they can find the work that you do, support the work that you do, because you're one of the few people doing this work, probably outside of our friends at Friends of Science here in Canada.
And tell people about your podcast for once because it's pretty interesting.
Sure.
I've done 29 interviews, I guess.
We started a few months ago.
And it's called Exploratory Journeys with Tom Harris.
And what we do, it's on ThinkRadio.
If people go to our website right now, I have an interview with Ian Clark, professor, very nice fellow from the University of Ottawa.
And that will get you into the website so you can hear any of the interviews.
But we've interviewed, you know, largely people in the climate and energy area.
Last night we interviewed somebody who was an expert in birds and bats and wind turbines.
But, you know, to give people a kind of intellectual break, I interviewed one fellow who was a Shriner circus clown.
Okay.
He was fun.
He actually had been in the Navy and had all kinds of really tough jobs.
And then he became a clown.
And it's really quite wonderful to hear about how he would go to the hospitals and completely pick up the children.
So we've done space exploration, all kinds of things.
So exploratory journeys with Tom Harris, Google it.
It'll come up right away.
And the website?
Oh, website for my organization, International Climate Science, is climate scienceinternational.org.
And as you know, just coming up soon, give us a month and a half or so.
We're going to see Canadians for sensible climate policy.
We've been incorporated.
We're getting ready to launch.
Sensible climate policy is exactly the phraseology I hope that we see from the conservatives someday.
From your lips to God's ears, Tom.
Tom, thank you so much for coming on the show.
We'll check back in.
I think probably just as when the new project is launching, I think people are going to have a lot of interest in this.
I know that I do.
I think it's great to have somebody from outside the Conservative Party lead the conversation.
As I think it was Ralph Klein who said, you know, you create the parade and I'll jump in front of it and lead it.
I think you guys are going to jump.
You guys are going to create the parade so that somebody else can jump in front of it and lead it.
And if the liberals want to help lead sensible climate policy too, well, go ahead.
I mean, anybody can lead it.
But I think the conservatives have the best chance of having a sensible climate policy.
So that's the word, sensible.
Conservatives And Climate Policy00:00:49
Here's hoping.
Tom, thank you so much for coming on the show.
And I think probably enjoy the rest of your summer.
And we'll talk to you when it's done.
Okay.
Thanks, Sheila.
Thanks, Tom.
Bye.
You know what's funny?
Conservatives can address the issues of environmentalism without buying into the left's language to talk about the issue or even conceding the left's theories on the issue.
But even if we do say that the earth is getting warmer, why aren't we focusing on resiliency and adaptation as opposed to trying to tax our way into a future where we somehow offset the contributions of China?
It's impossible.
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 week.