Michelle Stirling of Friends of Science exposes how YouTube, Facebook, and the UNPRI—backed by Al Gore and Big Tech’s renewable energy deals—flag climate skeptics as "misinformers," despite flawed data like Alberta’s Chinook wind distortions. She debunks the climate catastrophe narrative, citing mental health risks in The Lancet and Canada’s 2030 decarbonization fantasy requiring eight new dams. Friends of Science’s open letter ties high immigration to unrealistic climate goals, clashing with groups pushing "climate refugees" while ignoring immigrants’ carbon footprints. The UK’s Institute for Strategic Dialogue labels skeptics—including herself, Moore, and The Guardian—as disinformers, despite foreign funding ties, proving censorship thrives under the guise of "responsible investment." Open debate, not emotional manipulation by figures like Greta Thunberg, is the only path to truth. [Automatically generated summary]
Big Tech is censoring climate skeptics and Justin Trudeau is censoring your plastic straws.
I'm Sheila Gunn-Reed, and you're watching The Gunn Show.
YouTube and Facebook have been slapping these bizarre warning labels on the content of climate change skeptics.
And by skeptics, I don't mean denier, although the other side of this argument uses those words interchangeably.
I mean people who don't think that your SUV will result in the end of all humanity.
These are people who think that maybe humans contribute to climate change, but also it might have a lot to do with that big burning ball of gas in the sky we call the sun.
Anyway, YouTube and Facebook are accusing these organizations of spreading misinformation, but it's not just organizations, it's content creators of all sorts.
But I think as they say, the phone call is coming from inside the house.
Friends of science, as you know, is an organization comprised of actual scientists, analysts, and professional engineers.
They've been subject to the special tagging of their videos and their posts, warning potential viewers and readers that Friends of Science may be guilty of the crime of getting the science wrong.
The tags direct viewers to United Nations links about the political aspect of climate change, and they also push people towards studies showing an increase in recent local temperature data.
However, the pros at Friends of Science, known for digging into data and actually reading the data, well, they dug into it and they saw that the data that big tech oligarchs have been using to fact check skeptics, well, they discovered it was either wrong or specifically labeled not for use in the defense of climate science.
Michelle Sterling from Friends of Science joins me tonight to discuss the organization's 20-year-long fight for open civil discussion and the climate misinformation currently being spread by Silicon Valley.
Plus, we're going to touch on Justin Trudeau's latest attack on clean, sterile, single-use plastics.
So joining me now from her climate cabin in the woods is my friend Michelle Sterling from Friends of Science.
Now, Michelle, I wanted to have you on the show really quick because it's in the news right now.
Justin Trudeau is banning beautiful single-use plastics and single-use plastics helped us get through the pandemic, but now, you know, we have to destroy that industry in the name of virtue signaling.
You had a very interesting take on it.
I see this as an attack on oil and gas.
It's just a proxy war on oil and gas.
But you dug a little bit deeper and you see this as a demarketing strategy, which seems to be the strategy of the left with everything.
Yes.
Thanks for having me on the show.
And I'm not a plastics expert.
I refer people to the video that we have with Dr. Patrick Moore on our YouTube page.
But regarding what's happening, if you start looking at climate change and at all these regulations and all these new things, like whether it be EVs or whether it be plastics that can be decomposed and things like that, if you see it from a marketing perspective, that there's somebody out there with an idea that's not selling.
So what do they do?
They demarket the useful product that is already selling.
They make it disgusting or useless or going to kill your grandma, as you just mentioned.
And then they say, and here's the solution.
So if you see climate change and all of these product interventions and government legislation as a marketing intervention, then things start to make more sense.
And I think it would be interesting if people were making complaints to the Competition Bureau and following the money trail.
Who is invested in these new products?
Who's behind it?
Because we have an item on our website by Albrecht Glatzel about the war on meat called to eat meat or not to eat meat.
That's the planetary question.
And he followed the money on things and found that the World Wild Fund and Greenpeace are often in this certification business.
And if you look behind the scenes, there's also a commercial element for them.
Oh, that is very interesting.
But, you know, it changes the way you even think about the carbon tax, you know, because it's just a demarketing strategy to get people away from cars that work and put them into cars that don't for half the year.
Get people out of electricity that works and have them use electricity that doesn't because the product is flawed.
So you have to demarket the other thing.
That's right.
And also when you look in the background, like for instance, with Nature Conservancy, I think they're called Nature United now.
They joined forces with someone.
Anyway, they have this thing called the Darkwoods Project in BC.
It's an old growth forest that they've been protecting for some time, but now they're selling carbon credits on it.
And Shell Oil is buying carbon credits there to make themselves look virtuous.
But if you look at the CRA records, this organization, Nature Conservancy, got $52 million or more dollars in revenues from the governments of Canada.
So I suspect that they're buying carbon credits from these guys on this old growth forest that was already protected.
There was no additionality.
Not to mention that old growth forests do not absorb carbon dioxide.
They absorb carbon dioxide when they're young forests, when they're about 20 years old.
They're really growing.
So it's all a big scam and it's all a big demarketing ploy.
And lots of people are making money off you for no reason whatsoever.
In fact, I like to tell people, you know, that it's the lack carbon markets are the lack of delivery of an invisible substance to no one.
And here, I'll sell you some carbon dioxide.
Why Carbon Markets Are a Scam00:12:02
You want to buy it?
Because here it is.
It's here for you.
I'm selling it.
You know, you have a couple of really great videos where you actually discuss just that, this sort of public hysteria for this thing that once you look back in retrospect, you're like, that was the stupidest thing we've ever done.
And it's called, you know, in the past, the hysteria was tulipomania.
Maybe you can explain that a little bit.
Yes.
Well, in Holland in the 1600s, tulips began to be imported from Turkey and people lived a very simple life at that time.
You know, you might have a chair in the house.
That would be good if you had a chair.
So these tulips were almost magical.
They were so beautiful.
And they found that people wanted to buy these beautiful tulips and make a garden.
And of course, we do that today.
We know how much pleasure that brings.
But they started trading in the offsets of the tulip bulb.
So they were betting money on bulbs that actually had not yet been propagated by the end of this scam.
So the tulip bulb had not even been planted.
Had not created any new offsets, and people were buying and selling this for the price of a ship, the price of a house.
And of course, at some point, it all fell down.
And I think in the end, the outraged Dutch citizens did in their prime minister and ate him.
So it was pretty brutal at the end.
I'm pretty sure that's connected to tulipomania.
It's a very well-known thing in investment circles.
And there's many other instances: the dot-com bubble, also in history, the Mississippi scheme, this, the what is it called?
The South Sea bubble.
These investment schemes have bankrupted countries.
And so you know where we're heading with carbon trading.
That's where we're heading for the world.
It's bankrupting countries in the world and certainly citizens.
I have no plans to eat, Justin Trudeau.
I just want to put that on the record.
But I wanted to talk to you about some of the things you are doing at Friends of Science to punch back against social media.
So I guess we'll start with YouTube.
YouTube slaps a warning label on all of your content underneath it and advises people to go visit the UN because they seem to be the authorities on this issue.
So you fact-checked YouTube.
Tell us about that.
Well, you know, when you go to the UN page, first of all, UN is not a scientific body and everything on the page is in very simplistic terms and wrong.
So, you know, we just walked through them all and found that everything that they said was wrong and put up the right information.
So we have a little PowerPoint and video on that.
You know, and it's amazing because these companies are claiming that they're going to stop disinformation and everything when they're actually putting it out there.
And we did the same thing actually on Facebook because Facebook was my favorite because Facebook provides a link for you to visit so you can see the real-time climate data for your region of the world.
So you thought, you know what?
Let's click on it and see what's what.
And you debunked why it was so crazy.
Yeah, well, you know, they show this temperature average.
And of course, the graph is going up, but it's a very short period of time.
And then when you go and look at the scientific reference that they use, right in that scientific reference, it says this study should not be used for climate change science.
And then they go on to explain that, particularly for Alberta, despite them having this historic record of climate, they can't really evaluate temperature ranges in Alberta because of our proximity to the Rockies.
And they use some complicated scientific terminology there.
But, you know, I show that you can actually go to the downtown Marriott Hotel in Calgary, stand in their lobby, look at this beautiful picture of a Chinook sky.
And underneath there's a little panel that says temperature change in Chinook conditions, which are these very hot winds that come off the Pacific and over the mountains and then descend.
Temperature changes can be as much as 5.5 degrees Celsius and the temperature can change 30 degrees in a matter of hours.
And so this is why the people who wrote the actual scientific paper that Facebook relied on, this is why they say don't use this for climate change science because we don't have a proper record of temperatures in this region.
But, you know, that didn't phase Facebook.
And then further, when you look at the Facebook story, you wonder, well, why would these social media companies be so keen to prop up the climate catastrophe narrative?
Well, in fact, that's because they've attracted all these environment social governance investors.
And that entirely is based on the UNPRI stating that climate change is our highest priority.
And Al Gore is their fiduciary guru.
And the social media companies are buying renewable energy credits, making long-term power purchase agreements with renewable energy companies.
And so in this way, they look clean to investors.
They're able to get all kinds of public subsidies.
They can write off a lot of this stuff.
And they can claim that they're 100% green when in fact, they're big hogs.
They're energy hogs.
YouTube and Facebook are energy hogs.
There's no way that they're 100% renewable.
So who's misleading and misinforming the public?
And yet, if you posted a video saying just that, just a video of you clicking through Facebook's warning and reading their warning verbatim, going through and showing, you know, this is what they say and why they say we shouldn't use this for climate science, that video too would get slapped with a warning.
Yeah, well, so far we haven't posted it to Facebook, but we'll see.
But I mean, it's taken off.
Lots of people are really interested.
We posted it yesterday afternoon.
I think it's got about 14, 1500 views already.
So, you know, and people, I think, are quite interested to know.
I think most people feel that there's something wrong.
Like, why are they so protectionist about this?
On the one hand, Mark Zuckerberg says, oh, we've got to have open free speech and, you know, we want things to be in the public interest.
Well, for instance, isn't it in the public interest that Greta Thunberg testified to the U.S. Congress that there's no science behind her statement, I want you to panic.
Isn't that in the public interest?
And wouldn't it be in the public interest to slap a warning on everything that she has put on Facebook?
No, they're not going to do that because they're actually protecting their commercial turf.
And I suspect under some competition bureau or federal trade act regulations that that might be some kind of a non-compliant thing to do.
Well, because you're basically, you know, blocking a market and promoting yourself without saying that you are.
Well, and as you were talking there, I thought, you know what, maybe her content does need a warning because we know that climate anxiety in kids, it's a thing now.
It's really happening.
It is a worrisome thing where you have kids who are already under two years of lockdown.
And a lot of them in those years where they are dark and sullen anyway in their teenage years.
And now they're being told that the world is going to end and only they can save it.
It's causing mental health issues.
And this isn't just me speculating.
It's a real thing right now.
Just in front of me right now, there's an article in The Lancet about climate anxiety in children and young people about the government responses to climate change.
Yeah, no, it's a very serious problem because, of course, also you're imposing upon children this demand that they solve it when no one can solve climate change, first of all.
Secondly, you're making them hate their parents because they think that their parents are evil people who foisted this upon them and that they don't care, which is completely untrue.
And you're also distorting history because, you know, like just the other day, Chris Hatch, who is the husband of Sappora Berman, came up with an article on the National Observer saying bodies per barrel and how some climate group has come up with some calculators how many people will die from global warming because of fossil fuels.
Well, everyone would be dead right now because of no fossil fuels.
You know.
You look at the medical world, how many people have been saved by modern medicine.
It's only possible with oil, gas and coal, with the single-use plastic products that are sterile, with the energy that runs the surgical operating rooms, the the you know heart pumps, the uh pharmaceuticals none of these things can exist without fossil fuels.
You'd be back to kitchen table surgery and I don't think people want that.
Um, so millions of people would have died without fossil fuels and we're not facing any catastrophic warming, in fact.
In fact, in our facebook video, if you look at the long-term record for Calgary, there's a cooling trend.
So it's interesting where they cut the data off.
They don't go back further to a decade of warming in the 30s.
They don't cover that.
They sort of cut that out and then move ahead.
Yeah, I mean, when you look at the 30s in Alberta, most of it was really a dust bowl.
You know, there was no rain for about a decade and uh really uh, people you know literally lived hand to mouth goes.
Gopher stew was a thing.
So uh, you know if, if children and parents want to have some perspective, I I really recommend looking at historical documents, and there are two really good books for adults and young adults.
One is called the little ice age how climate changed history, and that's about the period of the cool uh temperature drop just before 1860, and it went from about 1350 no 1250 to 1860 and temperatures dropped between one and two degrees and people died because of famine, because of erratic weather.
The cold killed millions of people.
And then you look beyond that back to the medieval warm period, sort of that Camelot time, when people were building castles and cathedrals and crops were abundant.
It was a warm uh.
That's why they call it an optimum, because it was optimal conditions for life.
Um, so if you look at those periods and you realize that there's constantly this cyclical warming and cooling, it gives you more perspective.
You don't have to be afraid of a climate catastrophe and you see that humans are not causing it.
All we're.
We're contributing to climate change, especially regionally, as you and I have talked a few times.
When you drive out of the city, you know it gets cooler so uh, so anyway, you know, have a look at history.
Climate Policies vs. Immigration00:14:02
And for little kids, of course, we have our collection of little kid videos That parents and grandparents could watch with their kids and use them as a conversation starter to try and calm them down a little bit.
Yeah.
Yeah, I love that you do that sort of work where you just sort of, in a way that kids understand, tell them, chill out, relax.
It's probably the sun.
But speaking of people without any perspective whatsoever, you watched a Suzuki Foundation video so that I didn't have to.
And they're talking about the use of electric vehicles and how electric vehicles are just going to take over Canada.
We don't have the grid for that.
But secondarily, they're talking about blocking hydroelectric dams, which is pretty green energy, all things considered.
They're talking about blocking and stopping hydroelectric electric dams while simultaneously saying green cars, electric cars are great.
We need them all over Canada.
And they can't put the two of them together like a normal person.
Yeah, it's, well, I have to say, this was Severn Cullis Suzuki's anniversary of her presentation 30 years ago at the Rio conference.
And I have to say, it really was in many ways very touching because, you know, she was a young woman then, really a teenager, and now she's in charge of the Suzuki Foundation, which her parents built up.
And, you know, as much as I disagree with almost everything they do or say, I congratulate them on their success.
And it was touching to see her so many years later.
But ironically, her parents had been driving across Canada in an EV and they're pushing EVs.
And Suzuki was saying, yeah, you know, we were really great back in the day.
We managed to stop Site C Dam.
And yet, 30 years later, they're still building it.
You know, why did they go ahead with it?
And we should have EV chargers everywhere across Canada.
And Tara has stepped in and said, and a high-speed rail from Vancouver to Toronto so you could get there in two hours.
You know, and it's like, do you people have any idea how much power is required for all of this?
Anything that you're talking about, we would need just for EVs, we'd need eight more dams the size of Site C.
And there's not even one on the table.
No one's even talking about it.
So that takes about 20, 30 years to build.
And yet he's just put out a paper, his organization has put out a paper called Shifting Power, I think it is.
And they're claiming that by 2030, in eight years, we could have a fully electric, decarbonized system in Canada for everything.
So, you know, really the message of my video is that, you know, people have to learn much more about how energy systems work because these catastrophic decisions are being made by ideologues, not by power engineers.
Now, you know, it's funny that we're talking about Jason, or sorry, we're talking about David Suzuki.
And the reason I think it's interesting is it leads us into the next topic about how our immigration policy and our climate policies are about to go head to head and the liberals are going to have to choose one or the other.
And the reason I had Jason Kenney on the tip of my tongue there was because David Suzuki, he spoke out against immigration of all people, this darling of the left, he spoke out against immigration in 2013 when David Suzuki said, Canada's full and we shouldn't take any more immigrants.
Jason Kenney was the immigration minister federally at the time and said, that's crazy.
We're one of the least populated countries in the entire world.
Again, there are ways to examine our immigration policy so that we're helping immigrants integrate, so that we're getting the right people to fill the right gaps in the economy.
All those are issues.
But to say that we're full, that's a bit crazy.
But everybody sort of dances around this idea of David Suzuki being a xenophobe.
Yeah, well, I don't know if he was a xenophobe.
He might have been just looking at it sort of from the aspect that we would agree with in our letter.
We recently wrote an open letter to the parliamentary budget officer and a few others, Bank of Canada, in that we are saying that these are conflicting policies because every person who comes to Canada brings a carbon footprint with them and expands their carbon footprint if they come here from a warm country.
So, you know, it's one thing to bring in, say, 50,000 people.
You know, that's fairly nominal.
And we would probably be able to absorb them and probably be able to financially support them.
But the government is bringing in 400,000 people and their plan is to bring 63 million people by 2100.
So first of all, we're broke.
We don't really have the financial resources to properly help people get integrated.
Secondly, we have these extreme climate targets that are impossible to meet if we're going to keep bringing in thousands of people, no matter how wonderful they are.
And I'm not speaking as a xenophobe.
Our scientific advisor, Dr. Kandakar, is from India.
My father was an immigrant here.
People in my family have married with many immigrants of very different backgrounds.
So it's all wonderful.
But, you know, let's be practical about it.
Either we're going to try and meet climate targets, which of course we don't think are necessary to meet, or we're going to bring immigrants, but we can't do both, not on this scale.
Well, and the reason I say xenophobe is not even that I think maybe David Suzuki is a xenophobe, but if you said that, you would be considered a xenophobe.
If you said Canada is full, because the, you know, I forget what he said here.
He said, basically, oh, it's funny because at the bottom of the news story, it says David Suzuki was unavailable for comment.
Yeah, I bet he was.
But what he said was even though he was speaking to Australian environmentalists, he always gets himself in trouble when he's in Australia.
And he said he agrees with Australian environmentalists who oppose population growth.
So these are anti-people people and immigration because humans put a strain on natural resources.
And Suzuki replied, oh, I think that Canada is full too.
Even though it's the second largest country in the world, we have a reduced livable space.
I don't think that's entirely true either.
He called our immigration policy disgusting.
We plunder countries in the South by depriving them of their future.
And we want to increase our population to support the growth of our economy.
It's crazy.
You know what we're doing to the people in the South?
We're depriving them of reliable energy through David Suzuki's policies.
So he deprives them of reliable energy through David Suzuki's policies that he pushes.
And they say, okay, well, we're going to come to a better life in Canada.
And David Suzuki also says, oh, no, no, no, no, we're full.
Go back to the place that we won't let you develop.
Right.
Well, and also I think that people should read the Century Initiative.
That's what it's called, the document to bring these, to bring the population up to 100 million people by 2100.
I think that the bargain is not very nice either, because the idea is that all of us boomers and taxpayers are going to be dying off.
So the government itself needs a new tax base.
So they're basically bringing in people to be slaves to the government to replace us, which, you know, we have a huge monumental debt in Canada.
We have huge unfunded pension liabilities.
So if you're an immigrant coming here for a new life, are you aware that basically you're going to be carrying the burden of this debt and you're going to be expected to pay it off and to support people who are flying around and drinking champagne?
You know, and you will have a struggle being here because it's a very different country for many people.
I mean, if you come here from Finland, you're probably going to be okay.
If you come here from India, it's a very different life here.
Yep.
Of course, many people from India have settled in and made a wonderful life here, but everyone can tell you, you know, the difference in temperature and everything else.
Well, and I wonder too how David Suzuki reconciles this new movement within climate change circles that there are going to be climate refugees.
It's going to cause mass migration.
And so it is up to the Western world, more northern climates like ours, to take in all these people that they say are going to be disrupted by climate change.
I wonder how he reconciles his anti-immigration, anti-people philosophy with the other side of his own movement who says, oh, no, no, the refugees are coming in.
You have to take them all.
Well, I would say two things to that.
One is that he has been known to refer to people as maggots defecating everywhere.
So I'm not sure that he really cares about any people.
And the other thing is that we do have a plan for that.
If you look on our blog, we have a climate refugee plan and it's all set out there, especially planned for Hollywood celebrities.
But have a look and see how our climate refugee plan can work for you.
I hope it involves a flight to Mexico sometime in January.
It's going to be like Mexico here, didn't you?
No, promises.
Warming three times as fast as the average in the world.
You know, just moving along a little bit, you at Friends of Science, you guys have done an analysis because we see already talk about this, the climate lockdown.
So they say, oh, you know, we locked everybody in their homes for two years and lo and behold, carbon emissions went down.
Well, they went down for everybody except Justin Trudeau.
I've been looking at his flight record.
But they say, oh, look, they went down.
So let's just keep doing this.
Now we had public health lockdowns, but since climate change is the pressing emergency in the world, we would be remiss not to lock everybody down to save the earth, right?
Well, yes, we did an analysis on this in a recent press release.
And I would say, especially the World Economic Forum are the most misleading parties on this topic.
They've issued a couple of tweets saying that lockdowns are improving cities.
They actually had to retract that one because it was in such bad taste.
But they also have a number of blog posts saying, you know, lockdowns reduced emissions and we should do more of them.
But in fact, the fact is, and I'm just going to read this.
This is from one of our open letters to the Bank of Canada.
The fact is, the drop in emissions during COVID lockdowns is not enough to significantly affect the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
One must compare the change of emissions to the annual change of CO2 concentrations, not the cumulative CO2.
This graph from Dr. Roy Spencer's article shows that the annual random fluctuations in the change of CO2 concentrations are far larger than expected change due to lockdown reduction changes.
So that means that the natural fluctuation of over the course of the year, of course, the earth kind of breathes in winter in the northern hemisphere.
There's a huge concentration of CO2 because none of the forests are growing.
None of the plants are planted in the field.
Agriculture comes to a standstill.
But from April until August, there's a huge uptake of CO2 as all of those things burst into life.
And it is interesting that the COVID lockdown started in April.
So, you know, I think it was a climate lockdown.
Anyway, so the point is that the expected reduction in the annual CO2 increase in the atmosphere is only 0.12 parts per million or 1200th parts per million due to the COVID lockdown in 2020.
But the annual fluctuation is 0.5 to 1 part per million or five tenths to one part per million.
Therefore, the CO2 change in the atmosphere due to COVID lockdown is far smaller than random fluctuations.
And, you know, oil and gas demand has skyrocketed after COVID.
So it was after the COVID lockdown.
So it's a useless thing to do.
It's senseless and it's so damaging to the economy and to people in general.
We should never, ever, ever lock down again for any reason.
Not even monkeypox.
Especially not monkeypox.
From what I understand, monkeypox is a bit of an STD.
So I think a lot of us are going to be just fine.
Friends Of Science Shut Up00:05:29
Now, you add Friends of Science, you guys are famous because the ironically named Institute for Strategic Dialogue says, shut up, Michelle.
You're spreading disinformation.
Tell us about that.
Yeah, it was interesting.
One of our followers on Twitter alerted us to this report from this Institute for Strategic Dialogue, which I'd never heard of.
They did a big analysis of Twitter commentary during the COP26 event.
And they picked out the disinformers.
And we're proud to say that we're right up there with Dr. Patrick Moore and Michael Schellenberger and other famous climate deniers.
Anyway, we made it into this booklet, this review, and it looks like they're really mad about the Alberta inquiry.
Yeah, because now they want to set up their own war room.
And it's kind of like you guys have a $600 million a year war room to begin with.
It's probably, it's way more than $600 million a year.
Like millions, billions of dollars have been pumped into the climate ENGO community for decades now.
And, you know, we're little guys fighting back.
And yet now we're the stars of the disinformation world.
But these people claim to be supporting rule of law and freedom of speech and human rights.
And the first thing they want to do is shut us up and perhaps even penalize us.
And they want to get big tech behind it to help censor and shut up people like us.
And of course, who funds them?
Who are their partners?
Big tech this is.
It's really something else here.
Um they, i'm just going through this they've named John Stossel as the Fender.
They've taken umbrage with the WALL Street Journal of all places and then they classify um people into different categories of being an anti-vax, anti-vaccine or vaccine skeptic.
I'm not sure why this is in this um report, but it's right at the top and I think maybe they're talking about the intersection of just people who are generally skeptics of everything.
Then they talk about climate denial, then climate skepticism.
So if you're not a 100 true believer, also you get on a list.
Um then uh, lukewarmers and lukewarmerisms they're just inventing words now to describe people who may not necessarily buy into everything.
The Daily MAIL is cited as a problem here.
At one point they've cited the Guardian, like it's just, oh Prager, you for not falling in love with electric vehicles.
Um, the private jets in Glasgow.
They saw that as um, you know people talking about how everybody flew in a private jet.
That's also bad news, you know.
I didn't even check to see if Rebel news was on here.
Yeah, I think you are.
Are we really?
That's wonderful.
Good job yeah, good job, team.
Um oh, I see Lori Goldstein is problematic, he's.
Yeah, they've got him.
Glenn Beck is a bad guy, terrible.
Yep wow, that's really something else.
Well, good job Michelle, thanks yeah.
Well, a lot of the team at Clintel are kind of envious of us, kind of like well, we're gonna have to work harder to get on that list.
Club 27, here we come.
Oh, Dan Crenshaw, like even politicians whose job it is to be in opposition to government policies as literally their job, those made the list, Marjorie Taylor Green, I mean just everybody who doesn't, doesn't buy this completely that taxes change the weather.
They made it on the list.
Or oh, Patrick Moore is on the list.
Yeah, and just remember, this is a Uk charity charity, right.
So this is the same thing where, like with the E NGOS in Canada, where they wear the halo of charity so people think, oh well, they must be doing good right, when actually they're denigrating freedom of speech, rule of law.
I mean, going back to Suzuki, lately he's been once again pushing being radical, and if it's radical to love nature, then okay, i'm a radical.
I mean, in light of what's happened with Coastal Gaslink and the whole hooforah about him saying things about damaging pipelines and other infrastructure, you'd think he would shut up just out of good moral, ethical integrity.
But no no, he's just gotta, one more time, push that envelope, incite a few more people, tell them that whatever you do to protect the planet is fine and it doesn't matter if you ruin people's lives.
Wow, Ezra is labeled as a top influencer, with Dinesh D'Souza, good company, Rita Panahi and Prager you.
Good for us.
We are identified as a cluster of influencers.
Great, that's great.
Next, you know what i'm?
I'm gonna I didn't even check to see if i'm on the list, but I hope I am somewhere.
Informed By Facts00:04:03
Um, you know what?
Here's to cop 27.
yeah yeah we've got time we've still got time will do our best.
I'm going to get on this list if it kills me.
Michelle, Friends of Science has been around for 20 years, two decades of fighting for civil debate on this issue.
Unlike these people from the, I've ironically named organized the Institute for Strategic Dialogue.
Strategic dialogue.
That's what it was.
I couldn't remember what it was because they literally don't want you talking about certain things.
So I feel like that's a bit of a misnomer they have there.
But you guys have been fighting for just for people to be able to have the discussion without getting canceled.
And the other side, like you say, they're charities.
They get public funding.
They're funded by governments.
They're funded by these charity clearinghouses of dark money, sometimes from foreign countries.
In the respective Russia, did some funding of some of these organizations.
You guys are just little guys trying to do this on your own.
You don't get any public money whatsoever.
I don't think you would take it anyway.
But you're trying to raise some money for your 20th birthday.
Yeah.
So we just are asking our followers or people who like our work if you can give us $20.
You could do an e-transfer to contact at friendsofscience.org.
You can go online and donate, or best of all, if you could become a member, because then you'd continue to get our additional information.
But, you know, we think it's a nominal contribution and it would help us.
And, you know, the thing is, we often sort of limp along through the year doing fundraising calls, getting kind of down to the bottom of the barrel.
And we thought, well, why don't we kick off this year, our 20th year, and just ask people if they would give us the equivalent of a dollar a year for our material.
And we offer our material free of charge because we want people to be able to access it, to be able to be informed, to have some factual, substantial arguments when they're having a discussion with someone, so that they can say, well, see, here, this is how much energy is required for this type of operation.
Or if you want to have all EVs, this is how many dams you need to build.
You know, so that people have practical, concrete information and insights from experts.
You know, a lot of our reports are put together by professional engineers who actually either do work or have worked in the field of power generation and other engineering endeavors.
So they're people who really know what it is.
You know, one of our people, our president, worked on the first carbon capture and storage project that we know of.
So he actually was there.
You know, he knows how complicated it is.
He knows how effective it is to what degree or not.
So, you know, this is material that would cost a fortune if it was commissioned by these experts.
But we offer it to you free of charge because we want you to know these are such important public policy issues that the public has to be more informed.
Policymakers have to be held to account.
And the only way we can do that is with open civil debate and an informed public.
So if you can help us, that'd be great.
And you're up against big tech censorship.
They're labeling your stuff as misinformation.
You never monetized your YouTube channel and you couldn't now at this point, even if you wanted to.
So you don't have these revenue streams that are available to everybody else.
You don't have those available to you.
And you're up against, you're serving up scientific facts, grown-up facts, when you're up against the childhood emotions of the other side that where Greta Tunberg is their avatar.
Andrew's Book Available00:05:36
And she admits to just making things up out of thin air to scare people.
And Friends of Science is serving up facts and trying to calm people down.
And I think that's important work.
Thank you.
Michelle, thanks so much for coming on the show.
You've been exceedingly generous with your document today.
I'm so glad that you were able to come on.
We'll have you back on again very, very soon.
And here's to 20 more years at Friends of Science.
Thank you.
I wish that we wouldn't have to continue for 20 more years, but we'll do it if we have to.
We're going to do that.
So we'll be there for you.
Anyway, thanks so much, Sheila.
Thanks, Michelle.
Well, this is a portion of the show where we invite your viewer feedback, unlike the mainstream media who just take your money and never want to hear from you again.
We invite your comments.
I go looking for them and I even give out my email in case you want to send one directly to me.
If you want to do that, if you want to send me a letter or a comment to read on air, it's real easy.
Just go to Sheila at RebelNews.com.
That's my email.
And put gun show letters in the subject line.
As you probably have guessed, I get a couple hundred emails a day and that just makes it easy for me to search them and select them.
And I really don't select them by comment or content.
I select them completely at random.
And I also take comments sometimes from some of the comments section from the video platforms wherein we post our content.
So another reason for you to post comments underneath all of our videos.
You might get selected to get read on air.
Anyway, this week's letter comes to us from Bruce Atchison.
He writes me quite a bit.
Anyway, that should be a lesson to all of you.
Write in and write in frequently so I find your email.
Anyway, Bruce writes, hi, Sheila and head pets to Margaret Scratcher.
Now, for those of you who don't know, my cat's name is Margaret Scratcher.
And if you listen carefully in the background of my videos and in particular, my interview with Michelle, you can hear her sort of meowing around in the background.
Bruce says, your interview with Andrew Lawton was fascinating.
Is his book available in PDF form?
I'd buy a copy if I could have my PC read it to me.
Being legally blind, print is difficult to read and I could lose what little vision I have left with regards to Bruce Acheson and Delta the Cat.
I hope it's Bruce Acheson and not Bruce Aitchison because I've been saying your name wrong.
I think both times you've written to me.
Well, Bruce, I should tell you, you obviously know about Andrew's new book, but I'll just give everybody who doesn't know a quick refresher.
And if you want to see my interview with Andrew, that's last week's show.
His book is called The Freedom Convoy, The Inside Story of Three Weeks That Shook the World.
It's his firsthand account of the three weeks of the convoy to Ottawa, but also it includes interviews from participants in the convoy.
And when I first interviewed Andrew, his book, although it's still only available in pre-order, it's not even out yet.
It was number one in certain subcategories on Amazon Canada.
And that's great.
But right now, it is number two on all of Amazon Canada.
And I'm so happy and so proud of Andrew and his success.
This just shows me how much people want to know the truth because the mainstream media got so much of what happened in the convoy wrong.
And the liberals lied and lied and lied about the convoy and the mainstream media.
They were just happy to republish and regurgitate those lies.
And it became like this snake eating its own tail where the CBC would get a story wrong, then the liberals would cite this wrong CBC story, and then the police would react and around and around and around it would go.
And it was all wrong.
And so Andrew wrote a book to tell the truth.
And as I said, I'm just so happy and so pleased.
And his book is available on Amazon for those of you who want to purchase it.
Again, it still just didn't pre-order, but it is number two on all of Amazon Canada.
And that's so great.
But moreover, to your point, Bruce, I will pass along a suggestion to my friend Andrew that perhaps he should consider doing an audio version of the book.
Andrew's an old radio guy.
He's got a great voice for reading books, I think.
And I would love to listen to his book as read in his own voice.
And, you know, it's true.
Sometimes we forget there are people out there with different challenges who want to consume our content and we have to make sure that it is consumable in a way that is suitable for them.
So I will pass along a suggestion to Andrew that maybe he'd like to read his book and so that people could buy the audio version.
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.
Again, if you want to send a letter, question, query, or comment to be read on air, it's real easy.
Just go to Sheila at RebelNews.com, send me an email, put gun show letters in the subject line so I can find it.
And please leave a comment on some of our other content because I do go looking over there.