Michelle Sterling and Sheila Gunn Reid expose the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) climate agenda, from its 2020 risks report—prioritizing climate over pandemics—to Greta Thunberg’s fear-mongering rhetoric linked to a suicide. WEF’s "Great Reset" and "Exponential Roadmap" push unrealistic 2030 emissions cuts, while Alberta’s coal (800-year supply) and Quebec’s gas shortages highlight renewable failures. They warn of economic control via carbon rationing tied to vax portals and depopulation rhetoric, like Jane Goodall’s 500-million-population Davos comment, citing delayed healthcare and MAID expansions as consequences. Friends of Science urges $200K by June to counter billions in alleged foreign climate funding, emphasizing WEF’s flawed policies threaten energy reliability and economic stability. [Automatically generated summary]
The environmentalist movement and the World Economic Forum, they're skipping down the road to world domination.
My guest tonight explains how.
I'm Sheila Gunn-Reed, and you're watching The Gunn Show.
You know, my friend Michelle Sterling from Friends of Science has been watching the, I guess, intersection of the World Economic Forum and the UN climate change agenda and the environmentalist movement for a very long time.
For example, before Christmas, she did a really great video on the Friends of Science YouTube channel, wherein she explained how the World Economic Forum was interested in exactly what kind of Christmas tree you plan to have in your house.
And they gave out their recommendations based on the climate footprint of your Yuletide celebrations.
It's that ridiculous, but it is that extent to which these people want to control every aspect of your life, because they can.
They control all the levers of power.
So joining me today in an interview we recorded, well, earlier this morning is my friend, Michelle Sterling from Friends of Science to discuss all things World Economic Forum and how that joins hands with the environmentalist movement to tell you exactly how to live.
Check it out.
So joining me now from her climate cabin in the woods is my friend Michelle Sterling from Friends of Science.
And I wanted to have Michelle on the show because she's been watching the World Economic Forum and the people who pull the levers of power for years.
And the World Economic Forum, their annual meeting of members of the Cabal Coven, maybe is the right way to say it.
That's coming up at the end of May.
And Michelle, tell us why we need to be worried about the world economic forum.
Because even mainstream, sorry, before I cut you off, I just cut you off.
But mainstream politicians are telling us this is a conspiracy theory, that we shouldn't care about any of this.
Well, we should care quite a lot about it because the World Economic Forum, perhaps in its original formation, was a novel way to sort of shape the future of the world in a constructive way.
Probably up until around 2006, at that point, they had identified that a global price, oil price shock would be devastating to the world economy.
They'd also identified that a pandemic would be devastating to the world economy.
So they had created this list of global risks.
Now, somehow in the meantime, they completely forgot about that.
And in 2020, just before the pandemic hit, they had replaced all of these global risks with one, climate change.
So you have to wonder why they did that and who's cashing in on the fact that, yes, there was a pandemic.
And yes, there now is a global oil price shock, in fact, energy crisis worldwide.
So one thing that's interesting is that Al Gore and his Generation Investment Management and Kesta Depot invested in what's called FinTrack companies just prior to the pandemic.
I think it was a couple of years prior.
And of course, these FinTra, or not FinTrack, FinTech, FinTech, pardon me.
And of course, FinTech is financial tech.
So these companies during the pandemic, you know, that were virtually worthless, suddenly exploded in value because everybody had to do things virtually.
And the same for all the big tech companies.
They're all signed on to the great reset.
And they think it's a grand idea.
They love the fourth industrial revolution.
They love that.
So they made literally a killing during the pandemic.
And, you know, when you look at Canada's 2006 pandemic plan, which is a 550-page document, the word lockdown does not appear once in that document.
That was supposed to be our management plan going forward for any future pandemics after the SARS pandemic hit Toronto and Ontario region.
So, you know, I think people should look at the document that was released in the fall of 2019 called Exponential Roadmap, where this group of people associated mostly with the Stockholm Climate Resilience Center and PICS,
the Potsdam Climate Institute, which work closely with the Club of Rome, which works closely with the World Economic Forum in this document, Exponential Roadmap.
They wanted to cut global emissions in half by 2030.
Immediately after this document came out, Mariana Mazzucato, who is the modern monetary theorist economist who has been consulting with British Columbia on their climate plans, she wrote a very influential op-ed saying, you know, if we aren't careful, we'll have to go into climate lockdowns soon.
And immediately after that, in November, the UNEP issued a public statement saying that we're going to have to have economic lockdowns every year for the next decade.
They even issued this tweet and a little video.
I'm pretty sure some people will remember it, called Lockdowns Are Improving the World.
Lockdowns Are Improving Cities.
And in it, they featured a single individual on a skateboard skateboarding through a gutted, empty, dead city, a dystopian nightmare.
And the backlash was so strong that they actually deleted the tweet and took this thing down.
But that tells you that the World Economic Forum is very interested in lockdowns, that they were influential in the lockdowns, that they are all connected to the big tech companies that didn't allow people to question anything.
And that profited by orders of magnitude during lockdowns, while small and medium sized businesses and individuals were gutted and killed and slaughtered by lockdowns.
Lockdowns that never appeared in any emergency plan and lockdowns that even the medical doctor in the States who is widely credited with a big role in eradicating smallpox, he and a couple of other people wrote a paper, which I mentioned in my recent freedom talk.
And in it, they said that lockdowns would have such serious consequences that it should never ever be considered.
Vatican Status for WEF?00:06:36
So we have to think: here's this unelected, unaccountable, transnational organization, the World Economic Forum, which now has host state status in Switzerland, which means it's been elevated to the same kind of global status as, say, the Red Cross.
Or the Vatican.
Or the, yeah, like it's been given, it's been given like state status.
Yeah, and this gives you a kind of diplomatic immunity, it gives you, you know, other kinds of special privileges, right?
And it was in 2015 that they were granted that right after the COP26 or the COP21 conference, yeah, where the Paris deal was made.
So you can see they're also influential in the climate movement.
And of course, who gave Greta a global stage?
The World Economic Forum.
And who then put Greta on the front page of time?
Mark Bainoff of Salesforce, who is part of the World Economic Forum and who owns Time magazine.
And there's a discussion about these people in this book, showing how they're manipulating markets and preening themselves.
And in fact, I've got another book here that I'm just reading.
I just started it.
Davos Man.
How the billionaires devoured the world.
And in the opening part here, the author is talking about how Bainoff was saying that, you know, we CEOs saved the planet during the pandemic because we were such great guys.
And this author is just astounded that he could even think of that when all these small businesses and individuals were suffering terribly.
And he's patting himself on the back because he claimed that, you know, we're essential workers and we saved the world.
So I can't find it right now, but it's disgusting to think that these are the kind of people who are part of the World Economic Forum.
They have no regard for you as an individual.
They don't care about small business.
They want to shape the world in a way that they think will be profitable to them in the future.
And they don't care about you.
Even though in their mission statement, they say that everything that they do is, let's see, where is it?
Here it is.
Moral and intellectual integrity is at the heart of everything that the World Economic Forum does.
So why would you take a 16-year-old girl who's not a climate scientist, give her a world stage, scare millions of children, especially, and also many adults around the world for Greta to say, I want you to feel the panic, the fear I feel every day.
And in 2021, when she was asked about that when testifying to US Congress, Republican Congressman Norman asked her, what's the science behind your comment?
She said, oh, it's just a metaphor.
This is the World Economic Forum who gave this girl a stage to scare people.
And then they claim that moral and intellectual integrity is at the heart of everything the WEF does.
Clintel, the group of over a thousand scientists and scholars who say that there's no climate emergency, they sent a letter to the Swiss government saying that they should remove the host status of the World Economic Forum for this.
Effectively, it's child abuse.
It's a crime against humanity to scare little children in this way.
But you see how powerful these people are.
And like in an individual country, you could probably go after some of these corporations or individuals if they were doing that.
But because it's this transnational, unelected, unaccountable group of people who are very interconnected and have very interconnected commercial interests, you know, there's almost nothing you can do.
It's outside the sovereignty of our laws for most, for the most part.
And I'll stop my rant there, but you can see I'm really burnt up.
No, no, there's so much to unpack there.
And as you're writing, I was making notes.
You know, it's true.
The rhetoric, this fear-mongering rhetoric that the World Economic Forum allowed Greta Tunberg to spew with impunity.
And I say that now, especially because she's an adult.
So she's of age.
So I will spare no criticism at this point.
But people, for example, as you were talking, I remembered a climate activist died after setting himself on fire at the Supreme Court.
And that was, I think, just last month in April, driven by this sort of rhetoric that the World Economic Forum gives platform to.
That's one death, just one.
But we know that people react like this all the time, where they self-sterilize because, you know, the world's going to end.
So why even bring children into this mess?
And, you know, the reason I said, you know, I'm not feeding into conspiracy theories when I say like they're being treated as though they are the Vatican.
I don't mean that in, oh, you know, like the Vatican is this evil cabal.
I mean, no, no, I know.
No, but that's an organization.
Elevated to a holy status where they get this special state status.
And as you were talking, I'm like, oh yeah, there's the savior complex with the billionaires that saved the world.
And that they are the only way, like, you know, that they are the only way forward, which is very religious when you hear about it.
And, you know, as you were talking about the climate change motives of these people, it reminded me of a video that you did, because if you pop open the front page of the World Economic Forum under their climate change section, which I'm always very interested in because these conferences are full of SUVs when they tell me I have to drive an unreliable electric car.
Limiting Global Warming: 1.5 Degrees Celsius00:11:02
They are talking about limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius to avoid catastrophe.
And I was talking about this last week with Tom Harris when he was on the show.
You did this incredible video where you went in your backyard and you put thermometers out and you said, okay, how do you even, how do you even decide what the global temperature is, this average global temperature that we can't go past, when we can't even figure out what the temperature is in someone's backyard?
When you get the temperature on your phone or on your computer and it says, oh, you know, like in Elk Island Park, which is the closest one to me, it's going to be 15 degrees today.
But that's only at that moment at that specific weather station, but literally three feet away.
It can be drastically different.
And so how do they even do this?
How do they scare us with this number when there's no possible way that you can measure it?
Right.
And you can make it more or less simply by adding or removing a few thermometers.
You can say, well, you know, that monitoring station is not operating properly.
And a lot of them actually aren't.
So, you know, but you can remove it from the mix and then therefore you can have a higher or lower temperature average.
And, you know, it's ludicrous.
It's actually not measuring the real temperature.
It's measuring the temperature anomaly based on a 30-year average.
This is what the GISS measures.
And the anomaly measurements are made between stations that are 1,200 kilometers apart.
So you can go to the NASA website and read a piece called the Elusive Surface Air Temperature.
And that's what I based that little video on.
And in it, they say that to actually get a full representation of what a temperature would be in any location, you'd have to have a stack of thermometers 50 feet high.
So, and then you'd have to have those stacks everywhere in that location.
In my backyard, I had a 22 degree difference in temperature between the monitors, thermometers.
You know, it's so fascinating because they keep driving home this like 1.5 degrees or we're all going to die.
But you could just change that by putting the thermometer under a tree.
That's how easily these statistics are gamed.
But they're still writing these huge policies that affect our lives based on this 1.5 degrees Celsius goal.
Yeah, and I even saw Andrew Weaver, who's sort of the king of climate science in Canada, talking on a webinar through the UBC Okanagan.
And in his presentation, he said that the 1.5 degrees Celsius is actually a political target.
It's not scientific.
So the other thing that I was thinking about, I wasn't feeling well a couple of months ago.
And I was thinking, 1.5 degrees, you know, when you got that thermometer in your mouth?
You know, if you go over 1.5 degrees, you're very sick, right?
So they've anthropomorphized this scientific parameter.
And that's why we also see the earth, you know, often with the earth is sick and it's, you know, sweating and it's got a thermometer in its mouth.
I've seen that one too.
Yeah, and an ice pack on its head.
It's got Earth, it's got a fever.
So they've actually, you know, it's a very tricky, subtle psychological ploy, again, to scare the public in something that is quite visceral for people.
You know, some of these little thermometers now, they have a beeper on them.
So if you go above a certain temperature range, it'll beep to tell you like, this is dangerous.
Go to emergency.
Now, I wanted, you touched on something in your initial rant, which I just really, I really enjoyed.
But you talked about just the anti-humanness of or anti-humanity of the World Economic Forum, where they're discussing, you know, well, these COVID lockdowns worked because look, the greenhouse gas emissions went down when we locked everybody in their homes and destroyed their lives.
So let's consider doing this going forward.
And I thought, what an awful thing to advise because the human cost is so great.
I saw this just, it just came out yesterday.
Alberta saw a significant increase in excess deaths during the pandemic, especially among young people.
So these are not people who died of or with COVID.
These are young people who were just dying through suicide, through deaths of despair, through drug overdoses, through delayed loneliness, delayed medical care.
Not because the doctors weren't available, because they were trying to keep the hospitals empty for a surge that never actually came.
And people are literally dying.
So when you say, when you use words like slaughter and they have blood on their hands and death, they do.
These are, this is what will happen annually if we consider doing what the World Economic Forum wants us to do to lower greenhouse gas emissions.
Right.
And you have to, you know, going back to that item I mentioned, exponential roadmap.
If you go through that PowerPoint, you'll find that all of the things that happened during lockdown were recommended there.
They wanted to stop commuting.
You know, they saw transportation as the huge thing.
So what happened during lockdown?
No school buses, no parents driving kids to school, no one going to medical appointments, or very few people going to medical appointments, very few, or a reduction of the huge number of nursing and doctor care staff going to and from hospitals, shutdown of many of the hospital equipment.
You have to realize that the medical community and industry contributes 5% of global GHGs apparently.
And there are Canadian doctors who were contributors to an article in the British Medical Journal calling for net zero health care.
And they want to cut health care emissions in half by 2030.
That's only eight years away.
And in their article, they claim that because of the pivot that was so great during the COVID lockdown, that it should be easy to do this.
Now, the only easy way to do this is to go through hospitals and unplug sick people.
The only easy way to do that is to let sick people live in pain, not treat them, and let them take medical assistance in dying.
I have to say this is an economic consideration that is rippling around the world, this whole idea of net zero health care.
And in the UK, they have a journal called Geriatrics and Climate Change.
And they have geriatrics in a time of climate change, where they're actually measuring elderly people's carbon footprint as an energy user.
So you know what that means?
You're using too much energy.
You've used up your carbon footprint and we don't need you anymore.
You're a useless eater.
You might be someone's grandma or grandpa, but we just don't need you anymore.
This is the kind of thinking that's behind this.
This is a depopulation agenda.
And it's very clear from many of the discussions at Davos that they like the idea of depopulation.
They don't like people.
At the last Davos in 2020, they had Jane Goodall saying, you know, all the climate problems would be solved if we just had 500 million people on earth.
You know how many people that would mean getting rid of?
So, you know, is this whole idea of lockdowns to save the planet a plausible deniability of getting rid of a lot of people?
Getting rid of a lot of people.
When you read the Canadian Medical Association report that Deloitte did, the numbers are staggering.
The people who did not get treatment, did not get home care visits, are food insecure, killed themselves through opioid overdoses, whether accidental or intentional suicides.
And these, you don't have to be an actuary to see the ongoing effects of what lockdown has done to the world population.
And yet people say, oh, look at that.
We saved grandma with lockdown.
We didn't.
We didn't save a single person with lockdown.
We killed a whole bunch of them and we're going to kill a whole bunch more because they didn't get care.
Yeah.
And the damage done to little people, young people.
Yeah, their mental health is all messed up for a long time.
I mean, they're pretty resilient.
I mean, I hope they recover, but a lot of them won't.
Yeah, and we've all heard stories of older people who are in nursing homes that are opting for medical assistance and dying because they're just so lonely and they don't know when the next lockdown is going to come.
There were plenty of stories about that that came out during the pandemic.
And what a loss.
That was somebody's grandma.
Right.
Who was driven to that through government-induced loneliness?
Right.
That's right.
And, you know, of course, the Canadian Parliamentary Budget Office put out a report just before they changed the MAID legislation in Canada, showing how great the savings are if somebody just opts for MAID rather than continuing to live out to the end of their life.
You know, and again, I want to say, as I've mentioned to you before, my brother did opt for MAID.
He was in a chronic declining condition, and I supported his decision.
But, you know, it shouldn't be used as a way just to get rid of people.
Or there's a case right now where there's a woman who's disabled and has some health issues and can't find the right kind of housing on her disability budget.
So her choice is made.
You know, this is what we've driven people into.
We've got a whole bunch of people out there who feel like they have no other choice.
That's it.
And it's people like the World Economic Forum people who have all the power and they're very happy to do this.
Climate War Threatens Energy Transition00:13:59
And, you know, I think we also have to look at the insurers and the unfunded liabilities of many of these pension funds.
You know, we have huge unfunded liabilities in Canadian pension funds.
In the States, it's in the trillions of dollars.
Fraser Institute has a study about our unfunded liabilities.
And these are not being addressed in any concrete practical manner.
And I have to ask the question, is this the solution that these clever kids came up with over at the World Economic Forum to solve this economic problem?
Because if you get rid of a lot of people, then there's a whole bunch of pensions you don't have to pay.
Right?
Yeah, definitely.
I mean, even again, if you go to the World Economic Forum's climate change page, there's this big headline that says, and again, this goes to their anti-humanity.
Russia's war in Ukraine will have a huge impact on the environment.
Here's why.
That's their concern.
That's their concern is how war is going to drive up climate change.
And they say it threatens to slow the clean energy transition.
Oh, yeah.
And it's curious that the World Economic Forum is supporting Ukraine because they're actually based in Davos in Switzerland, right?
They have host state status in Switzerland.
Switzerland traditionally has been a neutral country in all the big conflicts of the world.
But, you know, here's the World Economic Forum and rah-rah, they're right in there for Ukraine.
And I'm saying, you know, it's a tragedy that this battle is going on there, that this conflict is going on.
It's a tragedy that Russia invaded Ukraine.
I'm not discounting that at all.
But I'm questioning why is the World Economic Forum on the side of Ukraine when they're in Switzerland?
And the one thing I can suggest is that it's a climate war because the World Economic Forum wants to have a global price on carbon by 2030.
That's in their little video of, you know, by 2030, you'll own nothing and be happy.
But Russia, of course, is a huge oil and gas producer.
They're supplying most of Europe with oil and gas and coal.
And they wouldn't want to have a carbon price, just like Alberta doesn't want to have a carbon price because it destroys your market, right?
Your profit margins.
So, you know, there's this other kind of climate thing in the background between the World Economic Forum and Russia's interests or the interest of any part of the world that has lots of fossil fuels.
So, you know, it could be that the World Economic Forum is, you know, it's in this little tiny country of Switzerland where most of the money of the world is hiding.
So they have all the money, but they don't have any fossil fuels, right?
So maybe this is their way of getting it.
Maybe this is their plan.
And I believe there is a plan to, you know, make sure that everyone has a personal carbon ration.
So all these people with private jets and big yachts and people who fly to environmental conferences to get an award, these people are the ones who are trying to make sure that you have a personal carbon ration on your vax port so that, you know, maybe you can't buy gas anymore because you surpassed your personal carbon ration.
But, you know, their theory is that, well, that's okay because you can just buy more credits from someone who has some that they haven't used.
You know, so that would change the entire economic structure of the world to an energy economy.
And no one voted for that.
Yeah, I didn't.
No.
You know, and it's interesting when you hear them say, oh, the solution to the skyrocketing energy prices caused by the war between Russia and Ukraine and the stranglehold that Russia has on Western Europe through natural gas exports, the solution to that for these people is an immediate green transition.
So I don't think they actually have a problem with this war, however it shakes out, because for them, the ends justify the means.
And the ends for them is an immediate transition to green energy, not ramping up exports from friendly countries who can put liquefied natural gas in a tanker ship and send it off to Germany, like Australia, like Canada, like the United States.
They don't see that as the solution in any of this.
In fact, they just issued a report today, which is called Fostering Effective Energy Transition.
And that's exactly what they're doing.
They issued that report with Accenture, which is a big sort of accounting firm, global type of accounting firm.
And you'd think that these dummies, since they're supposedly so smart, you'd think these dummies would know that if you're going to make a wind turbine, you're going to need three essential elements, lots of coal, lots of oil, and lots of natural gas.
You can't make them without it.
So to claim that we can go to an energy transition of wind and solar and not use oil, natural gas, and coal is simply ludicrous.
So who are they pulling the wool over the eyes on that ordinary citizens?
But they want this energy transition because wind and solar create renewable energy credits, which are like tradable monopoly money.
So they don't create much energy, but they don't care if you don't have energy.
I mean, look what's happening in the UK now.
I think energy bills are expected to go up something like to £3,000 a year.
A lot of energy providers there have gone bankrupt because they bet on markets at a price that they can't afford anymore.
So, you know, the public there's already had a heat or eat problem for many years.
We had Benny Piser here, I think it was in 2013, and he told us it was called To Heat or to Eat, Europe's Failed Climate Policy.
And at that time, you know, grandmothers and grandfathers were choosing to stay in bed on Christmas Day because they didn't have enough money to heat their flat and they didn't have enough money for a festive meal.
So I think about 3,000 premature deaths have been happening every year there for over a decade because of this heat or eat poverty.
And many children grow up malnutritioned because of heat or eat poverty.
So, you know, these policies literally are killing people.
And in the meantime, you know, we just did an event with Joanne Nova from Australia last couple of nights ago.
And she shows how China is just buying up as much coal and oil and gas as it can buy, you know, laughing at us.
Russia's laughing at us.
So, you know, what are we doing listening to these people from the World Economic Forum who don't even know how wind and solar are made and who predicted in 2006 that a global oil price shock and a pandemic would be devastating to the world economy and then sat back and let both those things happen.
Yep.
Who are these people?
Yeah.
They should be in jail.
Well, and as you were talking about the carbon ration that they would like us all to have, just so people know, this is not a conspiracy theory.
As you were talking, I plugged that into the search engine or the search bar on the World Economic Forum website, just out of the corner of my eye here.
And they are promoting this.
This credit card has a carbon emission spending limit.
So what this credit card that they're promoting does is it analyzes your spending on your credit card and then sort of cuts you off once you get to a certain point.
And one of the ways they do this is through your spending on food.
And you'll never guess, Michelle, you'll never guess.
Meat lovers, according to these people, have a much higher carbon footprint by diet, but your vegetarians and your vegans, much, much lower.
Even though I get even if your avocado has to come from thousands of miles south, the beef that's just walking around in my yard, barely one of those is a higher carbon footprint, according to the World Economic Forum.
So this is not just carbon rationing in your life, but carbon rationing in the most basic fundamental thing that keeps you alive, and that's nutrition.
I think they want us malnourished, and I don't think that's a conspiracy theory.
Well, they want people to stop using more the resources that they use.
They don't want people to fly.
I mean, they had a little contest where they came up with all kinds of aviation posters, and one of them was a plane with the wings snapped off.
And the headline is break the habit.
Well, they sure did that, didn't they?
Yeah.
You know, I'm not really keen to fly anywhere these days.
Are you kidding me?
Have somebody sticking things up my nose, putting me in a quarantine camp.
I don't know, you know, anyhow.
So, you know, you just mentioned that this is not a conspiracy theory and it's not.
You know, the Bank of Canada even has a great reset publication.
And you should know also that the Club of Rome has a publication on the climate emergency.
And of course, their solution is that we should just throw lots of your money at it and build wind and solar farms.
And yet in Recharge, which is a renewables online newspaper, last couple of weeks, they reported that the wind industry is just dying.
It's on its last legs because, of course, you need all this energy to make wind turbines.
You need all the materials.
And the prices of all these materials are skyrocketing as well as the cost of energy.
So it said that some of the major wind turbine producers are actually running at a loss.
They're selling their turbines below cost simply to keep some people employed and to have cash flow.
But, you know, it's a dead end.
It can't go on.
So, you know, it's odd that Accenture and the World Economic Forum are somehow not aware of this reality.
It's odd that the federal government in Canada is not aware of this reality because they're promoting a clean electricity standard for Canada that would be reliant on wind and solar and hydro.
And they think they can hook up a national grid in Canada and that will solve the problem because they think there's so much power in the James Bay Dam that they could just send it to Alberta down a transmission line.
But in fact, Quebec was propped up this winter by Ontario's natural gas because they don't have enough power on the grid, even with the big James Bay Dam.
And why?
Because most houses in Montreal are now electrically heated.
So think what will happen to Canada if we go down this route.
It's insane.
It's just insane.
Yeah, and it is insane, especially when you consider that Alberta is getting off coal and we are the Saudi Arabia of coal.
We have like 800 years of some of the cleanest burning coal under the majority of the province.
It literally comes out of the ground and like you could just kick it out of the ground in some places.
It's so close to the surface.
It's easy to get to, it's clean burning, and yet we're getting away from it and focusing on unreliable and expensive electricity.
Friends of science had a great video sort of over, I think it was over the Christmas break, where you broke down just how little wind and solar energy there is on the grid here in Alberta.
It was like two hours or something during the day over the course of a month that they could have run Alberta on solar or any sort of renewable energy.
Yeah, because people don't realize it's that they always say, oh, well, the wind's always blowing somewhere or the sun's always shining somewhere.
It's not true.
You know, the weather patterns move in and it'll be still all across the prairie sometimes for days.
And then people say, oh, well, storage will help that.
Well, it won't because even the biggest batteries will only give you a few minutes of power.
And they're really just meant for load shifting, like when there's a sudden change in demand or supply.
They can't power the province.
I think one of our professional engineers did a study.
We've got the true cost of wind and solar on our blog.
And I can't remember the exact number, but I think it's something in the trillions of dollars to have battery supply to prop up Alberta.
So at another study, I think it was $69 billion for one cold day in Alberta would be the cost of batteries.
That was Wind's Winter of Discontent, that one's called.
It's on LinkedIn.
Yeah, you know, but it's very complicated to understand the grid.
Trillion Dollar Grid00:06:27
So it's very easy to fool people.
Right.
And so people should have a look at our show with Joanne Nova because it's called How to Destroy a Perfectly Good Grid in a Million Expensive Steps.
And she calls it Australia is the crash test dummy of renewables.
And it really is.
And it's so unnecessary because they have so much natural gas there.
Michelle, thank you so much for taking the time to be on the show today in relatively short notice.
I sort of just sprung this on you.
No problem.
Last night.
My pleasure.
Let us know how people can support the work that you do at Friends of Science, because frankly, you are up against billions and billions of dollars in foreign funding that floods into Canada to, you know, promote the climate scare, as Tom Harris would say.
And you're just a little mom-and-pop grassroots shop of actual scientists trying to spread the word and give people the tools and facts and arguments to take out into the world.
So how do people support you?
How do they get involved?
Well, you can become a member if you like.
Then you get all of our publications, our Kli Sci, our extracts.
These give you a roundup of climate news, science, or politics from around the world that you won't see in the mainstream press.
And you can also just donate.
You can send an e-transfer to friends of contact at friendsofscience.org.
That's contact at friendsofscience.org.
There's a donate button on our website.
And if you can't come up with cash, then you can just share our material.
I will mention it is our 20th year of operation.
We are trying to raise $200,000 by the end of June.
We have 43,000 subscribers on YouTube.
And one of the people in one of our chats said, you know, if every one of these subscribers just gave you guys $12, you know, you'd be doing fine.
So, you know, $12, that's $1 a month.
$20 for our 20 years.
$200,000, $2,000, $200,000.
We'll take it all.
Because as you say, we're up against billions of dollars out there.
But, you know, it's not the money that counts.
What counts is the integrity and the truth, the facts, the full cost-benefit analysis.
And that's what we offer people.
And I cannot recommend your YouTube channel enough.
You take these big, crazy, horrible, overwhelming, I think purposefully complex ideas so that, you know, I think they're purposefully complex so that normal people are like, fine, I don't get it.
You take those big ideas and you digest them down into a way that normal people can understand, but tangible, you know, the impacts of people's on people's bottom line, on their grocery bill, you break that down incredibly.
It's a wonderfully concise way that you do this and often in like four minutes and less.
It's great.
I cannot recommend it enough.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Oh, and we do have a new one, actually, a long one on polar bears.
So you might get a kick out of that one.
I watched it last night when I was working out.
It was great.
It was about the cult of Canute.
I know.
I know, Michelle.
I want to thank you so much for coming on the show.
We'll have you back on again very, very soon.
Thank you.
My pleasure.
Thanks.
You know, Friends of Science, along with the International Climate Science Coalition and a really a small handful of other organizations like Debunk are up against billions of dollars in foreign funding that flows into Canada to block our oil and gas development, to harm our jobs.
and to harm the economy.
And yet they do just incredible work to sort of cut through the emotion and bring you the facts of it all.
Now, this is the portion of the show where I hear from you.
I read your viewer letters.
If you'd like to send me a letter and have it read on air, and I sort of pick these at random, just put gun show letters in your email subject line, and you can send that to Sheila at rebelnews.com and you could have your say.
Let's get to this letter from Steve Ryan.
He writes, hi, Sheila.
I was listening to Wednesday's podcast with Tom Harris, and it sparked my interest on something in regards to Trudeau's eagerness to please his climate change puppeteers.
Has anyone asked Trudeau if he has began the procurement process to convert all federal vehicles to electric and what the cost would be to taxpayers?
You know, it's interesting because Michelle always says stuff like this.
What is the full cost benefit analysis?
And I'm pretty sure that that is not a consideration when they are pushing for all electric vehicles by, I think it's 2030.
We don't have a grid that would even remotely handle that.
But anyways, back to Steve's letter.
The federal government, not including the military, has an enormous amount of vehicles, RCMP, federal agencies, et cetera.
And it would be safe to assume the cost of this would be astronomical.
It's astronomical in ways that people don't even understand quite yet.
For example, I saw an article in Blacklocks.
I'm recording this Wednesday morning, so it came out Wednesday morning, that shows that these electric car chargers that they put for the electric fleet of vehicles that the federal government owns, they are often never, never used.
And this has been something that I have covered in the past where I went and got the usage rates of all these federally erected electric car chargers sort of throughout the Ottawa area.
And they are often never, never used.
And even, you know, when the ministers are allowed to choose their own vehicle that the taxpayer pays for, they almost never, never choose an electric car.
Likewise with, you know, associate ministers and bureaucrats that, you know, where we are covering the cost of their transportation, they almost never, never choose electric vehicles.
Why would they?
They need a reliable car to get around in and do their job.
Those sort of unreliable cars, they're only for the people like you and me.
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.