Sheila Gunn-Reid and Tom Harris from ICSC Canada challenge climate change narratives, citing unproven claims like extreme weather attribution—Pakistan floods (1961 vs. 2022) and Hurricane Ian—while exposing media bias and flawed IPCC data on droughts. Gunn-Reid highlights Texas’s 2021 power crisis (700 deaths) due to green energy failures, contrasting with activists’ selective science, like ignoring Yellowstone’s increased snowpack or Lake Mead’s artificial management. Their local victories, such as defeating Ottawa’s $57B climate plan, prove policies can be stopped early, urging public pushback against figures like Edmonton Mayor Amarjit Sohi, who opposes pipelines. Skepticism, not alarmism, drives their call for measurable, practical climate discussions—directing skeptics to icsc-canada.com or rebelnews.com for actionable resistance. [Automatically generated summary]
Everything the climate activist got wrong in 2022.
I'm Sheila Gunn-Reed and you're watching The Gunn Show.
You know, it would frankly be impossible for me to predict what the environmentalists are going to try to do to us next.
I mean, they can't predict the weather, and I can predict their radical, irrational behavior and their radical, irrational reactions to things we used to call weather, that they now call extreme weather events caused by climate change, which is apparently caused by the comforts of modern existence.
Now, someone who has carefully documented the failings of the environmentalist movement and how they continue to get everything wrong while also simultaneously stating that they have crystal ball access to what weather is going to be like in the future is Tom Harris from the International Climate Science Coalition Canada.
And he has even been covered by Fox News for his roundup of all the inaccuracies of the climate movement in 2022.
So joining me now is good friend of the show, Tom Harris.
So joining me now is good friend of the show, Tom Harris from the International Climate Science Coalition, Canada.
And Tom has done an incredible roundup of, I guess, the things that the other side got wrong about climate change, which for me is normally everything in 2022.
So I wanted to ask you about that.
And hopefully we can go through that together because, you know, these are also the same people who are telling us to trust the experts, trust the science, follow the science.
And when we do, they get everything wrong.
And but I wanted to talk to you about, you know, where is this going?
What does the future of climate science bring?
Well, you know, it's interesting because we don't really know the future of climate change.
And, you know, interestingly enough, Chris Essex, for example, who's a applied mathematician, he just retired from Western University, University of Western Ontario.
He says that not only do we not understand the climate, but we will probably never be able to forecast climate.
The reason is that it's such an incredibly complex system.
You know, the biggest computers in the world, if you use them to try to forecast climate change and you included all the parameters that matter, it would take longer for the computer programs to run than it would for nature to actually unfold.
In other words, let's say the computer program was forecasting climate for 10 years from now.
It would take more than 10 years for today's best computers to even model that and to even give us an answer.
So the fact is we cannot forecast future climate.
And I think the appropriate attitude for most people is to be skeptical.
And, you know, Dr. Ball, and we'll talk about him in a second because he was my hero.
Unfortunately, Dr. Tim Ball passed away just a few months ago.
But when Dr. Ball was criticized as being a skeptic, he would say, thank you, because you're supposed to be a skeptic.
I mean, that's what science is all about.
People propose hypotheses, and your job is to try to prove them wrong.
Okay.
And of course, that's what he did.
And he wrote a lot of articles with me.
Here's one, for example, Dr. Tim Ball and Tom Harris about Kyoto.
And we did that for years and years and hundreds and hundreds of articles that Tim wrote either by himself or that I co-authored with him.
And, you know, he was the Lifetime Achievement Award winner from the Heartland Institute just a few years ago.
So, I mean, Tim Ball, I mean, if anybody deserves an order of Canada, it's Dr. Tim Ball.
I mean, he was really, really a hero, you know?
So I'm going to miss him a great deal.
In fact, I already am missing him a great deal.
But where is climate going in the future?
That's a good question.
As I say, we're never going to be able to forecast climate change properly because it's simply too complicated.
But it now appears that the human influence is less than the noise and the signal.
Okay.
In other words, it's like you're trying to tune in an AM radio station and the station is weaker than the static.
Okay.
You know, I'm just going to interrupt you here for a second because, and I refer to this little experiment that Michelle Sterling from Friends of Science did one time because it was so common sense.
And I just thought, you know, we could, if we all just thought about testing the theories of the climate activist just once in your own backyard, you would rethink everything.
Her theory was you literally cannot tell the temperature in your own backyard.
You can't.
You can only tell the temperature at one location where exactly that thermometer is, because five feet away, a different set of conditions is going to change all of it by, you know, sometimes 10 degrees.
She said, you can't tell it in your backyard.
How can you tell it across the face of the earth?
How can they say you have to stay under 2.5 degrees Celsius of global temperature rays across the surface of the earth?
How do you even measure that number?
And if you can't measure that number, how do you predict the future?
And all she did was go in her backyard, put a bunch of thermometers around, and then just come back in an hour and measure them.
And she was like, see, how would they ever be able to measure the temperature of the surface of the earth to even get a mean temperature from which to start?
They can't.
Well, that's right.
And Michelle was brilliant to do that, actually, because it showed in just a small area that it doesn't make any sense to talk about average temperature.
But, you know, one of the things that people have got to realize is that average temperature of the earth, first of all, doesn't exist.
It's not a temperature.
It's just a statistic, but it doesn't matter in the least.
Okay.
And I'll show you why it doesn't matter.
Let's say half of the earth got five degrees warmer and half of the earth got five degrees colder.
That temperature difference would drive extreme weather like you would never believe.
And yet the average temperature would stay the same.
Okay.
So, you know, and I just want to give one quick analogy about science that people have got to understand here.
You know, in high school, our chemistry teacher gave us all a box and he said, shake the box and try to figure out what's in it.
Don't open it.
Okay.
This is like science.
Science, you have to look at the evidence.
You have to, in this case, weigh it.
You have to shake it.
Hear what it sounds like.
It seems solid.
He said, never open this in your entire life.
And when you start to get too confident about what science is, the truth, you know, that sort of thing, shake your little box and realize, no, we don't know what the truth is with respect to science.
We know what the truth is with respect to chess.
Okay.
We know that the queen moves in a certain way and the rook moves in a certain way.
But science is like this box.
All we have is the evidence and the way we shake it and the way we listen to it and the way we weigh it.
Okay.
And all of that is subject to your interpretation.
And that's one of the things that people just don't seem to get.
You know, I took a course a few years ago in the philosophy of science and the professor was Professor Stephen Goldman from Lehigh University in Chicago.
And he's a brilliant man.
He had a degree in physics and then he went in to do a PhD in philosophy.
But the point he made is that while he thought that we did have a climate emergency, he said that Al Gore's claims to truth are impossible in science.
Because truth, if you actually look at the definition, you go back to the Greeks and you talk about Plato and all that.
Truth is universal, necessary, and certain.
Okay.
And there's nothing in science that universal, necessary, and certain.
It just isn't the case.
It's always a function of what experiments you look at.
Did you shake the box?
Did you weigh the box?
Did you listen to it?
It's dependent on the experiments you do.
And here's the really important factor, your interpretation of the experiment.
Okay.
You may know about metal sounding hard, but maybe somebody who's in a primitive society would never have heard of metal.
So they wouldn't necessarily think it was made of metal.
So the whole point is that all we can do, and this is where Dr. Ball's statement is so brilliant, all we can do is be skeptical of people's claims to truth about science.
Because based on this so-called truth, what we're seeing is a destruction of our economy, a destruction of our most valuable energy sources, all of it based on a supposed truth that's actually impossible.
Well, and it's a destruction of the idea of science in general.
You're just supposed to take some guy's word for it.
That's why, again, why Michelle's little experiment was so brilliant.
She said, they keep talking about this global temperature.
But here, you can do this at home.
Surely you have a thermometer at home.
Just try.
Yeah.
And I haven't seen a superbeing that straddles the planet that experiences global temperature.
Who cares what global temperature is?
I mean, all that matters is what happens in your region.
Okay.
And in most regions of Canada, there's nothing unusual going on.
So this article or this is a fact checks that we put out.
I love it.
What we did is we went through the various statements by the media.
Piece of Coal vs. Forests00:02:53
And of course, Pakistan floods.
Oh my God, 1700 people died.
That's serious.
There's no question about it between June and October.
And this is caused by climate change, they said.
Oh, but they didn't tell you that the last time it was this wet was in 1961.
Oh, so did climate change cause that?
No, no, it's only the more recent one.
So what you find is a couple of factors.
First of all, the kind of monsoon rain they've had is not out of the natural variability.
In fact, overall, since the 1950s, we're finding that the monsoon rainfall has actually dropped.
Okay.
It was an unusually wet year during the summer.
But the other factor is this.
The Pakistanis have actually deforested a lot of their country.
I bet they wish they had fossil fuels.
Instead of just deforesting and burning trees for fuel and heat.
That's right.
But you see, if you have a forest, most of the rain that falls actually gets absorbed by the roots and then re-emitted back into the atmosphere through the pores and leaves called stomata.
And that actually is called transpiration.
So you don't get the buildup of water when there's a forest.
The other thing is that the forest roots hold the ground in place.
So when you do have a flash flood, it doesn't take away landslides and stuff.
So yeah, that is more of a factor, much more of a factor than any climatic effects.
It's the destruction of their forests.
And the forests are great because, of course, they give shade, but they also, when they're releasing the water vapor into the air, there's another cooling effect.
And that is that the water vapor itself is like a mist and eventually forms clouds and it cools the planet.
So yeah, the Pakistani floods, yeah, if they want to have less floods, they'll cut down all their forests.
I mean, that's a real environmental issue.
Yeah, maybe have some natural gas to heat your homes.
Well, you have to realize, you know, coal saved Britain's trees.
Sure.
People talk about coal as if it's this great environmentally destructive thing.
I think I have a piece of coal here.
Just let me reach over.
Yeah, here's a piece of coal.
This is from Kentucky, okay?
It's from eastern Kentucky, and it's a very solid piece of very nice bituminous coal.
And the bottom line is that before they were using coal, they were cutting down all their trees, not just for the ships and everything, but also for fuel.
So coal actually was a very good development.
Now that we've designed much more clean burning methods of coal, there's no way Alberta should be going off coal.
I mean, the impact of Ontario going from about a quarter of our electricity by coal in around 2000, 2002, because Dalton McGinty, our previous prime minister or premier, he said he put a big pile of coal on a table in a press conference and said, this is old technology.
We're going to get rid of it.
Okay.
And he did.
He got rid of it.
Wind Power's Environmental Dilemma00:15:10
It's like virtually zero.
It is 0% electricity now.
And they had virtually a doubling of electricity prices as a consequence because coal is very cheap.
And China knows that.
India knows that.
And so they're progressing.
No matter what we do, they're pushing coal to the limit.
And we're going to see coal stations literally for decades being built by China.
So what we do has no impact anyway.
Right.
And that pursuit of green energy and phasing out coal caused the manufacturing industry to collapse in Ontario because it just became too expensive.
Yeah, yeah, exactly.
And of course, a poor society can't protect the environment anyways.
Right.
So, I mean, if you're really concerned about protecting the environment, you want to have prosperity.
And you want to have it for another reason.
You know, one of the issues we looked at was Hurricane Ian.
You know, they said, oh, it's caused by climate change.
Well, again, that's ridiculous.
I mean, it was one of the most damaging storms in American history.
But why is that?
It's because there was more stuff to knock down.
Okay.
Yeah.
100 years ago.
In the last 100 years, there's been a 13-fold increase in infrastructure.
So that if you go to a beach in Florida where there was one hotel 100 years ago, you know, statistically, there's 13 now.
So while they're built better, there's just a lot more to knock down.
And so, of course, you're going to have more damage.
But, you know, you have to remember that the past hurricane season was actually a fairly quiet season until Hurricane Ian came along.
And then the NOAA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, American government, here's what they said.
There is no strong evidence of century-scale increasing trends in U.S. landfalling hurricanes or major hurricanes.
Similarly, for Atlantic-wide Atlantic basin-wide hurricane frequency, and again, this is the American government, okay?
Media don't like to report on it.
There is not strong evidence for an increase since the late 1800s in hurricanes, major hurricanes, or the proportion of hurricanes that reach major hurricane intensity.
So to say that we are causing it from our greenhouse gas emissions is doubly wrong.
First of all, that doesn't contribute to hurricanes, but there hasn't been an increase anyway.
So what are they talking about?
And I think that brings us to the European drought because once again, as with every weather condition, literally every weather condition somehow caused by climate change.
As you rightly point out, Europe experienced its most severe drought in 500 years.
But I don't know how my comfortable SUV went back in time and as the last mega drought.
There's nothing that Jeep can't do, apparently.
Yeah, 1540 was the last mega drought.
But, you know, it's interesting, Sheila, I'm going to send you a link that you might want to share with people later.
And it is the actual extreme weather record for all U.S. states, okay, put out by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
It's the best of its kind in the world.
And, you know, it's a pretty big area, the whole U.S.
And what you find is if you look at it, you see 50 states with at least five records per state, maximum temperature, minimum temperature, most snow, most rain, highest wind, that sort of thing.
Sometimes there's other ones like snow depth or hail or things like that.
So at least 250 records.
And what you find is that, you know how many records were set in 2022?
None, zero.
Okay.
Now, statistically, with that many records being kept, you'd expect at least to have a few every year.
If you go back to 1936, you find that there were 27 extreme weather records set for states, 27 in one year, and those records still stand.
Okay, so that is the best database in the world of its kind, and it just doesn't support the narrative.
So obviously, Biden's ignoring it.
But concerning the European drought, we got to look at what did the IPCC say itself, okay?
Because often what you have is the summary for policymakers distorts it.
Coming out in the next few weeks will be the synthesis report, the IPCC AR5 Assessment Report 6.
I mean, it's going to be the synthesis report, which summarizes all the most recent reports.
And this is written for lay people and politicians.
So you can be sure that they're going to bring up things like the drought and say how terrible it is.
But if you actually look into the science of the AR6 reports, you find that they actually say this.
They say, with respect to hydrological drought, okay, that's when you don't have enough rain, prolonged periods of normal, below normal precipitation in Western and Central Europe.
The IPCC said this.
In areas of Western and Central Europe and Northern Europe, there is no evidence of changes in the severity of hydrological droughts since 1950.
And if you actually look at the literature, of course, the IPCC is supposedly based on the literature.
You see, for example, this study here, Vincent Sereno et al., it's quite a few of them, I guess, 2020.
They looked at long-term trends in the drought in Western Europe from 1851 to 2018.
So pretty long term.
And they said this.
Our study stresses that from the long-term perspective, that's 1851 to 2018, there is no generally consistent trends in droughts across Western Europe.
And you know, I have other papers here that say a similar thing.
And if you actually have a look at the severity of drought across Europe as a graph from 1870 to now, like there is no trend.
And again, I'll send you that graph too because it's very, very revealing.
And it shows that once again, the media are out to lunch.
Likewise with the China drought, same thing.
Any weather is climate change.
In Alberta here, by the way, the rest of the world is worried about extreme heat and droughts.
I think it was in the first two weeks of December, we broke over 40 low temperature records here in Alberta.
And they tell me that Alberta is going to spell the end of the earth because of our oil and gas development.
But there were points at which we were, I think, the coldest place on the face of the earth.
I routinely woke up to minus 47.
Oh, wow.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I used to live in Cold Lake just before the oil sands really took off.
Yeah.
I worked in the airport.
So you know.
You know.
I can remember wearing a bella calava and walking from building to building because I didn't want to stay outside for the 10 minutes it took to get to work.
You know, I just wanted to read you one thing really quick.
This is climate change reconsidered.
And they say, this is at climatechangereconsidered.org.
Here's what they say about flooding.
It says the historical record suggests no global trend towards increasing flooding in the modern era.
While proxy data, that's data from things like seashells and trees, tree rings, things like that, proxy data give a contradictory picture of major floods due to natural causes, more flooding during cold periods than warm times.
So, you know, this is one thing they get completely backwards.
They're constantly saying, you know, with global warming, we'll have more extreme weather.
But then they say in the next breath, they say, and the warming will occur most in the Arctic.
And you think, oh, well, what is it that drives weather?
It's the temperature difference and pressure difference between high and mid-latitudes on Earth.
So if temperature is rising in the Arctic more than the rest of the world, that means the temperature difference between the Arctic and lower latitudes would be less.
So the driver of extreme weather is weaker.
It's in a warmer world where we have more tranquil weather.
And, you know, Sally Ballunis, who was from Harvard University, she pointed out that on the shore of England during the Little Ice Age, you know, 16, 1700s, we saw total towns washed away by floods.
It was storms in the cold period.
The Chinese found the same thing.
In fact, here, here, you know, concerning the China drought, it's really important to look at when did China set its record for the worst drought in the last thousand years.
It was in the, it was called the Ming Dynasty mega drought, 1637 to 1643, and actually it led to the change of dynasties.
And that was such a significant event for two reasons.
One, there was a natural drought going on, but there was also a strong volcano, a volcanic volcanic eruption in 1641.
And for various complicated meteorological reasons, when you have a volcano at the same time as a drought, it emphasizes and worsens the drought.
Okay, so once again, the record was set for China in 1637.
Like, what's going on?
Come on.
My SUV strikes again.
Yeah, again.
They were pretty advanced.
They must have had coal-fired power stations.
And, you know, it goes on and on.
I mean, the famine and the horn of Africa.
Okay, the nearby countries to Somalia didn't have the famine because even though they also had drought, they didn't have a collapsed farming system the way Somalia is just broken down.
And, you know, Somalia is a great example of what happens if your country gets too poor and falls into complete chaos, like it is in much of Somalia over the past few decades.
What happens is environmental concerns just go out the window.
I mean, when people are struggling to survive, when they're more worried about their personal security and water clear, you know, having good water, then they're not worried about the environment.
So the long-term impact of the climate movement will to make us will be to make us poor and unable to protect the environment.
And we just look to Somalia and we can see exactly that.
But Somalia's famine was mainly caused by political instability.
You know, the fact that how can you have a well-functioning farm if you have bombs going off all over the place?
The place is run by warlords.
I'm not sure climate change is a big concern for them.
Well, I don't think they even have a central government, do they?
No, no, it's a failed state completely.
Yeah.
And sadly, if we actually follow the direction the climate activists are going, it's moving us in that direction.
The other point, of course, is that if we get rid of our solid, dependable fossil fuels, what we saw in Texas in 2021, February 2021, where they had more than 58, about 58% of their electricity was coming from wind power, okay, because they wanted to be green.
You know, they were leading the nation in wind power.
And what happened is just before that storm hit in February of last year, two years ago now, we saw the wind totally fail.
And so the wind turbines, partly because they were frozen, but also because there wasn't much wind, they stopped generating power.
And so suddenly the state lost half of its electricity almost overnight.
And then it also got really cold.
So natural gas couldn't keep up.
To make issues even worse, you won't believe this.
It sounds like something out of Dr. Seuss.
It's so silly.
They were trying to please environmental activists.
So they decided to run the pumps and the valves and things on some of the natural gas pipelines with wind power.
So when the wind failed, some of the pipelines couldn't even pump gas because they were powered by wind power.
Now, it's funny in a way, but it's also tragic because the Wall Street Journal pointed out that 700 people died.
700 people.
One little boy died in his sleep.
Okay.
He just didn't wake up.
And that apparently is going to have to happen again and again and again, all across the Western world before people wake up.
Because wind power, besides being super destructive to the environment, is going to leave us freezing in the dark, just like it did Texas.
Yeah.
And, you know, I remember at the time, a lot of people were saying, what on earth is a conservative fossil fuel economy like Texas doing with so much green energy on the grid?
And it wasn't entirely Texas's fault because the federal government, from what I understand, the U.S. federal government, was incentivizing these energy companies, these green energy companies, to get involved in the grid in Texas and some other states.
And so they were sort of being federally pushed in that direction too.
So that no matter what the state wanted, they sort of ended up with this green mess anyway.
Yeah.
And you know, one of the things people don't realize is that if your power becomes inconsistent and unstable, you also will see more pollution.
And here's the reason why.
You can see the stocks of the major U.S. company that makes home generators.
It's gone through the roof.
I mean, it's something like five times higher than it was just a few years ago because people don't feel confident in the energy infrastructure.
And that's certainly the case here in Ottawa, you know, where we're still above ground with virtually all of our cables.
Oh, it's too expensive, they say, you know, five to seven, it was two to five million dollars per kilometer.
Well, you know, I calculated that with their ludicrous climate plan, they could put in thousands of miles of underground cable, which actually would have been useful.
But instead, they're going to have it all above ground and they say they can't afford, you know, sensible approaches.
But yeah, we're going to see home generators burning gasoline or diesel fuel or propane or whatever, you know, operating in everybody's backyard.
And those produce hugely more pollution than just a clean natural gas line that comes into your furnace.
So in the long run, you destroy the environment, you destroy the economy, you destroy people's lives.
I mean, the whole point of the climate scare, you start to wonder.
I mean, there must be people in charge who know this.
Are they purposely trying to make us, you know, weak and dependent on the government?
I think some of them are actually.
You know, David Anderson said, apparently, I recall this from some time ago.
He said that when he was environment minister, that Kyoto was the flagship of world governance.
And that, of course, is another one of the objectives is to have world governance because a lot of the left believe that some sort of supernatural, super national, not supernatural, but some sort of supernational government unelected by the people will do a better job.
And I don't know about you, but I don't find government the most efficient organization in the world.
No, I don't know who coined the phrase watermelons, but that is surely what environmentalists for the most part are.
Building Shelters Against Climate Change00:05:43
They are green on the outside and red on the inside.
And their solution to everything is more government control of your life.
That's right.
And, you know, there's various objectives.
People always ask me, well, this is so ludicrous.
What's going on?
I think, first of all, it is genuine ignorance on the part of a lot of good-hearted people.
And again, that's why I say go to climatechangereconsider.org.
You know, I'm their advertiser because I actually was a contributing reviewer to that.
So I'm kind of happy with that.
But so was Tim Ball.
Tim Ball did phenomenal work in that sort of thing.
But yeah, check it out.
It's the most recent report.
And it talks about the fact that no, we're not seeing an increased trend in any of these extreme weather events.
And regardless, even those that we are in some areas, it's nothing to do with climate change.
Or they're completely offset in other places, as you point out about the UK heat wave.
Yeah, that's right.
Yeah, at the time that the UK heat wave hit, it's interesting because the average global temperature, which really doesn't mean anything, but the statistic anyway, it stayed pretty well constant about 0.2 to 0.3 degrees over the 1979 to 2000 average global temperature, which, as I say, doesn't really exist.
So that amount of warming was obviously in England.
Yes, it was severe, but it was balanced by cooling in other parts of the world.
So once again, it illustrates that global temperature as a statistic doesn't matter because when the Brits were boiling, the last thing they wanted to hear was that they're freezing in New Zealand.
I mean, it doesn't do them any good.
So all it really matters is what's happening in your region.
And that's why it drives me crazy when you hear even conservative politicians say, oh, global warming, it's a global problem.
No, it's not.
It's a regional problem.
You know, if sea level is rising in your area, then you may have to build dams.
If it's falling in another area, you're not going to build dams.
So you don't have a one-size-fits-all solution to climate change.
You have to look at what's happening in your region and then have proper adaptation.
And I'll tell you a really good example of adaptation that's worked really well.
All along the coast of the Bay of Bengal in India, every kilometer they have a multi-story storm shelter.
So when a cyclone comes whipping in, nobody has to walk more than half a kilometer and then go up.
And Madhav Kandakar and Tad Murty and others who I know from India who are scientists, they said India has vertical evacuation.
They go two stories above the storm and they wait it out.
In the United States, when a hurricane hits Florida, they jump in their cars and they drive because they're trying to get out horizontal evacuation.
And, you know, Tad Murty and Kandakar, they both said, look, no, the United States should copy India and build multi-story storm shelters so that people can get away from the waves.
And in fact, interesting, Tad would be telling me stories about what it was like because he was in storm shelters in a number of typhoons and cyclones.
And here's a story, just a quick story I'll tell you.
It's kind of interesting.
He said, one of the troubles with these storm shelters was that they were, of course, cut off from everybody else because they were like a little island in the middle of the hurricane.
And he said, so there would be crime inside and there'd be lots of, you know, it would be dirty and it would really stink.
So one day he was fed up with it.
He'd been in the shelter for a couple of days.
So he went out in the balcony to get away from the smell and, you know, the gangs that were in there and stuff.
And he looked around and he told me, he said, he saw pythons hanging in the trees dying.
He saw water buffaloes upside down, bloated of blood and dying.
And he thought, okay, the smell's not so bad.
So he went back in.
So, so, yeah, that's an example of adaptation.
In Canada, we should be burying cables underground.
In areas of Nova Scotia, perhaps where they have had really bad storms, maybe they want to build some shelters.
Okay, that makes sense.
But the whole idea that you can stop this, I mean, this is ludicrous.
It's part of nature.
It's like saying stop continental drift.
I mean, you can't do it.
Well, and you know, it's so inconsistent.
The environmentalists don't pick a lane because they don't think they have to pick a lane because the mainstream media is not going to hold them to account.
A great example of this is the Yellowstone River flooding.
So the flooding is an example of climate change.
But if you look at why the flooding occurred, it seems as though there was an above-average snowpack, which the environmentalists keep telling me the snow is going to disappear during the winters because of, again, my time-traveling SUV.
But the flooding was caused by an increase in snowpack they promised me would disappear because of climate change.
So please, people pick a lane.
Well, and also, you know, they don't want to hear this.
I mean, Ecology Ottawa, and they actually had an event at the Museum of Space and Aviation a few years ago, the end of snow in Canada.
Right.
And I went to the microphone and I asked the different skiers that were on stage because they wouldn't bring in a scientist.
But I asked them, I said, what do you think about the fact that a scientist is not here to tell you that snow cover in North America has been gradually increasing for decades?
And oh man, the audience went berserk.
I mean, one lady in the front row, she got up and shook her fist and she said, go home, you know.
Mead's Decline and Soil Concerns00:03:31
So they don't want to hear the data.
You know, data is important.
It actually matters what's really happening in the real world, unless you're stuck in some sort of woke postmodern nonsense.
So what people have to do in fighting back is they have to do that kind of thing is say, hey, how much do you think it's warm since 1880?
And climate activists will say, oh, it must be five, 10 degrees.
You say, no, even the UN says it's just over one degree.
So is that a climate emergency?
The point Richard Linson made.
How do you measure it?
Again, how do you measure it?
It doesn't mean a great deal anyway, but you know, the different scientists, I believe it was Linson who said that if it wasn't for climatologists, that amount of temperature change in 142 years, you would never notice in your entire lifetime.
Of course not.
So we've got a climate emergency that's so severe, no one would notice.
Yeah, I've got to care about something I couldn't possibly experience.
Yeah.
Another interesting one that I noticed from your fact check, which I thought was kind of fun because of the historical creation of Lake Mead.
So Lake Mead in Nevada, it's got low water levels.
And I don't know, I guess all the bodies tossed in there by the gangsters, those are starting to surface.
I noticed that.
I read a few articles on that.
But Lake Mead isn't even supposed to exist.
So how can you tell me that the water levels in a lake that really shouldn't exist are too low?
How do we even know they're too low?
The lake itself is a man-made creation.
Well, that's right.
And in fact, what's happening is they're just simply taking water out of the lake faster than the streams are running in.
So of course it's going to lower.
I mean, it's the same thing, you know, with the drought issue.
I mean, you know, the trees basically act like a drain.
Okay.
They suck up the water and they eventually release it to the atmosphere.
The analogy I make is that it's like you put a plug in your drain in your bathtub and you just kept pouring water in.
Well, eventually your bathtub is going to overflow.
Okay.
And that's what's happening in Pakistan where they cut the trees down, the soil cannot absorb the moisture.
And so, of course, the water just flows.
And the other thing is it takes a lot more soil with it because the roots aren't holding the soil in place.
So you have a double whammy.
You have more floods because you've deforested, but you've also got mudslides and landslides because you've deforested.
So yeah, plant your darn forest back.
That would make sense.
And then we've got World Cup skiing.
They say that there's going to be an end to their sport because of climate change.
And I cannot think of, well, I can think of a few equally carbon intensive sports as World Cup skiing.
I don't know, Formula One racing.
They are pretty concerned about climate change.
And I'm like, you guys drive cars in a circle and then fly to the next place to drive cars in a circle.
And then you load up the cars and everything and you fly them to another place to drive cars in a circle.
Please don't lecture me again about my time traveling SUV.
And again, it's, you know, it's these elite winter athletes who are concerned about climate change.
I guarantee you they have not seen a reduction in snow in any of the mountain resorts in which they stay and play.
Helping Across Canada00:13:24
Yeah.
Well, you know, the point we make in this handout is that when we, when World Cup skiing started in the 1960s, the season began in January.
So of course they didn't have any canceled events because yeah, but now they're starting it in October, okay, which is still the autumn.
So, you know, it's not surprising that we're having to see some winter events canceled if they're saying October is a week.
Yeah, if they're before Halloween.
Yeah.
Yeah.
And, you know, it's funny because when people look at this, I always say, well, which would you rather have, global cooling or global warming?
I mean, cooling, cold weather kills 20 times more people around the world than warm weather.
So for humanity as a whole, it would be a good thing if our winters got less severe.
Okay.
But the reason this World Cup skiing event is being affected is because they're starting in October.
Yeah, they're probably going through till May also.
Yeah, that's right.
I suppose there's some skiers that like to be skiing in the summer.
Actually, I did ski on a glacier in Switzerland in the summer when I was 20.
And oh man, it was like skiing on concrete.
I don't think you really want to do it.
Now, what's next in the new year for the International Climate Science Coalition?
What are you guys up to?
What's on your horizon?
Well, the main thing we're trying to do is to replicate what we did in Ottawa.
And you might recall that in Ottawa, we organized a group, and I can tell you who they are now because they've given me permission.
It's Action for Canada, okay, based in Vancouver.
And they have chapters all across Canada.
They're very brave and very knowledgeable people who are doing really excellent work on a whole lot of issues.
But they had me give a presentation to them back in July of 2022, and they really liked it a lot.
So they asked how they could help.
I said, well, you know, there's an Ottawa election coming up.
Why don't we go to the public debates and bombard the questions with inconvenient but important questions?
And happily, they agreed.
So, in fact, in the Ottawa election, of the roughly 25 questions that were allowed from the public in the first three debates, we are people, you know, ICSC Canada and Action for Canada working with us.
We actually asked half of all the questions.
And I think the organizers probably didn't know what hit them because in the fourth debate, they banned questions from the public.
Of course, they did.
Yeah, except those that were screened ahead of time by the actual organizers.
And we thought, aha, okay, we'll put in a question.
We'll somehow get to the mic and then we'll ask something different.
That didn't work either.
Okay, that was an Alinsky trick, I guess.
But we couldn't do that either because they not only chose the questions, they also chose who would ask the question.
Of course, they did.
Okay.
So we want to replicate that in other cities.
And a great target is Calgary because our climate plan in Ottawa, $57 billion, was insane.
And by the way, the climate activist who was leading in the mayoral election lost.
And according to Joseph Bename, who's a leading conservative strategist, he said that the actions of ICSC Canada did make a difference.
You know, I'm sure.
Yeah, we handed hundreds of flyers to everybody at virtually every debate we could get into, talking about how the plan for Ottawa was terrible.
But we didn't actually say, don't vote for McKinney.
We just showed how horrible the plan was.
And people were smart enough to put two and two together and say, oh, well, then I guess we shouldn't vote for the strongest supporter of the plan.
And what happened is Sutklist's vote suddenly went from around 40 to 51 almost overnight, and he won.
So we want to do that in other cities across Canada.
And if people go to our website, icsc-canada.com, what they'll see is a link they can click on.
It says, let us help you fight climate alarmism in your city.
So we'd love to do it in Calgary and probably through the Calgary chapter of Action for Canada.
We're working on that.
But what we want to do is we want to get local activists to hold their politicians to account because it's very easy in many cases to point out to them what would happen if you actually did your plan.
And we did that in Ottawa.
And I think a lot of the public woke up.
We want to do that across Canada, though.
We've had a few people already apply.
You know, they fill out a little form.
They say, here's the problem I'm concerned about in my municipality.
Here's a link to the plan.
And then we look at it and decide, okay, we can help you.
And then we start to do it.
So while I may not physically go to all the different locations that ask for help, we can organize and help them ask questions and write articles and that sort of thing to helpfully diffuse, hopefully defuse the climate scare all across Canada.
Edmontonians, if you're watching this and I know I have a large Edmontonian viewership, Amarjit Sohi was Justin Trudeau's natural resources minister.
He is instrumental in blocking those pipelines and he is not going to let Calgary be the environmental superstar of this province.
Get out in front of this right now and reach out to my friend Tom for some help because he will help you because we don't need proof that Amarjit Sohi is an environmental radical.
He's already shown us when he sat in Justin Trudeau's cabinet and now he's the mayor of Edmonton.
And he is, as I said, he's not going to let the sun shine only on Calgary.
He wants to be a superstar too.
That's right.
And it's only a superstar for a short period because in later administrations, they'll wake up and say, oh my God, what a mistake.
And so, but what we're trying to do is, you know, a lot of these plans are already in place, but we want to shorten the length of time before they're kicked out.
Okay.
So people do send us, you know, fill in the form, let us know.
We'd love to help you because if we can defeat this at the municipal level over and over and over, it'll percolate up.
Yeah.
And that's one thing we should have learned from COVID is that all of these bad policies can be implemented at the municipal level and just you get this patchwork quilt of legislation through municipalities and you never had to have government overreach from the province or even from the federal government because your local mayor was happy to do it to you.
That's right.
So Ottawa was going to stop climate change.
You know, it's interesting as a joke here.
We figured out that if you believe the UN's climate science, the impact of Ottawa going to net zero by 2050 and staying that way all the way to the end of the 21st century would be, drum roll, one ten thousandths of a degree C for $60 billion.
I mean, that was one of the points that Jay Niera brought up.
He was with the People's Party of Canada.
He was working with us.
He went to the mic and said, my God, you know, he essentially said, can't you find a better way of using your money?
Our money?
Yeah.
Yeah.
So, I mean, the climate scare is so ludicrous that common people, average people with a little bit of knowledge can massacre the politicians.
And I really want to do that all across Canada.
Well, again, let this be a lesson.
Politicians are not smarter than you.
And environmental activists, they're definitely not smarter than you.
They use language and phrases to obscure the meaning of what they plan to do to you.
And they make things purposefully complicated when they are definitely not.
And so once you break these things down, as Michelle Sterling did into practical terms and experiments, their ideas fail every single time.
So my advice to people is to not be intimidated and to get involved.
That's right.
Get to the microphone, ask your questions, be brave, or you will lose your society.
That's right.
Tom, thanks so much for coming on the show.
Thanks so much for taking the time.
I know I took a little bit more of your time than I normally do, but I really appreciate it.
Happy New Year.
Merry late Christmas and best to you and yours.
And good luck in your future endeavors, educating the public on how to hold their politicians to account.
Yeah.
And thank God for Rebel News.
Amen.
You guys are fantastic.
Thanks, Tom.
We'll talk soon.
Yeah.
Bye.
Well, we've come to the portion of the show where we welcome your viewer feedback.
I know.
I know I must get redundant, but I say this every week because it is so important.
We care about what you think about the work that we're doing here at Rebel News.
And the reason is we don't survive without you and your support.
We're so grateful for it.
And we want to take your temperature on these things because we don't have a sugar daddy named Justin Trudeau reaching into the pockets of Canadians to give us money to create things that the victims of the pickpocketing, well, they don't really want to see, as you can see in the viewership statistics of CBC.
So we want to hear from you.
And one of the best ways to send me your viewer feedback is to send me an email, send it to Sheila at rebelnews.com, put gun show letters in the subject line so that it's easy for me to find it.
Not because I'm lazy and I like things done the easy way, but because I get so many emails in a day.
Also, if you don't want to send me an email and you're feeling a little spontaneous, write a comment on one of our videos wherever you might find us, like on Rumble.
I'm less inclined to read the comments on YouTube because YouTube is a censorship platform anyway.
So who knows?
They might even be deleting your comments over there.
So Rumble, more inclined to look at those.
So if you're watching us, leave a comment.
It might just end up on the show here.
Now, today's letter comes to us from Patricia Reimer, who writes, I had fun watching you read the Christmas letters that folks wrote you.
What a great way to hear from your viewers.
Yeah, I had a lot of fun.
I got a ton of letters.
My kids cut them all up and put them in a bucket for me.
And that video is available for free on YouTube so you can show your friends.
But it was fun.
And frankly, I expected more questions, but it was more of a mutual appreciation convention between myself and my viewers, which was fine.
I'm not mad about complimentary emails and I was happy to have the opportunity to thank those of you who wrote in for your support over the years and those of you who didn't write in, as I said, we don't survive without you.
It caught my attention when you said that your husband is obsessed with blacksmithing.
I'm not even exaggerating a little bit.
He loves learning traditional, useful skills.
It's like my obsession with gardening and trying my best to live off the land that I live on because this is the traditional lands of my family.
Generations and generations of my people have lived and died here.
And the gun women before me, this land gave them everything that they need.
So, and their families, everything that they need.
So I try to do a little bit of that every single day.
And my husband is interested in learning those traditional farming skills.
Farming is a lot more technologically advanced than it was in my great-great-grandparents' time back in 1903.
But it's good to learn those useful skills.
Patricia goes on to write, my husband is a professional blacksmith.
You guys should check out a short documentary that our local Shaw TV station did on him and his rise to the world of public art.
That's so cool.
That's actual public art and not the garbage towers of unfinished construction materials that they call public art in Calgary, by the way.
He now has public art pieces across Western Canada and in the states of Colorado, Utah, and Texas.
My hubby and I are passionate freedom fighters.
You know what, Patricia?
People with useful skills generally are.
You know, truckers, farmers, blacksmiths.
Paul drove with the Freedom Convoy from our home in Cranbrook, BC, and stayed in Ottawa for 10 days.
I work with Greg Hill, the founder of Free to Fly, a nonprofit committed to supporting Canadians' right to travel.
We've interviewed Greg Hill on Rebel News quite a bit.
Paul loves to show off his shop and even gives blacksmith lessons from time to time.
If you're ever around Cranbrook, please stop in for a tour and a visit.
Don't threaten me with a good time, Patricia, because I just might, my daughter plays rugby in BC quite a bit.
And so I just might take you up on that offer.
Patricia Reimer.
And she also sends me a link to my husband's next YouTube viewing session of her husband, artist Paul Reimer, on Shaw TV.
Thanks so much for the letter, Patricia.
I mentioned it as I breezed through your letter, but it is true that most of the people who made up the Freedom Convoy were useful people with real tangible life skills.
They do the things that you can't do from behind a laptop.
And it was those people who kept us going during the pandemic.
And it was also those same people who were hurt the most by Justin Trudeau's restrictions and mandates.
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.