Sheila Gunn-Reid and Tom Harris dissect Justin Trudeau’s COP26 pledges—$5.3B in climate reparations, phasing out coal by 2030, and slashing methane emissions—while major polluters like China and Russia made no real commitments. Critics argue Canada’s targets are unrealistic without economic collapse, as only The Gambia meets Paris Agreement goals, and Trudeau risks enforcing policies others ignore, jeopardizing jobs and energy sectors. The ICSC-Canada warns these moves could harm Alberta’s coal industry (800-year reserves) and Ontario’s manufacturing, questioning whether climate science justifies such costly, one-sided action. [Automatically generated summary]
Oh, hey Rebels, you're listening to, well, me, your favorite Rebel, Sheila Gunread.
And this is a free audio-only recording of my weekly Wednesday night show, The Gun Show.
Now, tonight, my guest is Tom Harris from the International Climate Science Coalition Canada.
And we usually meet up at these annual UN climate change conferences to discuss what the heck is happening at the climate change conferences.
But we both stayed home this year, although at Rebel News, we did send a reporter, Lewis Brackpool, to check it out.
But we are, I guess, digesting the conference and what happened and how much money Justin Trudeau promised these people from afar.
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, which naturally I think is worth the price of admission, but you also get access to Ezra Levant's fully produced nightly Ezra Levant show, David Menzies' super fun Friday night show, Rebel Roundup, and Andrew Chapados' show, Andrew Says.
And Andrew gets some big names on his show.
It's only eight bucks a month to subscribe.
And just for our 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 rebelnewsplus.com to become a member today.
And now please enjoy this free audio only version of my show.
Justin Trudeau promises your money and your jobs to other countries in an effort to combat climate change.
I'm Sheila Gunn-Reed, and you're watching The Gunn Show.
The United Nations Climate Change Conference is going on in Glasgow some two weeks in.
And naturally, Justin Trudeau has made enormously expensive promises to other world leaders about how he plans to, I guess, in the end, as a consequence, shut down entire sectors of the Canadian economy to impress his global elitist friends.
Now, according to a report in the Washington Post, the draft agreement coming out of Glasgow calls for an end to coal in the developed world.
Hard caps on methane, again, in the developed world, and quote, for developed countries to boost their aid to lower income nations, including doubling funds to help with adaptation and providing enhanced and additional support for addressing the irreversible impacts of climate change known as loss and damage.
But it does not mention a clear financial mechanism for addressing loss and damage, nor does it offer details on what support rich nations would be expected to deliver beyond 2025.
Friends, these are climate reparations for problems in the developing world that no one can prove the Western world is responsible for.
OPEC and China are laughing all the way to world domination.
Now, my guest tonight is someone that I normally cross paths with at these annual climate change conferences.
And we do a yearly Canuck deep dive into the climate madness we see folding around us.
Although COVID lockdowns kept both of us at home this year, we still watch the climate change conference carefully and in my case with horror as Trudeau opened the shrinking government coffers to make massive spending promises to other countries with our jobs and our money.
So joining me tonight to discuss what this whole mess all means for Canadian jobs and your wallet is Tom Harris from the International Climate Science Coalition Canada in an interview we recorded yesterday afternoon.
Joining me now is my friend and good friend of the show and of Rebel News, Tom Harris from the International Climate Science Coalition Canada.
And I wanted to have Tom on the show because it is our yearly in-person meeting normally at the UN climate change conferences.
However, Tom stayed home this year and I stayed home this year.
We did send somebody, Louis Brackpool, to cover it for us.
But Tom always digests these big macro ideas and these plans to control your life into what it means for the normal people.
And so I thought I would have Tom on for our yearly not so in-person meeting this year to discuss what went down at the UN Climate Change Conference in Glasgow.
Tom, thanks for being on the show.
You sent me some pretty detailed notes, as you always do, about what went down in Glasgow and some of the goals, their objectives, the tools by which they plan to control our comings, our goings, basically just like COVID, but with climate change as the reason instead of the woo flu.
King Canute Clause Controversy00:15:15
And one of them was secure global net zero by mid-century and keep 1.5 degrees within reach.
Explain this to us.
I know we had Justin Trudeau out talking about this and we'll get to that, but what does this mean at the UN level?
Well, it is called sometimes sarcastically the King Canute clause.
The idea that we can control the climate.
And, you know, since 1880 or thereabouts, you know, when the little ice age ended, we've seen an increase in temperature of 1.1, 1.2 degrees averaged over the whole earth.
And what the UN are saying is that if it goes beyond 1.5 degrees, only 0.3 more, that we're going to see catastrophe.
And so they know this.
Sorry to stop you, Tom, but how do they know this?
Because they say this with such surety.
I know.
But how do they even know?
Because I look outside and it's zero degrees today and I'm thinking, so a longer growing season and less harsh climate here in Alberta where we make all your food.
And I'm supposed to be mad about this.
I don't know.
I don't know.
That's right.
Yeah.
A lot of it's pretty silly because if the greenhouse gas models are right, and that's a big question.
Sure.
If they are right, most of the warming would occur at night in the winter in high latitudes.
And I don't think there's very many polar bears or any kind of wildlife or plants or anything that would care if it was minus 38 instead of minus 40.
So, I mean, the whole idea that another 0.3 degrees is somehow critical is silly.
But, you know, it's also even more fundamental than that, Sheila.
I mean, the whole idea of us being worried about a global average temperature is also equally silly because nobody lives in the globe.
There's no super being that straddles the planet and says, oh, I feel more hot or I feel colder.
You know, and a good example of why the global temperature is really immaterial is the following.
Let's say half of the earth got 0.5, let's say half the earth got 10 degrees warmer, and let's say half the earth got 10 degrees colder.
Well, the difference in temperature would be so great, you'd have massive pressure gradients, you'd have extreme weather, it would be an absolute disaster.
And yet, with half getting warmer by the same amount that half of it's getting colder, the average temperature wouldn't change.
It would just be the same.
So, average temperature is a really pretty meaningless statistic.
It doesn't really mean anything.
Here in Ottawa, for example, they say that the average temperature is rising in the summer.
Well, actually, the maximum temperature is not rising.
It's getting slightly less cool at night.
So, the average is rising.
But, so what?
You know, this whole concept that we have to stop an average temperature from changing is silly.
And even more fundamentally, the whole idea that carbon dioxide drives climate is silly.
There's a new paper that's come out, William Happer, and a professor at York University.
William Happer is one of our buddies.
He's from Princeton.
He was an advisor to Trump actually on this issue.
They've published a paper recently where they analyzed how much potential increase in warming could there be due to increasing greenhouse gases.
And they looked at the different greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide, methane, and other ones.
And they found that with respect to carbon dioxide, we've achieved virtually all of the warming that carbon dioxide can cause.
So even if there were a doubling of carbon dioxide, we're seeing, according to his models, and these are being, you know, this is a very reputable scientist doing these studies, and it's being validated by many people.
They're showing that CO2 doubling will have virtually no effect, okay?
Because they look at the absorption lines in the spectrum and they look at how much energy is being absorbed now by carbon dioxide and how much would be absorbed if there was twice as much carbon dioxide.
And the change is so small, you have to really look closely at the graph to even see it.
Now, the other thing that they found, which I found pretty intriguing, considering that Trudeau signed on to this methane quiz, this methane pledge, is that the impact of methane is apparently only about one-tenth the impact of carbon dioxide.
So if carbon dioxide doubling causes almost no temperature rise, then methane is not a problem at all.
And yet, Trudeau has committed huge commitments to reduce methane from the oil and gas sector.
And, you know, we can get into that because his different commitments are very damaging for Canada.
Yeah, we'll get to those in a second.
I noticed that some of their tools by which they plan to achieve net zero are in contrast with each other.
So one of them is to accelerate the phase out of coal.
Okay.
And curtail deforestation.
Well, if you accelerate the phase out of coal, that's going to lead to deforestation in the developing world because they'll go back to using their forests to heat their homes, to cook their food, for even electricity.
You also see the same people arguing for using biofuels and burning pellets for electricity.
And it's like, where do you think that comes from?
By the way, if you want more trees, you need carbon dioxide.
It's tree food.
That's right.
And, you know, the only measurable impact of carbon dioxide on the biosphere so far, the increase that we've seen, and we've seen about a 50% increase since the Industrial Revolution, the only measurable impact has been a densification of forests and a huge increase in crop yield.
So, I mean, CO2 is a good thing, and people that study agriculture are hoping CO2 continues to rise so that we can, you know, we can feed billions of people.
But, you know, this business of coal phase out is a real problem because just during the COP conference, and you won't believe this, while Trudeau was saying how we're going to phase out coal completely, I think he said by 2030, we can get into that.
Australia announced 116 new fossil fuel plants.
And there are a lot of those, of course, in Australia.
They're always coal.
And apparently, this is going to cause a 30% increase, 30% increase in Australia's greenhouse gas emissions.
And they announced that right during the COP conference.
Good for them.
And India, of course, has told all of their producers of coal: boost and ramp up your coal production, because, of course, their new commitment is to be net zero by 2070.
2070.
Now, there's actually a funny joke that's going around the UN Climate Conference.
I was told this by people at the conference.
They're saying that some of these commitments, like India's net zero by 2070, you know, it's like a 75-year-old alcoholic saying, I'm going to quit drinking in the next 30 years.
I'll start my diet tomorrow, Tom.
It's fine.
Right.
I'll start my diet in a half a century, which is what India is essentially saying.
They're going to be net zero by 2070.
Oh, but in the meantime, we're going to massively expand our coal usage, which of course makes sense because their first and overriding priority is poverty alleviation and keeping their people fed.
So, I mean, coal is a magnificent product.
And if you burn it cleanly, it's absolutely fine.
You know, there's no reason for them to be cutting back on coal in Canada.
I mean, Canada has about the cleanest coal stations you can imagine.
So, I mean, there's just all these different pledges that are going on.
They're also saying, for example, they want to make actual plans so that we in the developed world must give $100 billion a year to a fund that will help the developing world reduce their emissions and adapt to climate change.
And they're saying that's not even enough because after 2025, it has to go up much higher.
And they're demanding, you know, just in July of this year, a group of 100 developing countries put together a report and they're demanding of each country how much they have to give, you know, to make up for our sins of changing climate, which according to them gave them severe weather and things.
And Canada's bill is $4 billion a year, okay, just for that.
And so far, Trudeau is buying into this.
You know, it's really too bad.
But just to go through some of the demands from the developing countries, and by the way, China will be a recipient of this.
Okay, they're not being demanded anything according to these 100 developing nations, probably many of which are in debt to China.
So they're not going to demand China do anything.
But India has demanded a trillion dollars from the West.
And the countries of Africa together have demanded $3 trillion.
And this is one of the sticking points in the whole COP26 conference: is this loss and damages liability that we are supposedly to pay for?
Because they're saying that we use most of the fossil fuels in history.
We cause most of the emissions, which is true.
And therefore, things like typhoons and Hurricane Haiyan and extreme weather and all kinds of things, this is caused by us.
And so we have to pay reparation and damages.
And that's a very big part of this conference, actually, is trying to get deals where the West is held tightly to this $100 billion a year pledge, but also to a much bigger pledge in the future, approaching trillions, as we were just saying.
So that I think by itself is probably going to sink this UN climate conference.
The methane deal, that will probably be the only significant thing I think that comes out of the conference.
But just looking together, looking at other things, for example, in the COP, we must finalize the Paris rule book.
Okay, so that's another thing that they want to do is really hold us, hold a gun to our head and say, if you don't do it, you're going to get these penalties.
And you know, one thing people have to realize is that this COP conference, COP26, it comes because it's the 26th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
See, in 1992, Prime Minister Mulroney and the first George Bush and other world leaders, they signed on to something called the Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Now, that's where all the corruption started.
Before that, the IPCC, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, created in 1988, it actually had an honest job to do.
It was looking at what were the causes of climate change.
But in 1992, the UN decided to have this framework convention at the Rio conference, and they did a couple of tricky things.
First of all, they defined climate change in a way that is only caused by humans.
And here's what they say.
Climate change, and this is from the Framework Convention, and this is where the corruption really started.
Climate change means a change in climate, which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere, which is in addition to natural climate variability absorbed over comparable timeframes.
So when you hear UN people say climate change is caused by humans, well, of course it is because they define climate change as being caused by humans.
So, I mean, they, first of all, they distorted the language.
And then another thing they did, I got to read this to you too, because it is kind of remarkable.
They say the objective of this convention, this is the treaty that was signed in Rio, the framework convention, is to achieve stabilization of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.
So what if there is none?
In other words, they're assuming that we're causing dangerous climate change.
That's the assumption.
And of course, if it's not happening, then the whole point of the framework convention is immaterial.
And the corruption actually expanded beyond the framework convention because then the UN IPCC had its mandate changed.
Its mandate, the science body, was to support the convention.
And since the convention defined climate change as being caused by us and that there was dangerous anthropogenic climate change to stop, the IPCC then had to start generating reports that would support the narrative decided by the UN.
And so from then on, the IPCC joined them in the, you know, the cesspool of corruption.
And that's where all these COP conferences happen.
You see, the UN FCCC was ratified in 1994, and the first COP happened in 1995.
So COP1.
COP, you know, 21 was in Paris.
COP26 now is happening in Glasgow.
And every five years, they have what they call a global stock take.
And this is one of those special COP meetings where they have to actually up the ante.
They have to not only say what they're doing, they have to actually show what they're doing and make solid commitments.
And that's why this COP is actually more important than most.
But yeah, you should look at the things that Trudeau has committed us to.
Maybe we can go through the list.
Sure.
I'm just taking it all in because it's like a self-perpetuating thing.
It's like a perpetual motion machine.
You know, define climate change so that it is caused by humans.
Also change the language around climate change so that it means any weather.
And since there's always people and always weather, you always have this problem to solve.
And the only way to solve this problem is take money from this guy and give it to that guy.
And at the end of the day, there's only one guy they're taking money from, and that's you and me.
Yes, exactly.
And that's right.
And the science body that's supposed to actually tell us the truth about what's happening to the climate has now been forced to support the Framework Convention, which has all the things that you just named.
And, you know, it reminds me very much of when one of my sisters worked in the government.
I won't say which department because that would identify my sister, but she was actually given the job of finding evidence that would support the minister's statement on a certain thing.
She went and looked and she couldn't find any.
And they told her, well, go back and look.
And what she said to me is kind of interesting.
She said, well, you know, this isn't evidence-based decision-making.
This is decision-based evidence making.
And that's what the IPCC is.
It's decision-based evidence making.
The decision is we are causing dangerous climate change.
The evidence then has to be found to support the decision.
So I always laugh because it really is completely corrupt.
We see that in all kinds of things.
We see that in COVID.
You know, they have to find numbers to support the government's decision.
So, oh my God, it's going through the roof, you know, even though they classify things like cancer deaths as being COVID deaths.
And yeah, it's completely corrupt and you don't know who to trust at all.
That's the story of government, right?
It's a solution in search of a problem.
Net Zero Targets and Job Loss00:14:17
Speaking of solutions in search of problems, let's talk about the big one facing our country, Justin Trudeau, promising all kinds of our money to the UN and I guess to the developing world to not develop their natural resources.
Really, that's what this all comes down to.
You said $4 billion annually.
This is going to cost us Justin Trudeau's net zero pledge by 2050.
I looked into that.
TD Economics did a study of this a few years ago, or I guess it would be about a year ago now, that this could cost upwards of a half a million jobs, primarily in the West here and in Newfoundland, if Justin Trudeau pursues net zero by 2050.
And what a bizarre goal net zero emissions is, anyways, because Canada is way beyond net zero when you take into what our forests use as far as CO2.
So we're actually, you know, helping the rest of the world just by the sheer level of forests we have, if you care about CO2 levels.
And I don't, but Justin Trudeau keeps telling me he does.
So, you know, why do this devastating thing to the Canadian economy when really we're already there and then some?
Well, that's right.
And he wants not only Canada to go to a net zero by 2050.
He wants the oil and gas sector to go to net zero.
And the target is primarily the oil sands.
I mean, the gas sector is not hit so hard, but the oil sands, it's a really, really big challenge for them to do this.
I mean, they're essentially going to have to, you know, have massive amounts of carbon sequestration, or they're going to have to give huge amounts of money to carbon credit systems, things like that.
Or more likely, and this is already happening, many of the producers will simply leave Canada.
Yeah, exactly.
They'll just go.
And we will lose incredibly with the billions of dollars a year that we'll lose in revenues.
And what will happen is people will still use energy.
They'll just bring in their energy from the Middle East.
Where they don't do these kinds of crazy things.
You know, if you were concerned about carbon dioxide, and I'm not, but if you were, you would want to have as much Canadian energy as possible because we have hugely better standards than most of the world.
But instead, he's killing our particular oil and gas sector.
And you know, it's funny because in the press release from the prime minister's office, they said that in a letter sent from ministers Debot and Wilkinson, the government is seeking the advice of the net zero advisory body on how best to move forward with this approach.
And I thought, well, guys, maybe you should have asked them before you made the announcement because they might come back to you and say, you can't do it without ruining the Canadian economy.
And you know, this Trudeau reminds me very much of Jean-Crétian, because Jean-Crétian did a similar thing.
He went to South Africa and without consulting with any of his people, he announced that Canada was going to join the Kyoto Protocol.
He had no idea how we were going to meet it.
He just said it.
He just said it.
And that's what Trudeau is doing.
He's made a commitment, a huge commitment, which will damage our oil and gas industry in other ways too, that we'll get into.
And then he's saying, we're going to seek the advice of this body as to how to move forward.
And I say, guy, you've got to talk to your experts first, not after you've made the decision, or it becomes decision-based evidence making because then that body, well, they've got to twist and turn the numbers to make it so that it looks like we can do it.
About the only thing we can say that is good about all this is that so far we've never come close to meeting our targets.
So the hope is that this is all smoke and mirrors and he actually won't do anything.
Here's the liberals not doing anything right.
We prepared a graph some time ago.
I'll send you actually after we talk, which was comparing the targets with the accomplishments for every single target that was set back to about 1990.
And it's actually quite hilarious because as the years go by, they make greater and greater targets and they miss every single one of them.
You know, it's just now another thing.
Another thing that Trudeau promised is he was going to end exports of thermal coal no later than 2030.
And in fact, he's saying that we're phasing out in our country thermal coal by 2030.
And, you know, again, that is really stupid.
Here in Ontario, the engineering consulting firm that was contracted to determine how to reduce Ontario's pollution, they recommended not closing the coal stations, which McGinty did it anyway.
They recommended bringing in the latest pollution control devices.
And that, you know, at that time, we had a quarter of our electricity from coal and we had the best rates in Canada.
Our rates have gone up something like 200% because we got rid of this inexpensive energy source, which is nutty.
And Trudeau wants to do that for the whole country.
He stated that, oh, here's another one.
Achieving net zero emissions within Canada's electricity grid by 2035.
What that means, of course, is having it all basically run by wind and solar power.
Now, when you're thinking of what you need in an electricity grid, you need reliability, okay, especially when it's minus 30 outside.
You need affordability and you need some degree of environmental protection.
But what Trudeau has done is he's completely ignoring the first two, reliability and affordability.
He's focusing entirely on the last one, but not just environment in general.
He's focusing on one element of environment, namely greenhouse gases.
So he's throwing away all the other factors that normally go into the decision as to what you use as your source for electricity.
So, you know, 2035 is not very far off.
We're going to go to net zero emissions.
In other words, basically all wind and solar by 2035.
I don't think he's read anything in the area of, you know, how you actually make energy transitions.
Vaklav Smill from the University of Manitoba, he's done some really exceptional work talking about energy transitions.
And he shows that a transition like that would take many, many decades.
It doesn't happen right away, even when there is an advantage to making the transfer.
Now, in this case, there's no advantage, so it should never happen.
But the idea that we can do it in, what, 23 and a bit years?
Come on.
Well, sorry to interrupt, but this also like I'm making a list of things that directly affect Alberta.
For example, the coal phase out.
We've got 800 years of thermal coal under our feet.
800 years.
But this strands that asset for Albertans, the net zero by 2030 or 2050 or whatever his latest target is, that directly targets Alberta jobs.
His methane pledge that we'll talk about in a second, that directly targets Alberta, particularly if he expands it to the agriculture industry.
But this net zero for electricity, that targets Ontario manufacturing.
We don't have to look very far into the recent history to see how a transition to green energy killed manufacturing in Ontario.
And it didn't end the manufacturing.
It just moved it to places like in Detroit and in the United States and to Mexico where they don't care about these kinds of things.
Yeah, yeah, exactly.
And the methane thing is actually, why don't we skip to that?
Because that's actually an interesting one.
They have something that he signed on to for Canada called the Global Methane Pledge, which aims to reduce methane emissions by at least 30% below 2020 levels by 2030.
And he's saying, oh, but we're actually going to have a 75% reduction below 2012 levels by 2030.
Now, you know, you have to realize that there are three big sources of methane.
There's energy, livestock, and rice growing.
Okay.
There's only a few countries where energy is the primary producer of methane.
Canada is one, you know, the United States, the European Union.
But you've got lots of countries like China, for example, who their primary source of methane is partly fossil fuels and livestock, but it's also rice.
And so, and they're saying it's interesting because this pledge to have a 30% reduction, that's the international pledge, would apply to all countries, including countries that have no oil and gas and countries that don't have livestock and are growing a lot of rice.
So what that would mean is that it doesn't matter how small your economy is, this treaty, this pledge, I should say, would actually result in a cut of your rice production by 30%.
So one of the outcomes of this global methane pledge for many countries, if they follow it, will be mass starvation.
Okay.
And that is terrible.
And you have to realize that methane, as I said earlier on, is one-tenth the impact of carbon dioxide.
And carbon dioxide is not a problem itself.
So much suffering for nothing.
Yeah, that's right.
So, I mean, if other countries join on to this, it will cause mass starvation across the world.
Another thing that he's doing is he's, Canada's committed $5.3 billion to help low and middle, you know, you always wonder about these numbers, eh?
He's borrowing money because Canada is massively in debt to give money to developing countries, which will be gobbled up by their corrupt dictatorships, probably not go to what they're supposed to go to, putting Canada in further debt.
But anyway, he's going to give 5.3 billion to help low and middle income countries with their emissions reduction and mitigation efforts.
And 1 billion of that is going to help countries transition away from coal.
Now, that is a big joke because China is building coal stations all over the world.
And, you know, it's interesting, there was another pledge at the UN conference that China strongly opposed, and that was to not fund any foreign development of coal.
Okay, not actually to build coal stations in other countries.
And oh, yeah, you know, Canada and these countries, we all agree, yay, yay.
But China and Japan were vehemently opposed to this.
China's building coal stations all over the world, especially in Africa, where they're building up this big debt that these countries have now to China so China can take over the resources.
But we're going to give a billion dollars of Canadian taxpayer money to try to help countries go away from coal at exactly the time when China is developing coal stations all over the world.
You know, it's like India's promise to go, oh, 2070.
He also said that we're going to plant 2 billion more trees as if Canada doesn't have enough trees.
Where are we going to put them?
Are we going to put them in the arable farmland?
Because where can you put these things?
Yeah, it's absurd.
It's truly crazy.
And he said that you're going to get $57 million to help some of the countries adapt to climate change, which, of course, is a sensible thing to do.
But the question is: can Canada afford to borrow money to give it to other countries to do anything for that matter, even worthwhile things like adapting to climate change?
So, you know, you also have to look at this whole COP thing and ask yourself, I mean, who is really going to do what the COP is saying?
And there's a very interesting chart that I sent you, which shows which countries are on track to meeting their Paris 1.5-degree target.
And of all the countries in the world, there is one country, just one, that is on track to meet its Paris 1.5-degree target.
And that is a little country called The Gambia.
They actually the is in the title, The Gambia.
And The Gambia is the smallest country in the whole continent of Africa.
It has a population less than Toronto.
It has massive human rights abuses.
It has terrible infectious diseases.
And that is our role model, The Gambia.
The one country in the world that is going to meet its targets.
So, if Canada were to meet its targets, does that mean we have to have terrible infectious diseases, super poverty, etc.?
By the way, yeah, it has widespread poverty as well.
So, of course, they're hitting their climate targets.
I mean, they're all sick and broke.
And, you know, it's just ridiculous.
If you look at the other countries, the ones like Russia, and by the way, Putin didn't even go, eh?
Putin gave them a 223-word statement that he gave verbally.
He promised to have, he didn't promise to make any reductions in any emissions.
All he did is talk about planting trees.
And, you know, Z Jingping from China, he didn't even give them a video message.
He didn't give them, he didn't go.
He didn't give them a video message.
And in his written statement, he didn't make any commitments at all to reducing anything.
Why would he?
They're giving him everything he wants anyway.
Why even go?
He doesn't even have to argue for it.
And Brazil didn't go, Saudi Arabia.
I mean, many of the largest producers never even went at all.
And I just got a kick out of Putin's statement: 223 words, I think it was.
And all he said is they're going to plant more trees.
That's the best.
Yeah, if you're really serious about reducing methane, I mean, you go after Russia.
But of course, all they do is they go after us and they ignore the big polluters and the people that are producing most of the supposed satanic gases, which are in fact not satanic in the least.
But yeah, I think, you know, the COP conference, I don't miss it.
I mean, it would be nice to go to Scotland, but I'm not particularly missing it.
I guess my concern was that if you go to Scotland and you're not vaccinated, then you have to have a test before you leave Scotland and or any country for that matter.
And what happens if you get a false positive?
Then, uh-oh, you can't get on the plane and you're stuck there until eventually one of your tests shows negative.
So I just didn't want to take that risk.
The Side Story from Glasgow00:04:28
Yeah, I can wear my tartan whenever I feel like it.
I don't need to go to Glasgow just to do that.
Scotland when this silly COVID stuff is all blown over.
I mean, I know it's a disease, but I think that in many cases, it's hugely exaggerated.
Of course it is, just like climate change.
And, you know, as long as we look at places like The Gambia as the climate Valhalla, there's going to be conferences of the parties for us to go to for time immemorial, because as long as there's people and as long as there's weather, there are going to be governments trying to control both.
Yeah, exactly.
And, you know, the sad thing is, though, Canada is so far in debt that we're borrowing billions more to just give it away to a cause that makes no sense at all.
It just is ridiculous.
And, you know, the sad thing is and the scary thing is, is while most nations make their commitments and they run away and do whatever they want, the fear is that Canada will really do this.
And that's where, you know, we have to, I mean, he says we're the first country in the world to make a 75% methane reduction for our fossil fuel industry.
You know, he's that kind of thing.
Whoa, it's scary when he says that because he might really try to do it.
Yeah.
It might be the only thing he actually ever does that he promised that he would do.
Tom, can you let everybody know how they can support the work that you do with the International Climate Science Coalition Canada?
Because you guys are really on a shoestring budget and you are taking on the big foreign-funded activist groups by trying to tell the other side of the story.
Yeah, sure.
Well, if people go to icsc-canada.com, you can see in the upper right-hand corner, there is a little window that you put your email address in and we'll update you with whatever we're doing because we're producing regular radio shows, you know, my podcast, for example.
Thank you.
And also, America Out Loud, you were my guest on my podcast a few weeks back, which was great learning about your background.
And yeah, and we have a report coming out now.
It's within a few days of being done.
It's going to be over 100 pages, I'm sure, on the Ottawa climate change plan because it is completely insane.
It's taken quite a while to take it apart, you know, because so many problems with the plan.
It's really a cautionary tale for other cities in the world.
Which gives me chills and heart palpitations because we have Amarjeet Sohi as the mayor in Edmonton now.
And as you know, he was Justin Trudeau's failed natural resources minister.
So you can only imagine what he's going to do in the progressive hellscape of Edmonton anyway, now that he's gotten free reign to just do whatever he wants.
So yes, definitely.
I can't wait to read that report because it will be a cautionary tale for what Alberta and Calgary are likely about to go through.
Right, right.
Well, Tom, thank you so much for coming on the show.
I could talk to you all day, but I'm not sure my viewers would appreciate that.
And we'll have you back on again very, very soon.
And just thank you so much for taking the time.
Okay.
And we'll keep tracking Trudeau, but he doesn't do what he promises.
Let's hope so anyway.
Now, here's to his ineptitude.
Right.
Okay, bye, Tom.
Thanks.
You know, I think my friend Tom is right.
Normally, Justin Trudeau's ineptitude drives me bananas.
But when it comes to meeting his climate change targets, let's hope he fails and fails and fails forever.
Because truly, the sake of Canadian jobs and the Canadian economy depends on Justin Trudeau missing those climate change targets.
Friends, if you would like to see the other side of the story from the UN Climate Change Conference in Glasgow, might I suggest heading on over to rebelun.com?
You'll see my friend Louis Brackpool's reports from on the ground in Glasgow and at that special website, rebelun.com.
You can support his journalism from on the ground where he brings you the side of the story the true believers in the mainstream media just don't want you to see.
Well, everybody, that's the show for tonight.
Thank you so much for tuning in.
I'll see everybody here in the same time, in the same place next week.