Sheila Gunn-Reid and Michelle Sterling from Friends of Science critique Canada’s federal climate policies, exposing contradictions like 37% population growth since 1990 with flat emissions and plans for 63M more immigrants under the Century Initiative. The IPCC’s 2018 RCP 8.5 scenario—removed in later reports—was based on unrealistic assumptions, yet politicians still push "net zero 2050," ignoring wind/solar’s 3.5% share and fossil-fuel dependencies like hydrogen. Sterling links green energy policies to food price spikes and civil unrest, like the Arab Spring, while Gunn-Reid highlights censorship of dissenting climate research, including a blocked paper on solar influence. Friends of Science’s grassroots approach contrasts with major ENGOs like the Suzuki Foundation, which holds $19M in assets, underscoring how taxpayer-funded alarmism stifles debate—even as IPCC projections grow less dire. [Automatically generated summary]
The federal leaders debate seemed to be five people standing on a stage just arguing over who's going to put an end to fossil fuel usage and development first.
But does that sense of irrational urgency about a climate doomsday even align with what the UN is saying these days?
I'm Sheila Gunn-Reed, and you're watching The Gunn Show.
Oh, hi, everybody.
I literally, quite literally, just ran in the door after my old friend Fossil Fuels helped me make the long journey from Regina back to my home base here east of Fort Saskatchewan.
You see, we're back out there in the world.
We were in Regina for a rebel news event where we re-platformed world-renowned sustainability expert and co-founder of Greenpeace, Dr. Patrick Moore, after a bunch of censorious busybodies had him canceled as a speaker for a city of Regina sustainability conference.
You see, Dr. Patrick Moore doesn't think that there's some sort of climate catastrophe upon us.
You see, he's a climate heretic, I guess.
But the thing is, the United Nations doesn't even seem to think that there's a climate catastrophe looming around the very next corner for humanity.
The latest IPCC report, so that's the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Well, that latest report has dialed back the overheated climate scare we keep being warned about.
Although you wouldn't know it if you get all your news from the mainstream media or if you had tuned into the federal leaders debate, where five leaders, well, three mainstream party leaders and two fringe party leaders were basically tripping over themselves to terminate oil and gas jobs quicker.
So joining me tonight to do what she does best, what she always does, and that's cut through the hysteria and the hyperbole to give us the straight facts is my friend Michelle Sterling from Friends of Science.
So joining me now from her cabin in the woods is my friend Michelle Sterling from Friends of Science.
Michelle, before we get into the meat and potatoes of all the things that we're going to talk about, we have a mutual friend with a brand new project where he tells the other side of the story.
And that's why I love Marian Pooh's.
He comes from the left.
So he comes by all of this honestly.
Food Prices and Immigration00:14:32
He doesn't see things through a lens of ideology, but he's got a brand new movie out.
And why don't you tell us a little bit about it?
Well, actually, I just learned about it this morning, but it sounds very interesting.
He talks with a fellow named Alex Pohl, who was a green banker and decided to like abandon that crazy grifter world.
And he moved off to some northern spot in Sweden, only to find that they're going to put a wind farm right next to his little quiet enclave there.
And so he and Mariah are doing this program called Headwind.
And it was slated for release at the end of September, but I understand it's going to be on YouTube September 15th.
So that's this week's.
So yay, another Marian Pools film.
Yeah, you know, I love Marion because he looks at the flip side, like the other side of green energy.
And one of the things that I found very fascinating was when he looked at the other side of biofuels, and you and I were talking about this online last night.
Marian talked about how the shift away from conventional energy, reliable energy, fossil fuel energy, towards biofuels actually takes up a large swath of arable land that we should be growing local foodstuffs with.
And you had told me an interesting fact that you can plot the price of corn because it's one of those portable foodstuffs that people in the developing world rely on.
And when corn is used for biofuel, it drives up the cost of corn and you can actually see where civil unrest is going to occur based on the price of corn.
Right.
This comes from research by the New England Complex Systems Institute, NEXI, as it's called.
And they did quite a detailed analysis.
And it began back in, I think, about 2010 when they began this project, but they were tracking world food prices, the price of corn, the biofuel program, which in the States is really huge.
You know, corn ethanol is a huge, huge renewable product in the States, but that policy moved about six megatons of corn off world markets, which caused the price of corn to rise.
So when we look at the refugee crisis around the world and the civil unrest, like the so-called Arab Spring, the Arab Spring was really more about the fact that food prices were going up and no jobs were available.
And so this is what's happening in many places of the world.
And they could actually track where the next civil unrest would be based on the price of corn.
So it's a really interesting study.
And they've had a number of agricultural experts check it out.
So it's not just some random study that somebody came up with, one of those pseudoscience.
And it's ongoing.
They keep tracking it.
You know, that's crazy because when you go to UN climate change conferences, there's so much focus on climate refugees.
Oh, we're going to have climate refugees.
Well, we actually don't have climate refugees.
We have green energy policy refugees in that when you drive up the cost of food, you cause civil unrest.
And then people end up as part of a refugee crisis fleeing to the first world where, you know, the problems that are happening in their home countries, that's where these things are sort of fomented and they manifest elsewhere.
So it's very fascinating to see that kind of stuff.
It's one of those things that you don't think about.
You think about, you know, like people in the developing world, they won't have the sort of crop yields that we do because we're denying them fossil fuels to do those sorts of things.
And they won't be able to develop their economy because they don't have reliable electricity that works at night.
But you don't realize how green energy policies in the first world make the world so much more dangerously unsafe for people in the developing world.
Right.
You know, because for you and I, so, you know, we go and we pay a carbon tax or whatever, the price of food goes up.
I mean, it's difficult.
It's challenging now for many, many people.
But, you know, okay, so we don't go to a movie, you know, so we don't buy that special thing that we saw at Bad Bath and Beyond or whatever.
You know, we abandon some of the luxuries, but, you know, a 5 or 10% increase in food costs in the developing world, that's really a burden for those people who are so poor and food insecure.
Yeah, it really becomes a choice of life or death.
And I think that's what leads to civil unrest.
Now, I wanted to talk to you about something that, you know, we all sort of tuned into.
And for me, it was, I'm watching five people on the stage fight over who's going to put my husband at a work faster.
And that was the leader's debate.
And you wrote an interesting op-ed About what your impressions of the leaders' debate were.
So, why don't you tell us about that?
Well, I was actually rebutting an article by Max Fawcett that was in the federally funded National Observer.
And he was saying that, you know, in the leaders' debate, obviously, things like seniors' pensions and such like would be not really an issue in the future.
The big essential question was about climate change.
And my view was that actually I saw five people talking about an impossible magical thinking solution, which is net zero 2050.
And if you look at the graph of total energy consumption in Canada, today wind and solar provides perhaps 3.5% of the energy.
Yet all these people are talking about, like, yeah, we're going to go net zero 2050.
So, like, in 29 years, and even some people are pushing for 2030, nine years, we're going to completely switch over our system to forms of energy generation that don't exist yet or that are only a niche market or that are shown to be very dangerous.
Like hydrogen is not something you really want to just put in the hands of consumers.
So it's a very, you know, annoying and disillusioning exercise to realize that even the moderator is so energy illiterate that they couldn't say, well, how about this fact, ladies and gentlemen?
Please explain how you're going to jump over this fact.
And of course, all the alternative forms of energy are all made from oil, gas, and coal.
So, you know, this is a fact, a reality check that is not being presented to the Canadian public.
So it's really, really sad.
You know, now that you've mentioned magical thinking, let's, I know it wasn't, it's sort of out of order on the things that we said that we talk about, but since you mentioned magical thinking, that I want to talk about your live stream that you did the other day about Code Red, the climate con and magical net zero thinking.
And in that, you touched on something that I thought I hadn't really thought about because in the leaders' debate, they were talking about, oh, you know, we have to make life more affordable and affordable housing.
And for me, I thought, is today the day these people are going to make the connection between immigration levels and affordable housing?
You know, like, is today the day that it clicks?
Supply and demand clicks for these people?
It wasn't, never is.
But you had mentioned in that live stream that the leaders also aren't making the connection between immigration levels and emissions.
You mentioned that in there, and I thought, I've never thought of that before, but isn't that the case?
You can't have a hard cap on emissions and keep piling people into the country.
You have to pick one or the other, or at least have immigration levels match your innovation levels as far as greenhouse gas emissions.
And that's not the case.
Right.
Well, you know, the climate activists are saying, oh, you know, Canada's never met a target, blah, blah, blah.
You know, what terrible people we are.
But if you look at the ratio of immigration from 1990 to present, you know, Canada's emissions have been pretty much flat, but our population grew by 37%.
And just so you know, the federal government has a plan in place called the Century Initiative.
They want to bring 63 million more people to Canada.
And yet at the same time, they've implemented the net zero accountability, the climate accountability law, Bill C-12, which forces us to meet targets.
So, you know, these are in direct contradiction to each other.
You can't have more people coming here.
And most of the people who are coming here in terms of population sources, the statistics show us that people are coming from China, the Philippines, and India.
Those are the greater portion of immigrants to Canada at the present time.
Now, all of those are far less emitter countries.
They're far more temperate.
And when people move here, they obviously have to become higher consumers of energy, greater emitters, because otherwise you die.
So, you know, these policies are working in opposition to each other and no one's talking about it.
Yeah, no one's talked about it.
And I think I'm fairly tuned into this.
And I had never looked at it that way.
So when you said that, I was like, ah, yes, these people are coming for whatever reason to Canada, but they're coming from places where it's a lot warmer and everything's a lot closer together.
And they're coming to Canada where it is far colder and everything's more spread out.
So naturally, they have to use more greenhouse gas emissions.
However, we've put hard caps on that and those things are incompatible.
That's right.
And, you know, this is not to say anything about immigration.
I'm in favor of immigration.
And my father himself was an immigrant from Britain.
So, you know, it's a matter of why is the federal government punishing existing Canadians with these hard caps and crazy targets that are unattainable to begin with.
And then, you know, adding on top of that the impossible equation of bringing more people from warmer places.
So it's contrary policy and it better be figured out.
We should not be punished for our present day emissions if they're going to bring millions more immigrants, which is the plan.
Now, in that same live stream, you did something that I think most journalists haven't done, even climate journalists, most politicians haven't done.
You actually went through the IPCC report, IPCC, yes, IPCC, report.
And you are, you found some hope in that, as opposed to the doomsday scenarios that we constantly hear about, you know, like, oh, the IPCC says this, but it actually doesn't.
We're not in a doomsday scenario.
In fact, they've sort of dialed back their doomsday predictions a lot more than they have in recent history.
Yeah, it was interesting.
The code red claim comes from a press release by UN Secretary General Antonio Huteris, but it doesn't actually say that anywhere in the real report.
And there's a couple of pieces to the report that people need to know about.
There's the press releases, then there's the summary for policymakers, which is about 42 pages long, and then there's the actual scientific report, which is about 4,000 pages long.
So, you know, obviously none of the politicians are going to plow through that big report.
And just to be clear, I did not plow through it either, but I did rely on some other climate policy experts.
In this case, Roger PLK Jr. out of the States.
He's a climate policy expert and has done tons of research on extreme weather events.
And two important takeaways.
He said that the new report no longer sees the catastrophic scenario as most likely.
So in 2018, the IPCC had issued a report called the SR 1.5.
And it was an interim report, a shorter one.
And it was supposedly telling policymakers what would happen if we failed to meet the 1.5 degree target.
But they used what's called the representative concentration pathway scenario 8.5, which is actually an implausible scenario.
It suggests that we would go back to entirely using coal in the world, that coal use would multiply six to seven times, and that there would be no climate policy measures, no environmental management whatsoever, which is absurd.
It's completely implausible.
So that is now off the table.
And by doing that, PLK says, well, you know, now it's good news because that catastrophic scenario is no longer deemed to be likely.
And in fact, that means, as I put it, the climate emergency is over and we do have time.
Because if you look at the other work of PLK Jr., the unstoppable momentum of outdated science, you'll see that a fellow named Burgess and colleagues did a study and they show we've actually reached peak carbon in 2019, even before the lockdown.
So there is no climate emergency and we don't have to jump into net zero 2050.
We don't have to turn the world upside down.
We do have to still take care of the world.
We do have to be careful about our use of fossil fuels, but we don't have to be ridiculous about it.
Now, where do you think this philosophy of, I don't know, that the UN, I guess, because it's not even the UN scientists, as we've seen from the IPCC report.
I'm not even sure that they think that way.
But so many people, the UN and I think governments sort of downstream from their take direction from that.
Where do they get this idea that humans can regulate the climate?
Hockey Stick Graphs Misleading?00:10:39
Where is this coming from?
Well, the fundamental idea is that, you know, people back in the 70s saw that carbon dioxide from industrial emissions and human activity was rising in lockstep with temperature.
And that for them, you know, concluded that earlier scientists who made such predictions were right.
And so that's when it began.
And it's also based on the success that Enron had in carbon trading on coal plants.
And Enron then moved into wind and carbon trading and tried to set up cap and trade and carbon trading markets there.
Now, the difference is that when you're dealing with cap and trade with coal, they were trading on sulfur dioxide.
And sulfur dioxide is actually an aerosol.
It's a little tiny particle.
So it's quite easy to filter from the air.
But carbon dioxide is a gas.
It's very diffuse and it's very difficult to filter from the air.
Not to mention it's not clear that we need to do that.
So, you know, so this began, it really has its roots in money.
And that's a lot of what we see today.
The push for COP26 is the money push to establish an international global carbon tax law.
And we didn't talk about this, but I do want to mention that part of that may include a personal carbon ration.
And this has been the dream of George Monbiot since 2006.
And it's recently resurfaced actually because of COVID and all the tracing apps.
And so there's some researchers that just published a paper saying, wow, this is great.
Now we've got these COVID tracing apps.
We can also attach your personal carbon ration to it.
So then everything that you do can be tracked as to how much energy you are using.
Now, the tragedy and irony of this is that individuals are not the biggest carbon emitters.
It's major industry.
It's China.
It's India.
It's all the emerging nations.
And, you know, and yet they're telling you, put on a sweater, turn down your heat, turn off your lights.
And of course, you know, conserve energy where you can, but honest to God, you're not going to be saving the planet doing that.
Now, on Friends of Science on the blog, there, you do have a summary of the current situation that's unfolding in the world with regard to climate policy, not the climate catastrophe,
which I like because you break it down and you tell us exactly what's happening across the globe and why greenhouse gas emissions are really not the control knob and that there's so many other factors at play in all of this that you can't put your finger on just one thing if you're not dealing with those other things and those other things you can't really deal with without shutting down the economy or in the case of the sun, you can't deal with it at all.
And, you know, that's one of the questions and answers in that blog is can we succeed in fighting climate change?
And you break down and say like, well, you could if it were just about greenhouse gas emissions, maybe with serious economic effects, but there are so many other things involved in what makes up climate change that you just can't do it.
Right.
Well, this all relates to a new report that we've got out sponsored by the Canadians for Sensible Climate Policy.
And the report is called Fighting Climate Change.
Can we humans regulate Earth's climate?
And so as you said, the report asks about nine or 10 questions that Canadians are asking, like, can the Paris Accord actually work?
Can we achieve net zero targets?
Can we regulate climate?
So it's a combination of economic and climate science bits and pieces.
It's not, it's very plain language.
It's not very complex to read.
It's a short read with an appendix.
And it answers a lot of those questions and also gives a bit of a background on how far all these climate negotiations have come over the years.
And basically carbon dioxide has gone up the more cops there have been, meaning the conference of the parties, the more the emissions have risen and at every one of them like, yes, we're going to cut emissions this time.
So, you know, basically the public are being led down a path of economic destruction by these guys.
Well, and that brings me into something else I wanted to talk about.
And it was your fun little video about the newest hockey stick graph.
I don't know why the environmentalist movement loves themselves a good hockey stick graph, no matter how debunked they are, but they've got a new one.
And as like seems to be the case with all hockey stick graphs, they just take out the inconvenient data so that it reflects the narrative that they're trying to drive so that they get to that end goal of, I guess, it's a global carbon tax.
Yes, well, the hockey stick, you know, is like, if you look at history, you'll see that there was Roman optimum, cold period, medieval warm period, the little ice age, present modern warm period.
So you'll see this cyclical pattern.
It's not even, but it is there.
But the hockey stick graph takes the stick of that medieval warm period and such, like flattens it out by cherry-picking data from around the world that exactly fits their desired pattern, and then sticking a sudden uptick on the end.
That's what creates the hockey stick.
And Steve McIntyre has done a very detailed assessment of the most recent son of hockey stick, which by the way, only appears in the summary for policymakers.
It doesn't appear in the scientific report.
So that tells you it's another theatrical device to scare policymakers into agreeing to things like net zero 2050, which are impossible.
You know, that's interesting that it only appears in the summary for policymakers, which is the summary for politicians.
And it's not actually in the technical scientific side.
So that's the political end of all of this is here's this graph.
It's going to scare somebody like Catherine McKenna, who's not going to read the rest of this or bring in an expert to explain the rest of it to her.
She's going to see this.
She's going to blame my SUV and advocate for a carbon tax.
And she's never going to dig down a little further.
Right, exactly.
Now, next thing on our list of things to talk about, I think, and I hope I'm not skipping over anything, is Facebook censoring, censoring things, because you know, you cannot have scientific consensus without censorship, apparently.
I mean, we constantly hear, oh, you know, like this, there's a scientific consensus of scientists and the world is warming and it's your comfortable SUV that's doing it.
So we, the only thing that we can do right now is carbon taxes to fix all of that.
And then you find out, well, they've actually censored the other people.
It's not like they've just ignored the other people.
They've actually censored them.
Yes.
Well, there's a recent paper by Ranan Michael and Michael Connolly and Dr. Willie Soon and about 20 other very qualified scientists.
And it looks at the influence of the sun and total solar radiance on temperature.
And of course, this has been blocked by Facebook.
Anytime anyone posts it, a fact check comes up.
Now, they looked at the fact check and they said, well, that's crazy.
The fact check is made up of cut and pasted material from previous reviews of other papers.
So they didn't even actually review this paper.
They just said, no, it can't be the sun.
And that's why.
Because this person said so a year ago and this person said so a year ago and this person said so a year ago.
So, you know, it really is fake news and really, you know, an embarrassment to Facebook to be even accepting the climate feedback, you know, slanted, biased assessments.
So Connolly and the gang have written a very detailed rebuttal.
We've posted it on our website so far.
It hasn't been censored, but it probably will be.
Yeah, just give it a second.
Yeah, it's funny that even in today's world, we've come so far that it is considered fake news by social media companies to say that big burning ball of gas in the sky might have something to do with the temperature outside today.
That's how far we've come.
Well, you know, they're all trying to retain their share value.
You have to understand that big tech makes a lot of money per share because they are compliant with the climate catastrophe thinking.
They're deeply invested in renewables and they get the subsidies from it.
And because they're deemed best to be clean, because they say, oh, we're 100% renewable now, meaning they're just buying offsets or they've invested in wind and solar, then all the institutional investors at the UNPRI rush to invest in them because they're clean.
So there must be like some kind of bond issue or banking financial incentive that these institutional investors are also getting for this kind of participation.
Because in economic terms, it makes no sense.
Facebook wouldn't be around for one minute without oil, natural gas, and coal that powers their servers.
There would be no big tech.
You and I would not be talking now.
You know, that's a great point.
I would love to know the environmental footprint of something like Facebook or Google.
It's huge.
Well, you know, and we talked with the Bigfoot issue about how Netflix takes up 15% of the internet broadband.
So, you know, imagine like Amazon.
I mean, Amazon has not reported their carbon footprint to the carbon disclosure project.
Instead, Jeff Bezos just wrote a check for, I think, $10 billion to cash out to all these environmental groups, and he's making the climate arena in Seattle.
So, you know, this is his, what do you call that?
The medieval, you know, when he had to pay indulgences.
Indulgences.
Yeah, he's paying indulgences.
But imagine if he did do a report for the CDP, you know, the footprint would probably be pretty black.
Although I love Amazon.
Mark Murano's Indulgences00:07:10
I think it's a great company.
I'm not putting them down.
Yeah, I don't like going to town for stuff.
I like when somebody brings it to my door, but I also don't like the lectures.
Right.
Let's not pretend.
Don't show me your commercial with all these wind farms when I know that you're actually driving a truck here on diesel.
And, you know, and it's not going to be an EV in the middle of winter in Alberta, that's for sure.
For sure not.
I mean, I imagine these big tech companies and Amazon, I'm sure their environmental footprint is larger than some countries in the developing world.
I'm sure it's just enormous.
Yes, I know that it is.
I've seen that.
I can't remember the statistic off the top of my head, but that is exactly true.
Now, let's talk about some of the things that Friends of Science is up to.
You were on a podcast with Dr. Tammy Nameth, and that's no small potatoes.
She's an independent historian and researcher based in the UK with a PhD in history from the University of British Columbia.
So what were you doing on there, Michelle?
Yeah, well, I'm an ordinary person.
No, the heck you aren't.
But no, we are talking about the IPCC and about the upcoming COP26 in Glasgow and the green forces behind all of this.
Of course, Dr. Nemuth is the one who wrote the reports for two of the reports for the Allen Inquiry.
And a lot of people said, oh, well, you know, that was climate change denial.
I think Martin Ozinski was very big on that out of the UOC.
But in fact, that's not the case.
She's an excellent historian and she has a very good grasp of the global scope of this movement, Go Green.
And so it was quite a bit of fun to speak with her.
And we covered a lot of territory.
So I, and she's interviewed a lot of very interesting people, H. Sterling Burnett.
She interviewed Robert Bryce recently, who's an excellent commentator on energy policy issues, Mark Murano.
And Mark is going to be our upcoming guest at our new event, this year's event.
So Mark has just written a book called Green Fraud.
But he'll be talking about a number of things at our event.
Anyway.
So let's talk about your event because that's coming up right away.
I think you have two.
You have one on October 2nd, I think, and one right after that.
And I love Mark Morano.
He's such a character.
He's so fun to listen to.
I could listen to him all day.
But he makes, you know, like for me, the politics of climate change and the green fraud around climate change and how progressivism keeps poor people poor in the developing world.
That's very interesting to me.
I get it.
I'm sort of a niche customer of that because it can be sort of big and broad.
And let's be honest, sometimes it feels a little boring for normal people.
But he makes it very interesting because he's a character on his own.
So you guys are bringing Mark in to talk.
Well, we'll be doing this online.
We have two online events coming up.
So Dr. Christ Burkhoot will be our first speaker and he will be on October the 2nd.
And this will be coming to us from Holland.
So I'll be hosting and then we will present a pre-tape presentation of his with his PowerPoint and his details on let the data speak.
And really, his argument is that, you know, there's all these ideological claims and, you know, aspirations, but let's look at the actual data and see what it says about climate change.
And so he's the president of Quintel.
He's a co-founder with Marcel Kroc.
So very interesting and very decent person, great person to talk with.
So I'm really looking forward to that.
And then on the sixth, we will have another online event with Mark Murano.
And it's Mark Murano's talk is called Green Fraud, the Great Regret instead of the Great Reset, the Great Regret.
Yeah, so he'll be showing us why there are regrettable policies.
And well, for instance, speaking of energy, I saw this morning that in the UK, power prices are expected to rise 2,100% over the same price of last year at this time because they have a shortage of capacity now.
They've phased out coal, they don't have enough LNG, natural gas, and their power prices are just going berserk.
So then they may have to resort to rolling blackouts.
So that's what happens when you destabilize your reliable grid with wind and solar, and you do so regardless of considerations for consumer and industrial demand.
Californication.
That's right.
Well, you know, I'll tell you a little story.
The first time I met Mark Murano, moments later, he was hauled away by Moroccan security forces from the UN complex because he took the Paris Accord and shredded it right in the middle of the UN complex, right in front of the place where all the journalists were holed up inside in all their air conditioning.
He took the Paris Accord and a paper shredder and a big picture.
Donald Trump was beside him and he just shredded it.
And then Moroccan police, I'm like, well, I hope I see Mark Moreno again sometime ever again.
I don't know.
Wow.
Well, you know, it's funny because when Extinction Rebellion or Greenpeace do street theater like that, they're almost never hauled away.
People kind of stand around and go, well, we don't want to hurt their feelings.
So.
Yeah.
Same thing when we were, once again, Mark does some kind of stunt.
We were in Bonn, Germany, again, at the UN Climate Change Conference.
This time we were not allowed inside.
And he boarded the Greenpeace boat because the night before, Greenpeace was boarding the coal ships in the Rhine that were going past.
So they boarded the coal ships.
So Mark was like, let's board their ship.
He dressed like the captain of the love boat and boarded their ship and started ringing a bell about, you know, like it was climate fraud or something like that.
And the police came, we ran away and that was that.
So the moral of the story is anytime you're aware, Mark Murano, keep an eye out for the cops because they're coming.
Well, I wonder if they can get them online.
Now, how do people get tickets for your event or how do they watch your online events?
Well, it's going to be free this time.
Oh, wow.
And yeah, so we just felt that it would appeal to a broader audience and be somewhat less complicated.
And so we'll be making further announcements.
We just started promoting it.
But to find out more, you can always go to our homepage, which is friendsofscience.org.
And there up in the corner, you'll find a little become a member donate button.
Thank You For Supporting Us00:04:12
And we'd love it if everybody would become a member and or donate.
And because we're a very small group, we run on about $150,000 a year from our member subscribers.
And, you know, we're up against Groups like the Suzuki Foundation, for instance, they have an endowment fund that I think has interest return of $190,000 a year.
So, you know, and they had in their bank account $19 million in assets.
So, you know, we're not on a scale of these major ENGOs, which are all tax subsidized by you.
So, if you'd rather support somebody who's speaking up on behalf of consumers and taxpayers, please support us.
And so, we're also on Facebook, we're on Twitter, LinkedIn, YouTube, and Instagram.
So, you know, you can engage with us on social media and we invite you to comment, participate.
We don't want dogma.
We want to hear what you want to say and think.
You know, that's one thing that Friends of Science always promotes is a civil discussion about the topic of climate change, because we're not even allowed to talk about it.
As you point out, with scientists being censored, we're not even allowed to have a discussion about these issues, let alone a civil one.
You can't even say, like, maybe I think the sun has a bit to do with it.
I'll do with it.
All of a sudden, you are a climate change denier and you want to make sure that nobody's grandchildren ever walk the face of the earth.
That's, you know, instead of being we're just, we have different and divergent opinions on this, we've gone from being, you're not wrong, you're also evil.
That's sort of where we've ended up here.
Right.
And I think the sad thing there is, you know, we talk a lot in society today about a spectrum of people of different genders, different races, different viewpoints, but there's no climate diversity.
So, you know, one of the themes that I've recently adopted is climate diversity is our strength.
And you can actually see we've got a little spectrum that we post from time to time.
And we ask people, where are you on the spectrum of climate change?
You know, are you a person who just ignores it?
Or maybe you're one who thinks it's an existential crisis.
But in between that, there's lots of different views about it.
You know, and we, as a democratic society, we should be considerate of the fact that there are many different views and many different reasons for those views and not just only listen to the extremists who are concerned about a potential extinction, which, as I noted earlier, the catastrophe scenario is off the table.
People are not even using that anymore.
You know, it's good news, but it goes unreported because it doesn't fit an agenda.
You think that that would be everywhere.
Like, oh, guess what?
We're not going to die in 12 years.
I guess it doesn't fit the agenda.
Michelle, I could talk to you all day, but I know that you and I both have other things to do.
Thank you so much for coming on the show.
Thank you so much for always cutting through the BS and the hyperbole and offering us a little bit of hope and quelling some of that climate anxiety that I think is so infectious in society these days.
My pleasure.
Thank you so much, Sheila.
Thank you.
Thanks.
have you on again real soon.
All Friends of Science has ever asked for is a civil debate on climate change, the fair exchange of ideas.
That's what the city of Regina denied the public when they canceled Dr. Patrick Moore as a speaker at their sustainability event.
But you know what?
We don't need permission to have dangerous conversations.
We don't need permission from a city.
We don't need it from Justin Trudeau.
We don't need it from anyone.
This for now is still a free society.
Well, everybody, I want to thank you so much as always for tuning in.
I'll see everybody back here in the same time in the same place next weekend.