Sheila Gunn-Reid exposes the World Economic Forum’s hypocrisy in attacking artificial Christmas trees while profiting from carbon credit schemes via 1Trillion.org, dismissing their climate policies as self-serving. Michelle Sterling’s experiments reveal 22°C backyard temperature swings, undermining WEF claims like the 0.02°C "hottest year ever" statistic. Calgary’s $250K climate emergency declarations and Alberta’s $22B coal phase-out—despite promised healthcare savings—highlight green policies’ economic and human costs, from UK food shortages to disrupted maternal care in developing nations. The WEF’s push for net-zero healthcare risks cutting patient treatments, yet their fear-mongering, like Greta Thunberg’s metaphorical panic, goes unchecked, proving climate alarmism prioritizes control over science. [Automatically generated summary]
Oh hey rebels, it's me, Sheila Gunread, your favorite, or at least according to the Rebel Viewers Choice Awards, your second favorite Rebel on the network.
And you're listening to a free audio-only recording of my weekly Wednesday night show, The Gun Show.
However, this is the internet, so it's up to you, friends.
You can listen or watch whenever the heck you feel like, whenever it's convenient for you.
Now tonight, my guest is Michelle Sterling from Friends of Science.
And we are talking about the latest UN Climate Change Conference, which was a big, fat, nothing burger control freak party where nothing was accomplished, but everybody patted themselves on the back for advocating for more carbon taxes on people who can't afford them.
We're talking about a few other things too.
Now, if you like listening to the show, then 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 premium long-form TV style shows here on Rebel News.
Subscribers get access to my show, which, again, obviously worth the price of admission alone, but you also get access to David Menzies' fun Friday night show Rebel Roundup, Ezra's nightly Ezra Levant show, and Andrew Chapados's weekly show, Andrew Says.
Just go to RebelNewsplus.com to become a member today.
It's only eight bucks a month.
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.
That's rebelnewsplus.com to become a member.
And if you like the show, and frankly, I'm relatively confident that you will or do, please leave a five-star review wherever you find us.
That's a great way to support the show without having to spend a dime, but it also helps other people find the podcast too.
Now, please enjoy this free audio only version of my show.
World Economic Forum wants to ban your Christmas tree unless you use one that they can enrich themselves from.
What a neat trick.
I'm Sheila Gunn-Reed, and you're watching The Gunn Show.
You know there's absolutely nothing these insufferable fun burglar control freaks in the World Economic Forum won't co-opt for their own agenda?
Now they want you to use a real Christmas tree after telling us for decades that deforestation was a real problem because a real Christmas tree has a lower carbon footprint than your artificial Christmas tree.
You know, it's almost like someone out there is getting rich off a tree planting program, which is absolutely the case in this instance.
Now, the World Economic Forum, as you know, is not the only globalist organization looking to control your life.
Who could forget the UN?
The UN Climate Change Conference recently wrapped up in Glasgow, Scotland, and thankfully, like the month of March, it came in like a lion and went out like a lamb with no real agreements reached.
Thank goodness.
Real Christmas Trees Controversy00:03:42
Joining me to round up all the climate news from the UN Climate Change Conference and from the Grinches at the World Economic Forum and also so much more is my friend Michelle Sterling from Friends of Science in an interview we recorded yesterday morning.
So joining me now from her climate cabin in the middle of nowhere is my friend Michelle Sterling from Friends of Science.
And there's so much to talk about, Michelle.
I haven't talked to you since the UN Climate Change Conference wrapped up.
And I thought it was kind of funny because you had decided you were going to do, yeah, the dinosaur, exactly.
You had decided you were going to do sort of little wrap-up videos at the end of every day or every couple of days.
And then you just decided this is stupid and I'm not going to do it because it really was.
One day they're talking about dinosaurs.
The next day they're talking about how the steam engine was a bad thing.
And I think it was a great thing for the advancement of humanity, but also for making transcontinental travel accessible for normal people through, you know, boats and trains.
All of a sudden, it wasn't something that the elite could do.
It was something that other people could save their money to do.
And yet, Boris Johnson was lamenting that this thing was even ever invented.
Yeah, what an idiot.
I mean, honestly, the Industrial Revolution basically did begin in Britain, but it quickly spread all over the world because people found how wonderful it was to have these mechanical things doing so much of the work for you so that you didn't have to break your body in half every day, chopping wood and carrying coal in a little bucket to bring it home.
You know, you had these machines that started to help you.
And as I was saying, in the late 1800s, there was a French economist who said that the industrial era had provided two and a half servants to every person.
But in fact, later economists came up with the figure that we have today 97 servants because of industrialization and modernization.
So, you know, just imagine all the things you don't have to do.
You don't have to take a bucket and go to the river or to a pump somewhere or a spring to get water for your house.
You know, when you have a harvest to bring in, you don't have to get a whole threshing crew of, you know, 100 men or more to go out there and cut the stews, cut and make the stooks and put them on the hay bale hauled by horses and someone's got to care for the horses and feed the horses.
I mean, all these things are in the past.
And now people can live a much more comfortable life.
And certainly we should be conscious of the environment.
And we are, there's thousands of environmental regulations.
And actually, the air quality has improved dramatically since the 70s.
So, you know, we should all be happy about this instead of denigrating our ancestors and recognize that we stand on the shoulders of giants.
I mean, all the people who like now, you know, with your phone or your laptop or whatever, who are making the world happen with their fingertip.
Well, that's because all these people for centuries were developing the Industrial Revolution and making it possible for your little finger to tap and click and make things happen in your world.
Climate Claims Debunked00:08:02
There's another video that you recently did, and you and I were talking about it off air, but it's never more relevant than now.
You did a little experiment.
You went in the backyard of the climate cabin and you put thermometers all over the place and you measured the temperature within just small distances in your backyard.
And the temperature varied wildly.
And you said in the video, some people are going to say this is unscientific.
And I agree it is, but this is literally how they measure temperature.
So if we can't really understand what the temperature measurement is in a backyard within 20 feet, how are we supposed to understand what the temperature measurement is to stop it from going beyond whatever the climate scientists say we're supposed to stop it from going over on any given day?
And this happens to me every single day.
It is always five degrees colder where I live, way out in the middle of nowhere, than what it is in town.
And yet, when I'm accessing my temperature data, quite often it's Sherwood Park, Fort Saskatchewan, or Edmonton where I'm getting the temperature data and not out here in the middle of nowhere.
And so how do scientists make these judgments about where we need to not be if they can't even tell us where we are right now?
That's right.
Well, it was a simple experiment.
And really within that very small area, there was a 22 degree difference in temperature range.
And then I also looked at the NASA site, which talks about the elusive surface air temperature, which is what I was trying to measure.
And even they say that there's no international agreement on what constitutes surface air temperature.
There's no agreement on how it should be gathered.
Like, should it be gathered hourly and then averaged or daily, every six hours, every minute.
And also they say that to actually know what the surface air temperature is in a given location like my backyard, you'd have to have 50-foot stacks of thermometers placed all over the place and then average that, which is obviously impossible.
So the point of the video was really to show people that the claims that by charging you trillions of dollars in climate policies to presumably or supposedly reduce global temperature by half a degree is simply nonsense.
There's no, I mean, there are many scientists like Dr. Richard Lindzen and Dr. John Christie who completely disagree on this method of global average temperature.
And those would be some of the reasons why.
And we actually have a video of one of their papers on our website.
I did a reading of one of their papers.
And they show similarly to what I did that in cities, you know, the temperature range might be 40 degrees over seasons.
So how is this elusive half a degree actually going to happen?
And who can measure it?
And in fact, I guess my experiment also shows that if you want to say, oh, look at that, we achieved half a degree reduction.
All you have to do is move the thermometers to the shade.
Yeah.
Or if you want to.
Or vice versa.
If you want to say, oh my God, it's catastrophic global warming, just put them in the sun.
That's exactly it.
If you want to rig the data to show, you know, oh, the climate's on fire.
Well, that's easy enough.
You know, just you just take the high temperature and throw out the other five thermometers or whatever, because there's no standard for any of this.
Yeah.
And I do want to say, I mean, honestly, there are many excellent climate scientists out there working very hard to assess how humans do impact climate.
And as you said, for instance, in the cities, cities can be five to 10 degrees warmer than the surrounding area because of the urban heat island where, you know, all of our activities tend to get blocked in either under influences of the atmosphere or inversions or just the heat retention of buildings and pavement.
But those climate scientists who are working hard to do that, I'm not trying to defame them.
I'm just trying to say that in terms of this global policy to reduce temperature or keep it below two degrees by a half a degree is really statisticulation.
So that's the political side of it.
That's not the climate scientist side of it.
And that's really a shame.
And actually, I think it was Istvan Marko, the late professor, Dr. Istvan Marko of Belgium, who first introduced me to the idea that, you know, the World Meteorological Organization in, I think it was 2016 claimed that 2016 was the hottest year ever, and it was hotter than 2015.
Well, you know how much hotter they deemed it to be?
By two hundredths of a degree Celsius, which is immeasurable.
Like any engineer will tell you that you can't accurately measure anything under a tenth of a degree.
And yet these are these esteemed bodies politicizing things and they don't say, wow, look at that.
You know, 2016 was two hundredths of a degree warmer than 2015.
Because if they did say that, everyone would go, well, there's no climate crisis then, is there?
Yeah.
Well, and you use the phrase statisticulation to sort of describe this manipulation of statistics.
And often they put them in vague terms, like you just said.
It's the hottest year on record.
So everybody thinks the world is melting down.
But when you're like, no, it's like a rounding error.
Literally, we may have, you know, somebody walked by the thermometer with a hot coffee and that's what affected it.
But, you know, it's this vagaries to fearmonger people into overreacting.
And I guess we see that all the time with COVID.
Yes.
Well, there's some similarities there in terms of the fact that both climate and COVID issues are based on modeling.
And modeling is computer simulations.
A model doesn't mean a representation that's an exact scale of what's going on.
It means that it's a simulation.
The information is entered by human beings and the parameters are set by human beings.
And there's been quite a scandal lately, I think, with SAGE out of the UK on the modeling of COVID.
And similar issues have come up many times over on the modeling with climate.
In fact, Ross McKittrick recently commented on a paper, a peer-reviewed paper that showed that the Canadian climate model forecasts warming that is seven times higher than the observed temperatures in the troposphere.
Seven times higher.
Now, people have to understand that these climate models are calibrated to the economic models, and that's where your carbon tax comes from, because they're not calibrated to evidence.
They're calibrated to the models.
So that means that if the models run too hot, your carbon tax will be too high.
I mean, I'm not in favor of a carbon tax to begin with, but if we must have it, let's have one that's based on evidence and not nonsense.
Emergency Policies and Green Energy00:15:17
Well, if you base it on evidence, then we wouldn't have it at all, Michelle.
So that's why evidence-based is very important.
It's the most important.
Now, speaking of COVID, and COVID is set to apparently steal Christmas, but not before the climate fund burglars do.
The World Economic Forum, they want us to not have artificial trees because there's nothing these, no aspect of your life, these control freaks will not try to meddle with.
And now it's Christmas and your choice and tree.
Apparently, you know, cutting down trees is bad.
Deforestation is bad.
So they tell me.
But on the flip side, cutting down trees is good for Christmas.
But I guess it's part of their business model, isn't it?
Well, yeah, that's the interesting thing is that they make it seem like they're virtue signaling and doing the holy thing by saying, look, have a real Christmas tree for Christmas because then you'll have a greener Christmas.
But in fact, they're actually promoting their business model of an organization called 1Trillion.org, which is dedicated to planting trees for carbon credit trading.
You know, and I mean, the World Economic Forum in 2006 had noted in their list of global risks, the pandemic risk could crater the global economy, and also a global oil price shock could crater the global economy.
They knew this in 2006.
They're supposed to be all the smarty pants of the world helping us to run the world better.
And yet, all they can talk about is your Christmas tree and whether or not you're having a green Christmas.
We're now experiencing, of course, a pandemic and a global oil price shock.
In fact, an energy crisis around the world.
And all these guys can talk about is your Christmas tree.
I mean, the people who are going to benefit from this oil price shock are the people associated and the organizations associated with the WEF.
So I think it's really disgusting and patronizing.
And have a look at our video and see what you think.
Yeah, it's these people are a perpetual motion machine.
They just like create policies that enrich themselves and they use that money to create policies to enrich themselves.
And it just goes around and around and around.
And all the money that they enrich themselves with comes out of normal people's pockets.
And the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
That's right.
Yep.
Now, I want to talk to you about the climate emergency declaration in the city of Calgary.
I don't know about Calgary right now, but Edmonton, it is so cold.
It is so cold.
I had to do a story outside yesterday for 45 minutes and I almost died.
I had the heat in the Jeep cranked up like I could cremate a body in there.
It was so cold.
And yet, Calgary is calling a climate emergency.
We had Adam Soas in Calgary driving around in the no climate emergency billboard truck, just talking about how ridiculous this is.
But Friends of Science being early adopters of good ideas, you guys have been telling us there's no climate emergency for, well, I guess two decades now, right?
Yeah, pretty much.
Yeah.
Yeah, we did a report rebutting the claim of a climate emergency.
And of course, we work quite closely with Clintel out of the Netherlands.
And that's a group of 960 signatory scientists and scholars from around the world who state quite clearly that there is no climate emergency.
There's no reason to be alarmed and that natural forces are more influential than human influences on climate.
So we did a report rebutting that.
And the first thing we did was we asked the mayor to make sure that Calgary children, and in fact, all children should be told this, that Greta actually said there's no science behind her comment that I want you to panic.
No science behind it.
She did this in a testimony to the US Congress.
And Congressman Norman asked her, you know, please tell me what's the science behind your comment.
I want you to panic.
And she said, well, you know, it's really just a metaphor.
There's no science behind it.
And I don't literally want anyone to panic.
Well, you know, why isn't that front page news everywhere?
And certainly the city of Calgary should be making sure that all children have Christmas relief by being told that there's no need to panic, but instead, you know, they're proclaiming a climate emergency and piling on.
And I want to mention that in a HuffPost article that was listing all the cities that had declared a climate emergency, there was a little note there that to declare this climate emergency, you had to pay $250,000 to some fund which was promoting renewables.
They didn't follow up on that, and I've never seen any other report on it, but it'd be interesting to know where cash-strapped Calgarians are being squeezed for another quarter of a million dollars for this facetious declaration by Mayor Gondak.
You know, that's interesting.
I'm going to get my friend Adam to follow up on that because, you know, we say all the time that this is just empty virtue signaling, but it's not all that empty when you're giving a quarter of a million dollars of taxpayer money to an organization for, I guess, the courtesy of being able to say that it's a climate emergency.
I mean, this is just greenwashing of the worst sort.
I had no idea that there was money attached to this.
And so if there was, I'm going to find out because this is crazy because taxes are going up.
Right, exactly.
And I mean, one thing that, you know, as I said, the HuffPost never followed up on it.
So I don't know where that little thread leads, but that was alarming to me.
And furthermore, it's interesting to note that the McConnell Foundation is one of the tax-reduced charitable foundations that's been funding all these environmental groups who are promoting the climate catastrophe narrative.
Well, it turns out they also gave $10 million to BlackRock for a renewables investment.
Like, what is this?
I mean, this is a tax-subsidized foundation that funds tax-subsidized ENGOs to clamor for a climate catastrophe in a climate emergency, and at the same time is giving tax-subsidized $10 million to BlackRock, which is one of the world's largest corporate entities and certainly doesn't need $10 million from Canadians.
And Michelle, I think this perpetual motion machine of green, I would call it money laundering, but not in the criminal sense, it has a real world impact on Canada's economy.
You have a new report from Robert Lyman that's coming out that said that Canada was sitting on 21 trillion in US dollars, not Canadian pesos, in resource riches.
And so many of these green energy conglomerates, they want us to leave $21 trillion in the ground.
That's right.
And of course, most of that is in Alberta.
Now, that's a gross evaluation.
And, you know, if you wouldn't take that to the stock market, you know, some of our people have done evaluations for decades and they would say that certain kinds of resources would be assessed at a slightly lower scale.
But Robert Lyman was just simply looking at current market value because there's huge demand right now worldwide for oil, gas, and coal.
It's just skyrocketed as have the prices.
You know, we're pretending like, oh, we're going to make wind and solar farms from berry dust.
You know, because even to implement any of the proposed net zero policies, you need masses of oil, gas, and coal, because that's how society is built and that's how it runs.
I mean, the whole idea that we can electrify the world and replace fossil fuels is ludicrous because electricity is a secondary source of energy.
It's made by something else.
It's either made by hydro, fossil fuels, nuclear, perhaps a little geothermal.
But, you know, I think fossil fuels provide something like 84% of the world's energy right now.
And that's not going to change dramatically in the next 5, 10, or 29 years, especially since everything is made from oil, gas, and coal.
So, yeah, I think people have to realize that this incredible resource riches that reside in Canada, most of it actually in Alberta, perhaps that will wake people up to the fact that the tar sands campaign was really a green trade war to keep our product off the market,
to shut down our resources, to create a sell-off situation where wealthy hedge funds could pick up shares in Canadian and especially Albertan oil, gas, and oil sands company and coal companies for peanuts, and then probably somewhere down the road go, oh, by the way, we need this resource.
Well, by that time, it's already captive in the hands of somebody else where it will be less beneficial to us economically.
You know, my father and I were talking, father-in-law and I were talking about that this morning, that, you know, the green true believers, the environmentalists, they're the useful idiots in all of this because the people who are orchestrating this green trade war, they love oil and gas.
They don't think there's anything wrong with it.
It's just a demarketing campaign against Alberta oil and gas.
And, you know, you'll have celebrities from California.
And, you know, I don't know how they avoid tripping over Bakersfield to bash Alberta oil and gas, but somehow they do because they're true believers and they have tunnel vision.
But that tunnel vision is perfect for the people who are manipulating them because they're all just part of a marketing campaign.
Right.
And, you know, I think that a lot of the people on the activist side, the climate and environment activist side, they really do have a good heart.
They really have good intentions, but they don't have this broader view and they haven't looked to see where it leads.
I mean, Ian Plymer just issued a book called Green Murder.
And that's exactly where these net zero policies are leading.
People will die because of them.
We see it in the UK and in Germany, where in Germany, hundreds of thousands of people have been cut off from their electricity because they can't pay the bill.
And if you look at net zero watch, you can see that prices are skyrocketing in Britain and a whole bunch of industries have actually shut down, like fertilizer industries that used to use natural gas.
It's too expensive now.
So they've shut down.
And a byproduct of their processing used to be carbon dioxide, ironically, which was used for food processing.
And so a lot of different kinds of foods cannot be processed without that carbon dioxide byproduct.
So there will be food shortages because of that.
And come spring, when fertilizer prices are through the roof, there will be additional food shortages because many farmers will just say, I can't afford to plant.
I just don't have the money for that kind of fertilizer.
I'll just let my crop go fallow for a year or two and see what happens down the road.
Now, you know, as you know, if you're a farmer, you're probably going to be okay because you probably have maybe a few chickens, a couple of cows or something.
You know, you can plant your own garden, but what's that going to do to people in the cities?
So people in the UK are facing extraordinary heat or poverty now.
And it's all because of these green net zero policies.
And that's going to happen to us in Canada.
It's already happening right now.
You know, we're just fortunate that we're in Alberta where we have these fantastic resources and we already have the existing infrastructure to deliver gas and power to people's homes.
But, you know, it's literally a killing field when you apply net zero policies.
Now, speaking of putting people's lives at risk because of green energy policies, you contributed an article to the Western Standard, which I think is great.
But your article asks, is being green more important than patient outcomes in healthcare?
And I thought this was a fantastic article because single-use plastic really has been one of the big saviors during the pandemic through hospital implications, but also through real-world implications where, you know, restaurants have pivoted to single-use plastic because they can't have dine-in, so they had to have takeout.
And so, you know, plastic saves the day there.
And then when considering in retail stores or grocery stores where the cashiers didn't want to touch your gross reusable plastic bags anymore that are full of E. coli, a lot of the bag bans ended.
And those came back, plastic bags came back with vengeance, which I think is great.
I think plastic is the perfect garbage.
But for you, you really looked at how green policies have bad outcomes in healthcare.
Yes, I watched a webinar called Climate Conversations Decarbonizing Healthcare.
And I've been concerned for a long time about this shift in healthcare from caring for the patient to caring for the planet.
And we saw that in Alberta when Dr. Joe Vipond was a leading voice on Alberta coal phase out.
He claimed that we would save $3 billion in healthcare costs and that many people who suffer from asthma would not suffer from it to the same extent.
In fact, it cost us $22 billion and more to phase out coal.
Catherine On Climate And Health Care00:10:13
Sorry to interrupt you here, but also, I'm not sure if Dr. Joe Vipon knows, but you can actually go online and check the air quality at Genesee or in Fort McMurray, right beside where there are these major industrial plants.
And you can see that's often much better than outside of a hospital where Joe Vipond works in an urban center.
You know what I mean?
Like you can check this.
It's there for all of us to look at.
Yes, that actually is very true.
We did a report at the time called Dire Consequences and another one called Burning Questions.
And both of these address that very air quality issue.
But the point being that, you know, medicine relies 100% on electricity.
This is deemed to be the most important infrastructure element in delivering modern health care.
And yet these people who are moving health care from people to planet are now saying, oh, look at Mrs. Jones' carbon footprint and she's frail and elderly.
And wow, look at that.
She's taking up an awful lot of the footprint.
Maybe we should tell her we're not going to care for you anymore.
I'm serious.
Like when I watched this interview, I was in shock.
And so I went looking, did a bit more research.
And sure enough, one of the spokespeople, Jody Sherman, has issued a net zero commentary with a few other colleagues in the British, I think it's in the British Medical Journal or The Lancet, one or the other, I can send it to you, calling for net zero health care.
And she thinks that because of how we all pivoted during COVID, that it would be easy to cut global health care emissions, which are estimated to be 5% of global emissions, in half by 2045.
And I just want to remind you that Canada's emissions are 1.6% of global emissions, and it's going to be impossible to cut that in half by 2040 or 2050.
So it's not going to be easy to cut global healthcare emissions in half by 2050, unless, of course, you stop treating people or you delete people.
And one of the guys in this same webinar said, the greenest hospital is the one we don't build.
Well, in theory, that's great.
He's presumably proposing that we're all going to be healthy and fit and participation and everything else.
But, you know, throughout time, we've always had hospitals because people have accidents, they have babies, they have diseases that come and go.
So we're always going to need a hospital.
What are these people saying?
They're insane.
And we did a video about it back in 2018 where the Lancet had started promoting carbon taxes and renewables, wind and solar.
Who wants to have heart surgery on wind and solar?
I mean, a cloud goes overhead and your heart pump goes off.
Are you kidding me?
Like these people are sick.
They're sick.
This is the natural progression, though, of this idea that there are too many people on the face of the earth.
Definitely, yes.
Because they don't mean too many of them.
They mean too many of us.
And, you know, so when you see these young environmentalists making a conscious decision to not have children because of the climate and they're self-sterilizing because of climate change, the natural conclusion of this argument is, okay, we've decided to not have people because of their carbon footprint.
Also, let's tidy up the things happening on the end of life because of their carbon footprint.
It makes perfect sense in their minds.
It's horrifying to me.
But for them, it's perfectly okay.
But also, as you were talking there, I'm thinking of the implications for the developing world.
Because if you take the rates of electrification in the developing world, as rates of electrification go up, maternal and infant mortality rates go down.
And so when they say, you know, we need net zero health care, what that means in the developing world is no health care.
And it means women and babies die.
That's all it simply means.
It's a short, miserable life if you're ever born at all.
But I guess when you think there are too many people on the face of the earth, that's probably the ideal outcome.
Yeah, and that's one of the big ironies, I think, of Catherine McKenna and her women leading on climate.
I recently saw a video where she was promoting this whole idea of women are the leaders on climate and women are the ones most impacted by climate change.
And therefore, we should phase out coal to save the women.
And then about half the women in the video are from Africa or other developing nations.
And as I was watching this, I'm thinking, wow, but coal is actually the thing that will elevate the lives of all these people, will make their lives so much easier.
You know, we'll give health to their children, will provide sanitation, pumped water, electricity so that you can do your schoolwork after dark.
I mean, what she's, she's actually just a big eco-colonialist promoting, you know, moving past coal when, again, carbon dioxide is not the driver of climate change.
And by promoting these policies, she's condemning millions of people to death.
Yeah.
I'd love to see Catherine McKenna walk two miles both ways with a jug of water on her head because that's the outcome she wants for these ladies.
Michelle, I want to thank you so much for taking the time to come on the show.
Why don't you let everybody know where they can find the work that you do?
Because I think we're celebrating two decades for Friends of Science spreading the good news of that the sun is the biggest driver of climate change and not you, not your SUV, not your comfortable first world life.
So let people know how they can find some of the work that you do and support you.
And then I'll let you go because I kept you long.
Thank you.
Yes.
Well, first of all, I just want to mention also we have a new report coming out that responds to the Net Zero Advisory Board in Canada.
And that will be posted on our blog in the next couple of days.
And you can help us out by giving us a Christmas gift, give us a donation.
You can go to our website, www.friendsofscience.org, or you can send us an e-transfer to contact at friendsofscience.org.
And we'd love to have a small donation, a big donation, a giant donation, anything you can do to help us out.
If you're broke right now, don't worry about it.
Just share our material.
And as Catherine Hayhoe likes to say, climate, let's talk about it.
So start talking about it, even with people who disagree with you.
And let's open up this debate.
Let's have open civil debate because if that had happened, say in the UK and Germany and Europe, if they had had open civil debate and full cost benefit analysis of those climate policies, they wouldn't be facing the horrible tragedy of the energy crisis that they're facing now.
And that's why we have to make sure that we have open civil debate and full cost benefit on climate and energy policies for everyone.
So thanks very much for having me on the show.
Merry Christmas to everyone and happy new year.
I hope we can find our way out of this mess in 2022.
And thank you, Sheila, for supporting us and always giving us a bit of airtime.
You've got it.
You know, Michelle, you work hard all year long to make sure that everybody isn't in this heightened state of anxiety regarding climate change.
And I appreciate the fact that you take extra care in talking about the little people who are so often inundated in school with climate hysteria and then in the social media that they consume and even on the kids' shows on Netflix and CBC.
They're constantly being scared.
They're constantly being told to feel bad about their life, feel bad about the jobs that their parents do.
And you take extra care in making sure that the little ones have all the facts that they need.
So thank you so much for that.
And here's some more of that in 2022.
Thank you.
And just one closing note then, we did send an open letter to Minister Lagrange and to Jason Schilling asking them to give Christmas climate relief to kids and tell them what I told you at the beginning of the show that Greta said there's no science behind her claim of I want you to panic.
It's actually just a metaphor.
She doesn't want you to literally panic.
Thank you, Sheila.
Then why did she say it?
And why did the World Economic Forum give her a global platform?
Yeah, exactly.
Michelle, thanks so much.
Here's to more good work in 2022.
Thank you, Sheila.
All missed.
Long before COVID came along, I was already meeting my daily required intake of irrational hysteria exposure thanks to television-induced climate anxiety all around me.
That's why I'm so grateful for the work of Friends of Science.
They've done this for nearly two decades, breaking down these big, complex, often overly intentionally complex ideas into bites of information that normal people can understand and then take into their day as arguments.
While everybody else is screaming that the world's on fire, Friends of Science has been telling us to chill out, like a polar bear whose populations are exploding, by the way.
Anyway, 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.