Tom Harris of iCSC-Canada argues climate policies—costing $3.7T globally over 30 years—have failed to curb fossil fuel use (still 84% of energy) or slow warming (1.2°C since 1880), while diverting funds from critical issues like clean water on native reserves. He dismisses CO₂ as a threat, citing agricultural benefits and Princeton’s Dr. Happer’s findings that doubling emissions would raise temperatures by less than 1°C, and brands the movement a "cult" for suppressing dissent, like Copenhagen’s private-jet hypocrisy. Instead, he pushes regional adaptation, a "carbon levy," and his nonprofit’s science-backed critiques, urging conservatives to reject what he calls a politically driven climate scare. [Automatically generated summary]
How the Climate Crusade hijacked the environmental movement.
I'm Sheila Gunn-Reed, and you're watching The Gunn Show.
You know that it was just very recently Earth Day.
It sort of came and went, and I wouldn't have noticed or cared, except the politicians generally won't shut up about this sort of thing.
But I think that normal people actually don't care about climate change.
They're told by the television and talking heads that they're supposed to care about climate change.
They're told by politicians that it is a looming global crisis.
Actually, we're already basically dying.
The doomsday clock is ticking on humanity.
But I think normal people just trying to pay their bills, buy groceries, pick up the kids, get them to hockey, and save a little money for a rainy day.
I don't think those people care about climate change except insofar as climate policies make their lives a little bit more expensive.
I think normal people care about a cleaner environment, real pollution, not leaving garbage all over the place, no particulate in the atmosphere.
I think normal people care about those sorts of things.
But the idea that the product of your own respiration might be leading to your own demise, I don't think normal people care about that sort of stuff.
And neither does my guest today, Tom Harris of the International Climate Science Coalition.
He joins me today to talk about how the environmentalist movement was hijacked by the climate crusade and why conservatives really should not give a hoot, as he says, about climate change.
Here's the interview we recorded Tuesday afternoon.
So joining me now from his home in Ottawa is my friend and good friend of the show, Tom Harris from the International Climate Science Coalition Canada.
And Tom, you are going to be at what is what the Manning Center conference used to be.
Why don't you tell us about that?
Yeah, exactly.
It's, I believe it's called Proud and Free.
I'm not sure the exact name.
Strong and free.
Proud and free.
There you go.
Okay.
And it's going to be bringing together all the conservative leadership candidates.
In fact, the first night will be a debate between them all.
So that's going to be pretty interesting.
But it brings in real grassroots conservatives from across Canada.
And there'll be a number of booths, one of which is ours.
And we'll be having a big sign saying, very politically incorrect, saying there is no climate emergency.
So, you know, basically telling people, look, if you try and stop it, you're just going to ruin our economy and hurt our most vulnerable people.
And that's what our big banner is going to say.
And we have handouts, you know, describing how the primary cause of climate change is undoubtedly the sun.
So the only effect that we can have is to adapt to climate change.
And, you know, it's interesting, Sheila, I was thinking the climate issue should not even be part of the environment file.
Because if you think about it, if the only way we can handle climate change is through adaptation or building resilience, there's two things.
One is it's not an environmental issue, because indeed we can't control climate change, so our emissions makes no difference.
But the other thing is it's a public works issue, because if we're trying to increase the resilience of society, if we're trying to increase our ability to adapt to whatever climate change occurs, warming or cooling or whatever, it's a public works issue.
And not only that, it's not a national issue at all, because it might be warming in Edmonton or cooling in Ottawa.
You don't have a national policy for climate change.
What you need are regional policies that are with respect to public works.
So the government is wrong totally across the board.
Not only are we not causing dangerous climate change, we're causing practically none, but secondly, it shouldn't even be combined with environment.
You know, they've renamed the environment portfolio environment and climate change, which is a bit ironic because, I mean, if environment was part of climate change, sorry, if the climate change was part of environment, you wouldn't have to say that.
But in fact, they really should get rid of that portfolio entirely.
Climate should be a regional issue where you build dikes if your rivers are overflowing, okay?
Or if there's leak, you know, if the sea level is overflowing in snow removal.
Yeah, exactly.
So, and in fact, global climate is really a silly concept if you think about it.
Why should we be worried about global climate change?
I mean, all it matters is what's happening in your region.
Okay, so you want to adapt to warmer or colder temperatures, more or less rain, more or less flooding, whatever it is in your local vicinity.
So the whole point is that in the leadership debate, I hope, I have a hope for one candidate anyway.
Roman Baba may bring up the right stuff, but the whole point of having a national climate change policy makes no sense at all.
They should have regional adaptation and resilience policies.
That makes sense.
So, you know, I think that the whole focus of the climate movement is pretty ridiculous.
You know, it's interesting.
We were interviewing a physicist by the name of William Happer from Princeton University last week, and he's done some real groundbreaking work on what is the possible impact of a doubling of carbon dioxide from today's levels.
And what he shows through a very complicated and very sophisticated analysis is that it would reduce the amount of radiation going to space by 1%, 1% reduction in the heat energy leaving the Earth, okay, because of a doubling of CO2.
So we're talking about 840 parts per million instead of 420 like we have now.
And so I asked him, I said, what impact would that 1% change in radiative output from the Earth?
What would that do to temperature?
And he explained exactly what it would do.
What it would do is somewhat less than 1 degree Celsius.
Okay.
So we've got what they call a climate emergency.
Thousands of jurisdictions around the world have declared a climate emergency when, in fact, even if we double CO2, we're going to have an increase in temperature of less than 1%.
So I actually asked people, well, if there's a climate emergency, show it to me.
Like, how much do you think the average temperature of the Earth has gone up?
And that's kind of a meaningless statistic, as we just said, who cares.
But how much has that statistic gone up since, let's say, 1880?
And in that time, there's been a 50% increase in CO2.
It turns out it's gone up 1.2 degrees.
1.2 degrees.
That's a climate emergency?
No.
And polar bears, polar bear populations are thriving.
Sea level is not increasing at an unusual rate.
Extreme weather events were mostly, the records were mostly set in the 1930s.
So there's nothing going on in the real world.
The whole climate scare is based on forecasts of the future, forecasts that have not worked so far, and forecasts which, if you do the physics properly, show that the increase in temperature is going to be trivial.
So the whole climate scare, unfortunately, has taken over the environmental movement.
You know, I did a Google search the other day to see, okay, I'll search for Earth Day and climate change.
I'll search for Earth Day and air pollution and various other things.
And it turns out that if you take air pollution, land pollution, ocean pollution, species at risk, and climate change, climate change came up as an association with Earth Day 80% of the time.
And the others were some fraction of the 20%.
And the same thing with Earth hour, the same thing with Environment Day, which is the 5th of June, okay, and Earth month, Earth month is about the same.
So climate change, which is a totally fictitious environmental cause.
I mean, it makes no sense at all.
As I say, it should be a public works issue.
Climate change has come to dominate the environmental movement.
And, you know, anybody associated with the climate scare, when it's finally revealed that people like Dr. Happer are right, and that we certainly have no climate emergency and none forecast either, even with a doubling of CO2, when the whole climate scare becomes disgraced, whoever is associated with it will be disgraced too.
And that includes, by the way, nuclear power, who are using it as a great marketing tool, which I think is kind of sad because nuclear power is important, but not because of climate change.
Right.
And so the environmental movement as a whole should be very concerned about this because their favorite child, you know, their poster child will be disgraced and they will be along with it.
And so, you know, the bottom line is the conservatives are, most of them are making a huge mistake by allying themselves with the climate scare.
Yeah, you know, when you talk about how they measure this sort of stuff, there's a reason why they call you a science denier the second you just scrape the surface of the science of the client, the climate movement.
Why Global Mean Temperature Makes No Sense00:04:26
For example, how they measure this global temperature, which, as you say, is absolutely absurd.
I watched this fascinating video.
And as I describe it, it's going to sound boring, but it's not at all.
By Michelle Sterling at Friends of Science, where she tries to explain to people why this sort of global mean temperature idea doesn't even make sense because she put she and she showed it in the most basic way.
And then as soon as she did it, I was like, yeah, of course.
She put temperature, like thermometers all around her yard.
And it varied wildly all over the place based on where she had the temperature.
And so she said, you know, when you go and you get the weather on your phone or your computer, it's only the temperature at that weather station at that moment, not even five feet away from where the weather station is.
That can vary wildly.
So how can they make these doomsday predictions that if you exceed whatever it is, two degrees Celsius?
1.5 to stay alive.
1.5.
Yeah, 1.5 to stay alive.
Catchy little diddy, that one.
But how do they even know that?
How would you even think to measure that when it's it varies so wildly?
And she said, just to get an accurate snapshot of what the average temperature is in a tiny spot like her backyard, you would need like 30 thermometers way up, sticking way up in the air so that they aren't affected by any of the topography around them.
And so how do they give me this 1.5 number?
They can't.
They just picked it up because it's catchy, right?
That's right.
Well, it's very perceptive of Michelle to do that because in fact, if you think about it, how do they get an average temperature for the whole world?
They have almost no temperature measuring buoys in the ocean.
Okay.
And that's what, two-thirds of the 70% of the Earth.
They have almost none in the high mountains.
They have almost none in Antarctica or Greenland.
You know, there are huge areas of the earth, even in the modern temperature record, that have no temperature data.
And the other point, of course, is that in the 1930s, let's say, most of the world had no temperature data at all.
So, I mean, if you're comparing today, which is incomplete, with, let's say, 100 years ago to talk about the temperature rise in the last century.
How do you do that when you have like 90% of the earth wasn't even covered in the early part of the 20th century?
And the other point is this, and this will blow your mind.
You cannot average temperature.
Now, this is something most people think you can.
You know, if you want to average height, it's equivalent to lining up everybody.
If you want to get an average height of a group of people, you could line them all up on a gymnasium floor, head to toe, head to toe, measure the total height of everybody together, and then divide by the number of people, and you could get the average height, okay?
But you can't do that with temperature because temperature is not that kind of a variable.
It's like density or viscosity.
You can't actually average temperature.
You can average temperature statistic, but it's not a temperature.
What you get is simply a statistic.
I'll give you another analogy.
It's a little bit like taking all the phone numbers in a telephone book, adding them all up and dividing by the number of phone numbers and saying, well, this is the phone number of the average person.
Right.
It doesn't make any sense.
And one of the ways you can test to see if you can actually average any physical parameter is asking yourself, if you took an imaginary number that doesn't mean anything and you divided it by a real number, would you get a meaningful number?
Well, most people would say, well, of course not.
If you start with an unreal number, you know, a number that doesn't mean anything and you divide by anything, it's not going to mean anything.
And that's exactly what happens with temperature, because let's say you add up all these temperatures all across the world and you get some incredibly big number, you know, a quadrillion or something.
And then what?
You divide it by the number of temperature stations?
Well, that intermediate number means nothing.
It means nothing.
Okay.
It's not the temperature of anything.
So the whole concept of average temperature doesn't mean anything.
You can actually say, okay, we can take a statistic and we can average that.
It's not a real temperature.
So the whole point is that I always put global temperatures in quotes because it isn't actually a temperature at all.
Jobs vs. Carbon Scare00:11:23
And we have to, you know, one thing I'd like to do is take a step back and ask how much money has been spent on this climate thing and this climate cult.
And that's essentially what it is.
I mean, it's a cult because, you know, people have to believe in it.
And if you question any elements of it, you're an evil denier.
And I just wanted to read to you a couple of interesting numbers here.
I just scroll up here.
Okay.
Sorry, take you a while.
No, it's okay.
In the last 30 years, there's been an expenditure of 3.7 trillion US dollars on climate measures.
3.7 trillion.
Okay.
And the interesting thing is that the amount of energy that's being generated by alternative energy, wind and solar, has virtually stayed the same.
Right now, there's about 84% of the world's primary energy consumption is coming from fossil fuels.
And how much has that changed?
We put $3.7 billion, sorry, trillion dollars into it, and we've seen no change at all in the fraction of energy that comes from wind and solar.
Now, what has this done to the jobs?
Okay, because we're always told, oh, there's going to be lots of an increase in jobs.
Well, here's a couple of interesting studies.
Spain provided subsidies of more than a million euros, a million euros per job.
And the resulting high electricity rates destroyed 2.2 jobs for every job, green job created.
So they put in a million euros per job to the wind industry and they destroyed 2.2 jobs for every green job created because of the high electricity rates.
Here's another statistic from Italy.
The same amount of capital that creates one job in the green sector in Italy would create 6.9 jobs if it was invested in other industries.
And here's one in the United Kingdom.
For every job created in the renewable energy. by the British government and pouring billions of dollars in, 3.7 jobs were lost in other sectors.
So one of the things they say is that we're creating jobs.
This is a jobs program.
It's a just transition is what they say.
It's a just transition.
You'll just move laterally to be a nipple greaser on the windmill farms of tomorrow.
That's what they say.
You could just quit your drilling rig job, your welding job, your service rig job, and just go work on the windmill farm.
But apparently that's not how it works.
Well, no, and you destroy more jobs outside of the renewable sector than you create in it.
And here's a couple of interesting statistics.
If we wanted to electrify the whole of Canada's economy, okay, we want to move everything to electricity, our cars, our heating, everything.
The cost would be somewhere between $3.6 and $5.9 trillion for Canada.
And that works out to $7,760 per year for every person, every household in Canada.
$7,700.
Can I just take the cash?
And I'm sad to have to tell you, but it'll be much higher in Alberta and Newfoundland and Labrador.
So we're talking about almost $8,000 on average taken per year out of the average household to electrify our infrastructure when in fact, we've spent huge amounts of money.
We haven't succeeded in electrifying to date.
And of course, it's had no impact on climate change.
So, you know, the climate scare has become, as I say, a cult.
And it is now dominating the environmental movement so much that I think even environmentalists should be scared because this will eventually collapse.
I mean, I don't know if it's going to happen in the next five years.
I mean, we're pushing for it to happen as soon as possible.
But in the meantime, I think that people that lead our industry and lead our government have got to take a step back because it will literally ruin Canada if we allow this to continue.
Because, you know, our largest source of revenue, of course, is our natural resources, and it is ruining those natural resources.
And there is an incredible weapon that's available to fight back.
And I'll just show you.
I'll just grab it from my shelf here, just a second.
Things like this.
This is the non-governmental international panel on climate change.
Thousands of peer-reviewed scientific references.
And this is only one volume of four volumes.
I'll be handing out the summary to this.
Good.
It's a small document.
We're going to hand out a summary of this at the conference.
And this is the Sherman tank that people in the fossil fuel industry, people in the government can use to kill the climate scare.
But so far, they're afraid to use it.
And, you know, the sad thing is, I was listening to an audio the other night.
It's called, it's how to take back America from left wingers.
Okay.
It's rules for radical conservatives by David Cahane.
Yes, it's really excellent.
People can listen to it on Audible.
And the analogy that he uses, I think, is beautiful.
He says, imagine your home is being invaded by robbers, okay, and murderers.
They're smashing into your house and you're forced into your back room.
And oh my goodness, look at that.
In your back room, you have a submachine gun, you have a grenade launcher, you got tear gas, you have all the very most modern weapons.
I mean, you could hold off an army with the arsenal that's in your back room.
And the people that are breaking in, they're smashing through your door.
You know, your children are crying.
Everyone's upset.
They're turning to you.
They're saying, use the weapons, use the weapons.
But you say, no, no, I don't think that would be right.
I don't think I'll use the weapons.
And so you and your family all die.
And that's what's happening in Canada.
We have the weapons.
We can show that the climate scare is.
absolutely ridiculous.
You know, the whole concept of controlling climate is like controlling continental drift or something.
I mean, climate is natural change all the time.
There's no question about it.
And we have the weapons to defeat it.
We have leading experts across the world.
William Happer, I was just quoting, you know, saying that the very most we're going to see with a doubling of CO2 is one degree C.
And, you know, so why won't we use the weapons?
We would rather see Canada die and our children, you know, massacred in the analogy than use the weapons that are available to us.
So what I'd like to see is not Pierre Polyo saying, oh, we're not going to have a carbon tax.
We're going to have carbon sequestration.
You know, it's a cost of fortune.
Or we're going to have other attempts to try to reduce greenhouse gases.
Well, no, Pierre, you're using like a nail clipper to try and defend your family.
You've got an arsenal there.
You have an arsenal of automatic weapons.
Let's use them and kill this climate scare.
Stop the home invasion.
But they won't do it.
Industry, the same thing.
They're prepared to let their industries die rather than use the weapon.
It's totally crazy.
You know, and I think, I think, as much as I hate inflation, it is really waking people up to the cost of these climate policies in their real life and how it's snatching money out of your family.
And for what?
For what?
You know, they've been telling us the world's going to end for 20 some odd years.
We're still here.
The doomsday clock keeps getting moved like any good doomsday cult.
They just the doomsday doesn't come.
They just move it.
And I think the inflation and that in the middle of sky-high inflation, they hike the carbon tax.
A lot of people are opening up their eyes and saying, look, the TV tells me I'm supposed to care about climate change.
The politicians tell me I'm supposed to care about climate change.
In your home, you don't actually care about climate change.
It's the last thing on the list of things that you care about.
But you know, because somebody keeps telling you you're supposed to care about climate change that it costs more money to fill up the minivan.
And I think normal people are starting to sort of harden their hearts against the whole climate scare, I hope.
Well, that's right.
And, you know, I think that there is an easy way for the conservatives to start fighting back in a, you know, I know they're very timid and they're afraid to contest the science, but one thing they should stop doing is calling it a carbon tax.
They should stop calling it a carbon footprint.
It's a tax on life.
Yeah, exactly.
It's a carbon dioxide tax.
It's a carbon dioxide footprint.
And that's important.
You know, one of the main keys to taking over society, we saw it in the book 1984, is language, how you use language.
And in fact, there was a whole 10-page appendix at the end of 1984, specifically on what they called NewSpeak, okay, and how they would actually control the thinking patterns and behavior of the population with language.
And language, you know, is a weapon of war.
I mean, it's very, very important.
So the conservatives should stop using the language of their opponents.
Don't call it carbon tax.
Call it carbon dioxide tax.
Call it carbon dioxide.
Well, don't call it carbon dioxide pollution because it's not pollution, but call it carbon dioxide every single time.
Because then people will remember, oh yeah, carbon dioxide, like grade five, oh, that's important for plants.
Okay.
And then that'll make people dig a bit deeper and ask themselves, well, what has been the real impact of carbon dioxide rise in the last, let's say, since 1940?
And here are the stats.
Since 1940, 40% of the increase in wheat yield has been caused by the carbon dioxide.
30% of the increase in soybean yield has been increasing carbon dioxide.
So why do we want to return to pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide for a fictitious climate emergency and thereby reduce our crop yield by billions and billions of dollars?
Driving up the cost of food, by the way.
There's your inflation one more time.
Yeah.
And I was watching your interview last week.
What was the fellow's name?
Oh, Cosmo and Giergia from True New York.
Yeah, that was really interesting and how they're penalizing farmers now.
You know, so I mean, as long as the climate scare continues, you're going to see progressively more and more people in society suffering.
Some people think, oh, it's just the fossil fuel industry.
But what about all the industries that rely on fossil fuels?
The trucking industry, the metallurgical industry, the mining, and cement, of course, is a major producer of fertilizer.
That's right.
So I always say that until the climate scare is killed, and I don't just mean killed because we have some other plan.
I mean killed because it's not real.
Okay.
Things like this show you that there's no climate emergency at all.
And CO2 is a good thing.
Until it's killed, we're going to see death by a thousand cuts.
I mean, we're going to see sector after sector after sector die in Canada, jobs lost, the jobs shifted to China, who don't care a hoot about environmental emissions, of course.
And our country just basically go down the drain.
So yeah, I encourage all conservatives, call it carbon dioxide.
That's step one.
Recycling Myths00:11:09
And then from now on, don't talk about a global temperature.
First of all, because global temperature, if it existed, doesn't even matter.
I mean, who cares what a sort of global average is?
There's no super being experiencing global temperature.
You experience temperature in your region.
And so that's important to look at.
Is it getting hotter?
Is it getting colder?
You know, is there more rain?
Whatever's happening, work at adaptation.
And that, again, is public works.
It's not environment at all.
No, besides inflation, there's one more thing that I think might open people's eyes to just the absurdity of all of this.
And that is the single-use plastics ban.
Yeah.
You know, when you're at McDonald's and you get your iced coffee, and I know this is a stupid thing to complain about, but I can't get over the absurdity of it.
They give me the plastic cup with the plastic lid that I'm going to throw in the garbage because I think recycling is a scam.
And they, then they give me a paper straw coated in paper to stuff in there.
And nobody thinks that that is weird.
Nobody, you go to Walmart and they're like, oh, Sheila, you can't have plastic bags in here anymore.
But I'm like, I go home and I've got to fire up the burning barrel because everything I bring home is like double wrapped in plastic and packaging.
And it's just this enormous pile of junk that goes on top of the goods and services that you buy.
And I just pack it out there and burn it.
But then they tell me that I can't have a plastic bag, which I don't know.
You have to be a liberal, by the way, if you think that nobody reuses those plastic bags under my desk.
Yeah.
Here's my Walmart bag that's sitting in my garbage can.
Yeah, exactly.
Only a liberal uses those ones.
You take your dog for a walk, they're great for picking stuff up.
And you know, it's interesting, Sheila, because the whole recycle movement should really be revisited.
I mean, if we look at some things like glass, I can remember years ago when I worked in the House of Commons, there was a study put out by a Swedish group that showed that recycling glass was worse for the environment than just simply throwing the glass in the landfill.
Because aside from the dye, the main material in glass is just sand.
Sand, yeah, exactly.
So, I mean, it breaks up into the goes back into the ground.
So, what?
But they did the calculation and they showed that when you gather glass all around the city and you clean it and you try, you know, melt it down or do whatever you're doing with it, the energy you use is actually producing pollution.
And the net result is that it's worse than just throwing it in a landfill.
So, there's many things in the environmental movement that have become almost like a religion, like a cult.
People stop questioning.
You know, one of the things that I think that people have got to start questioning is the whole concept of should we conserve energy?
Well, yes, if energy is scarce, okay, or expensive or expensive.
But, but you know, the whole idea that there is this kind of religious zeal that we have to conserve, we have to conserve water, okay?
Well, if you're living in Tahiti and it rains every afternoon and there's waterfalls everywhere, you can use water just to play in.
I mean, there's no reason to conserve water.
Similarly, why should you reduce pollution if it's not a problem?
Okay, in the city of Ottawa, for example, pollution has been going down with the exception of ozone, which has been showing a slight rise for many, many years.
So, why should we reduce pollution in Ottawa?
I can go out running even downtown, and it doesn't give me any troubles at all.
Unlike Pasadena, let's say in the 1970s, you know, I went there in the 70s and LA today.
Yeah, the horizon was brown, okay?
And in fact, I was thinking of going to the Pasadena Institute, let's see, the California Institute of Technology, and I talked to some of the grad students and everything.
And they said, Well, when you work out, don't play tennis or work out at noon, or you will be sick, literally sick.
And that, of course, was in the 70s.
They've hugely cleaned it up, and so it's not like that at all now.
And Ottawa has never been like that.
So, I mean, the whole idea that there's some sort of a religious fervor to reduce pollution and conserve resources.
No, you do it where it's practical, you do it where it's necessary.
And so, even on that side of the environmental debate, pollution reduction, et cetera, we have to balance it with what does it cost to reduce pollution?
Is it worth it?
Is it really a problem even right now?
Well, in Ottawa, it certainly isn't.
So, I wouldn't put any money into reducing pollution in Ottawa, for example.
So, yeah, the environmental movement should not be this kind of fundamentalist religion.
It should be based on common sense.
And common sense says, in the case of the glass and the Swedes, don't recycle glass.
It says, Don't worry about pollution if it's not very high.
And don't give a hoot about climate change.
One of the saddest things is that I have a friend who works in water resources across the river in Gatineau, and he said that as the climate funding has gone up, up, up, the funding for water resources has gone down.
And we still can't solve the problem of fresh drinking water on native reserves.
I mean, good grief.
You know, if you spent the $110 billion that the Liberals have spent since 2015 on the so-called transition to new energy sources, which is a total waste of money, imagine what you could do with that, with real environmental concerns, with drinking water, et cetera, for the natives, for example, or simply not taxing us so much.
I mean, there are many important things that we can do with that money.
Climate change is not one of them.
Yeah, I, you know, I often muse that I think recycling is a scam because I'm pro-incineration.
You look at plastic.
That's just a completely inert stored fossil fuel.
The beauty of it is you get to use it once for its original purpose, and then you can just incinerate it for electricity, which interestingly enough is what they do in Burnaby.
Burnaby, where they're protesting the Transmountain pipeline all the time, they have an incinerator that burns garbage and creates electricity.
So all the pipeline protesters, they're plugging in their phones into the wall to send out tweets about how bad oil is with charging their phone on burned garbage.
Yeah.
And I'll give you another example.
There are things called used oil burners.
Okay.
These are very, and Clean Burn, I believe is the name of the company that makes used oil burners.
And they actually burn used oil in garages.
You know, otherwise it's considered waste.
They burn it to heat the garage and it's burned very, very cleanly.
And they were trying to get them accepted across Ontario a few years back.
I was working actually in a communications company concerning them.
And but the government had friends who were working in the oil recycling business.
Every time.
And so guess who got the support?
But the fact is there was no reason to recycle the oil if you bought a clean burning device that could heat your garage.
It was just a natural use of used oil.
I would buy one of those right now.
Yeah.
And actually, the environmental movement has got to the point where if you go to a Greenpeace or Ecology Ottawa or any other kind of event, and you get up to the mic and you say, well, you're worried about the end of snow in Canada, but did you realize that the snow levels have been increasing gradually for decades?
And that's exactly what I did do, by the way, at an Ecology Ottawa event.
And I got booed and yelled at, people shaking their fist because this has become a fundamentalist religion.
And like you were saying in your last interview, they don't care what the facts are.
You are the enemy.
You are bringing out things that are inconvenient truths.
Well, let's bring it out constantly.
Let's bring it out every single time we hear this nonsense.
Let's say, A, it's not pollution.
B, it's actually plant food and it's a great thing.
And I don't give a hoot about global climate.
All I care about is what's happening where I live.
And where I live, there's no problems.
So forget it.
You know, and that's the thing.
The politicians and the people who keep screaming in my face about climate change, they don't really care either.
Because when you look at how they actually live, they don't care.
I just got an access to information return back from the Environment and Climate Change Ministry about the ministerial use of cars there and their executive vehicles are the ones the chauffeur drives them around.
You know, if these people actually lived like they cared about climate change, I would at least think that I would maybe take them a little bit more seriously.
I wouldn't take climate change more seriously, but I would think of them as honest individuals at least.
I would fundamentally disagree with them and their religion, but at least I would respect the sincerity of their belief.
But they don't believe it either.
Well, that's right.
And you know what the world's biggest meeting in history was?
It was the Copenhagen Climate Meeting.
Okay.
They had more world leaders.
They had 30,000 people.
This was apparently, at least at that time, I'm not sure if it still is, but it was the largest meeting of world leaders in history.
Copenhagen's airport was jam-packed with private jets, commercial jets.
As I said, 30,000 people showing up for a climate change meeting in which they were preaching, not flying.
Every time, every time.
Completely insane.
That's one of the things I always look at when we go to the climate change conferences is I look at the attendance.
So that's people flying from all around the world to tell us not to frivolously waste fossil fuels.
And then I also go to the parking lots because I see all these limos and cars idling all day long to make sure that the dignitaries are comfortable while scolding me about the use of my SUV.
Well, that's right.
And the funny thing about Copenhagen is the Al Gore effect was full blast.
It was the coldest December they'd had in Copenhagen in decades.
And of course, they call that the Al Gore effect because wherever he goes, it gets very cold.
And the sad thing was you had Africans there who had spent a king's ransom to get to Copenhagen.
And because the Bella Center didn't expect the whole 30,000 people would show up, they only had enough space for 15,000 people.
So I got there early, fortunately.
And so I got in.
We caused some nice trouble there by going into their press room and getting some inside information.
Lisa got in.
Yeah, exactly.
But these poor Africans, having spent enormous amounts of money to get to Copenhagen, were in lineups for eight hours and more, and many of them didn't even get in.
In fact, I think that many of the protesters outside, they show big protests on the street.
These are probably mostly third world delegates who couldn't get into the conference, who were just really angry.
Exploratory Journeys' First Newsletter00:04:15
But yeah, the whole idea of, you know, we are the master controllers of climate.
I mean, it is really pretty silly.
And the sad thing is people are just afraid to say so.
You know, they constantly say, well, we don't put out as much emissions as China, which is true.
Of course, China puts out twice as much as the United States and they have no limits.
But in the final analysis, who cares?
Thank you.
Yeah, it really does matter how much pollution they put out.
Yes.
Particulate for sure.
Yeah, the Asian brown cloud will drift across the Pacific and actually increase pollution levels on the west coast of North America.
But I don't give a hoot how much CO2 China produces.
And clearly they don't either, because they are insisting on remaining defined as a developing country, which gives them an out clause so they never have to reduce carbon dioxide.
So yeah, I hope on Thursday night we're not going to hear the conservatives saying, no carbon tax.
Do my plan instead.
Yeah.
No, we don't need any darn plan and use your weapons to defeat the people breaking into our home and trying to destroy our economy.
Yeah.
No carbon tax, except my carbon levy instead.
Word games, right?
Now, Tom, I could talk to you all day, but you're busy, I'm busy.
How do people support your carbon apostasy?
Well, the best thing is to go to icsc-canada.com, icsc-canada.com, and you can put in an email address.
And we just put out our first newsletter because we're a new nonprofit group.
We put out our first newsletter last night.
I'll be happy to send you a copy.
Please.
And of course, at the bottom of our newsletter, like any good nonprofit, we're asking if you can give a donation to help us defeat the climate scare before it defeats Canada, which it's on the verge of doing if these things just continue with no resistance.
Tom, you do this every time I have you on the show.
You forget to plug your own podcast, which I think is very interesting.
Yeah, exactly.
Well, we have another, we have a podcast and a radio show.
Our podcast is called Exploratory Journeys.
You go on icsc-canada.com and you click under resources.
You can see exploratory journeys.
The other thing is on the America Out Loud Network.
Dr. Jay Lair and I, we were interviewing Dr. Happer last week from Princeton, and he's the one that gave me the information about radiation and stuff.
That we get an interview like every single week on americaoutloud.com.
And you can click under shows and you'll see the other side of the story, which is our show.
And I really encourage people to listen to the William Happer interview from last week.
It's the most recent one on the other side of the story because he gives you the kind of facts that you need to defeat that noisy brother-in-law who goes on and on about climate change, but is totally wrong.
So, so yeah, dude, check it out.
Both Exploratory Journeys and The Other Side of the Story.
Well, that's great, Tom.
Thanks so much for coming on the show.
Good luck at the conference.
I know there are some green conservatives there, so be on the lookout.
That's right.
I'll load them up with these books.
That's right.
And hopefully, we can have you back again on the show very, very soon.
Okay.
Thanks, Sheila.
Thanks, Tom.
Bye bye.
Here's the portion of the show where we reach out to you for your viewer feedback.
And if you'd like me to read your letter on air selected completely at random, here's your way to do that.
Just send me an email to Sheila at RebelNews.com and just put in the subject line gun show letters so that I can find it very easily in the hundreds of emails that I receive every single day.
It just makes it a little easier for me to search and then just stick my finger on the screen and select it at random.
So this is my letter for this week.
And it's actually, as I said, I select these at random, but I've actually read a letter from this person before.
Vaccines And The Pandemic Petition00:03:49
It's from Catalan Radolescu.
And I'm going to guess that that is a Romanian last name, someone who has obviously fled communism.
I'm guessing.
You'll correct me if I'm wrong.
Catalan writes, Hello, Sheila.
I learned that the Honorable Aaron Stewart, a BC MP, initiated a petition E3871 to the House of Commons in Parliament calling for an independent and objective investigation into the government's use of vaccine mandates and ignoring of alternative treatments.
You can see the petition at the link below.
Now, I pop open that petition and it's actually a petition from that's sponsored by Mel Arnold.
He's a BC MP, a conservative BC MP from North Okanagan-Shushwap.
And actually, we learned about this petition a while ago.
And Drea Humphrey, our BC-based reporter, reached out to Mel for an interview on his petition because it's an interesting petition and it's a bold idea.
And it's an attempt to hold the government to account for their laser focus on vaccines as the only way to treat or prevent COVID-19 as opposed to a whole host of alternative treatments that were available in other nations all across the world.
But Mel didn't get back to us.
Anyway, let's take a look at his petition really quick here and then we'll get back to your letter.
So it reads, whereas the government's COVID-19 pandemic exit strategy almost solely depends on experimental drugs, vaccines, available through emergency interim orders from Health Canada for use only during the COVID-19 pandemic, Canadian patented lipid nanoparticle technology is integral to the mRNA vaccines, but has a complicated and non-transparent presence.
And medical treatment in Canada has become politicized in that non-medical professionals are providing medical advice and Canadians are being intimidated into obtaining health services to end the COVID-19 pandemic.
We, the undersigned concerned Canadians, call upon the House of Commons in Parliament to call for an independent and objective investigation into the government of Canada's use of vaccine mandates, the patented Canadian lipid nanoparticle technology, and the multi-year agreement securing significantly more vaccines than there are citizens in Canada.
Yeah, that is kind of fishy, right?
Let's keep going.
Investigate whether a federal restraint of trade and biasing of the market occurred when the government of Canada announced that only vaccines would get us through this pandemic, delayed and suspended approval of vaccines not licensed to use the LNP technology, and discredited all medical treatments not related to vaccination.
That's true.
The federal government severely delayed approval of non-MRNA vaccines like NovoVax, which is more of a traditional vaccine in the sense that we know vaccines to be prior to whatever it is that they describe these things as vaccines now.
Number three, ensure no market allocation occurred by making vaccines the only option for treating COVID-19.
Ensure there was no inappropriate interlocking directorates between manufacturers, technology licensors, and the government of Canada.
Determine whether there was a suppression of information and coercion by forcing citizens into a single scenario without proper market forces to provide alternatives.
That's an interesting one.
And determine whether any government body or officials benefited financially in any way from sales of vaccines licensed to use the lipid nanoparticle technology or extended the pandemic to increase the sales of MRNA vaccines.
That is a very interesting petition.
An Interesting Petition00:01:22
It currently has 14,288 signatures as of 2.55 in the afternoon on Tuesday, May 3rd, as I'm filming this.
I want to keep reading this email from our emailer, Catalan.
They continue to write, unfortunately, it only has eight more days to go.
It closes on May 8th, 2022.
So that's actually only five more days to go based on when I received this email and when I'm reading it now.
Could you please try to make the public aware of this?
Perhaps we can get more people to sign it.
Well, I just read the petition, so you tell me.
Thank you for your consideration, Catalin.
Well, that is a very interesting petition.
It does have 14,288 signatures.
I'm surprised, actually, that it is that high.
Usually these sort of things are suppressed on the internet, as you know.
So that is good to see.
I'd love to see it get a little higher.
Well, everybody, that's the show for tonight.
Thank you so much for tuning in.
I'll see everybody back here in the same time in the same place next week.
If you'd like to have your letter read on air, your opportunity to do that is by sending me an email to Sheila at RebelNews.com.
Put gun show letters in the subject line.
Thanks to everybody in the office for putting the show together.