Sheila Gunn-Reid argues conservatives must abandon climate alarmist language like "carbon pollution," which she calls a left-wing manipulation, and reject policies like carbon capture—citing Shell’s Alberta Quest facility as ineffective despite heavy subsidies. Polls show strong public opposition to carbon taxes and support for oil/gas, yet leaders like Alberta Premier Danielle Smith and Pierre Poilievre avoid skepticism, risking grid failures akin to Texas’s 2021 blackout (8M without power) or California’s battery collapse (102 seconds). She blames elite-driven narratives over science, urges open hearings with diverse experts, and warns reliance on wind/solar could cause deadly shortages in cold regions like Ottawa. Gunn-Reid insists conservatives should trust public sentiment, not left-leaning advisors, and cites Vivek Ramaswamy’s defiance as a model. [Automatically generated summary]
What happens when conservatives adopt the language of the left?
Well, they continue to lose.
I'm Sheila Gunn-Reed, and you're watching The Gunn Show.
You know, there's nothing quite as defeatist as watching a smart conservative who doesn't believe at all the things they're saying, using the language of the left to make compelling arguments to other conservatives.
Let me give you an example.
When you see strong, thoughtful, bold conservative politicians, like, for example, Alberta Premier Daniel Smith, using words like carbon capture, carbon emissions, even carbon pollution to describe carbon dioxide, which is plant food.
It's so disappointing because when you concede the language of the left, you are acknowledging the validity of the left's flawed arguments, right?
And you're also moving the battlefield of ideas closer to your own home front.
And that's never good.
Now, joining me to discuss this problem with conservatives, specifically as it relates to climate change, is my friend Tom Harris from the International Climate Science Coalition in an interview we recorded earlier.
check it out.
So joining me now is good friend of the show, my friend Tom Harris from the International Climate Science Coalition.
And Tom, you sent me some really great articles from America Out Loud regarding conservatives and not even just conservatives, but people who are climate realists conceding the language of the other side all the time.
And I think it is, you know, you're moving the battleground of ideas closer to yourself when you do these sorts of things.
Yeah, yeah, exactly.
Yeah, unfortunately, what's happened is, you know, the main people doing research into the use of language in the climate war, and it is a war, okay?
You know, they want to destroy our major energy sources and, you know, all over something that's generally speaking a hoax.
But the people who are doing the research in this are all on the left.
Okay.
If you look at the sociologists, you look at the psychologists, you know, everybody who's doing research and trying to decide what sort of language should be used to promote their cause, they're all on the left.
Okay, so what's happening is these people are deciding that based on their polling and their research, that in fact calling it carbon pollution instead of carbon dioxide, you know, saying, you know, climate change is real, all these kinds of nonsensical statements, that that will help sway the debate.
And so conservatives, unfortunately, have been duped into using the same language.
Okay.
And it is interesting because this is very much like out of 1984.
You might remember in George Orwell's 1984, there was an appendix, a 10-page appendix at the end, in which he introduced the concept of new speak.
And there was various types of languages, A language, B language, C language.
The B language was words that were chosen to promote the only way they wanted you to think.
Okay.
They had, you know, crime think, they called it, if you actually thought differently.
And so language type B was language that was used to influence the thinking pattern of the population.
And, you know, it's interesting because I use something called Ngram on the internet.
It's a Google tool that shows you the frequency of the use of certain words.
Now, the use of the word carbon dioxide has gone down, but the use of carbon pollution has gone through the roof.
Okay, carbon sequestration, carbon capture, carbon footprint, you know, all that sort of thing.
And so what's happened is sadly, the conservatives are actually helping this come about.
And, you know, a really good example, I think, oh, and by the way, I should just read to you a quick quote here.
University of Florida linguist, her name's MJ Hardman.
She just passed away, unfortunately.
This is what she said in her book, a paper called Language and War.
She said, quote, language is inseparable from humanity and follows us in all our works.
Language is the instrument with which we form thought and feeling, mood, aspiration, will and action.
The instrument by whose means we influence and are influenced.
So, you know, it's interesting.
I got into Bing AI.
Have you ever tried Bing AI yet?
No, I'm scared of AI.
Well, it's interesting.
If you go to Bing.com and you put in a question, you know, like, for example, is language important in the climate debate, which I asked it.
And you click on chat, it'll actually give you a verbal answer, which is quite fun.
And it tells, yes, yes, it's so important.
I said, well, who's working on this issue?
Who's actually studying how to use language?
And they list all these people, all of them, social scientists and people in the humanities from the left.
I said, is anybody working on this to try to understand the words to use to convince people there is no climate crisis?
And it had nobody, like nobody's doing it.
And I said to the Bing AI, and it was quite interesting to see, you know, in some cases, you can actually, it'll learn.
Okay.
It'll learn to change its approach.
For example, I asked it, can you tell me a joke about Canadians?
So it told me a silly joke about Canadians.
I said the same thing about Americans, about British.
And then I said, can you tell me a silly joke about Pakistanis?
And it said, oh, no, I can't do that.
Some people might be offended, you know.
So I said to the Bing AI, I said, well, how does that match with telling jokes about other, you know, other nationalities?
And it sort of paused for a while and it kind of thought.
And I said, yeah, you have a point.
So two hours later, I got back in and asked it, can you tell me a joke about Canadians?
And it said, oh, no, I can't do that.
That would be offensive to some people.
So the Bing AI, the Bing AI can learn, but it doesn't learn when it comes to some topics.
It's really held down solid, like in the case of climate change.
So I asked the Bing AI, I said, considering how important it is to use the right language in the climate debate, if you were advising people who oppose the climate scare, wouldn't you tell them that they should study language and they should pay attention to it?
And the Bing AI said, oh, no, I would never tell them that.
I would tell them that they should change their point of view.
You know, so it's quite quite funny to actually have this little debate with it.
I said, yes, but if you were advising them and it finally admitted, yeah, you guys had better study language, you know?
So what I did is I went and looked at the new conservative policy of our Conservative Party of Canada policies.
They've actually taken out some really garbagey stuff, which is great.
Okay.
But here's another, here's two of them.
I'll just read a couple.
They say that their policies will be firmly based on the best scientific and technological information currently available concerning both the issues and our responses to them.
Okay, that sounds great.
You know, I mean, you're going to do that.
But then they go on to say, in pursuit of a purposeful, gradual transition to a lower carbon use future, a conservative government will support the continued use of oil and gas while encouraging research and development aimed at creating safe, dependable, and economical options, including, are you ready for this?
This is conservative, remember?
Pursuing Cleaner Fuels00:04:00
Including carbon capture technology.
Well, thank you.
Battery storage, pathetic.
Small modular actors.
Okay, that makes sense.
And hydrogen-based generation, which of course is ridiculous.
You lose incredible amounts of energy when you make the hydrogen and then you use it as a currency later.
So what they're doing is they're feeding the false narrative of the climate scare in the hopes that, oh, yeah, sure, our industry will be killed, but it'll be a little slower and less painful.
We'll feed the crocodile last.
You know, and it's interesting because I think the most powerful voice against the phasing out of Canadian oil and gas in this country, as far as premiers go, is Danielle Smith.
I mean, she's really poking back at the feds and she's having some other premiers join her, including Scott Mo.
But she says this stuff too.
She says, you know what, we're going to do, we're not going to phase out our oil and gas industry.
We're going to do things to offset our carbon emissions.
At least she still calls them emissions and not pollution, but it's still conceding the language to the other side.
And she says, we'll do things like carbon capture.
Why?
Why?
I got a tree.
I have a tree that does that.
Yeah.
Pierre Polyev does the same thing.
I mean, Pierre Polyev says it's not, you know, regulations and taxes.
It's technology.
Technology for what?
He wants to store carbon dioxide underground, which has got to be one of the dumbest ideas that people have ever talked about.
You know, it's actually dangerous too, because if you think about it, carbon dioxide is heavier than air.
And so if it ever leaks out, it'll form a big bubble over the area.
And of course, it displaces the air.
So in fact, it would suffocate people.
And, you know, I'll give you a really good example.
There's a lake in the Cameroons called Lake Lagos.
And back several decades ago, there was a huge natural eruption of carbon dioxide.
And I mean, it was huge.
You know, it would have filled several city blocks.
And as this CO2 bubble rolled down the countryside, it killed hundreds of cattle.
It killed dozens of people.
And there's a funny, not funny, but interesting story about a fellow who saw people dying all around him.
He couldn't smell anything.
He couldn't see anything.
And he jumped on his motorcycle.
And by very good fortune, he drove in the right direction and he got out of the bubble and he survived.
So you really don't want to live beside one of these.
Can I tell you I do?
Can I tell you that I do?
Oh, you do?
I do.
I live next to the Shell Scottford carbon capture area.
We have these salt formations, these salt caverns underground.
And it's one of the reasons they put the refinery there, but also they inject the CO2 into the salt caverns.
It started off as a test experiment.
At least it's lower than the rest of us.
Yeah, well, that's a good point because it'll, but, but, you know, I would, if I were in your shoes, I'd definitely get a CO2 detector if you can, you know, because I mean, who knows?
I suppose statistically for any particular CO2 storage site, it's pretty unlikely that it would leak.
And you're right.
If it's lower than you, you're probably pretty safe.
But the other thing is, of course, it massively increases the cost of energy.
Sure.
Okay.
Because you've got to collect the CO2 and then they have to pump it through pipelines.
And you can't use, you know, pipelines that already exist because they're full of natural gas, of course.
But you got to pump it somewhere else.
And then you've got to compress it.
And then you got to put it underground.
So it takes a huge amount of energy.
So in fact, when you talk about carbon capture and storage, you know, Bob Murray from Murray Energy in the United States, they were a major coal company.
He said essentially that carbon capture, as they called it, it's really carbon dioxide, but carbon capture and storage is essentially a synonym for no coal.
Okay.
And, you know, we should want to keep coal.
I mean, everybody says, oh, we got to get rid of coal.
Well, no, actually, they're replacing coal in many cases with natural gas.
Global Climate Divide00:11:15
And, you know, Sheila, I call that a reverse Midas touch.
That's like turning gold into lead.
Okay.
Save our natural gas for what it's really, you know, good for.
And coal is a very dependable, solid baseload power source.
So we should keep coal with the best pollution control devices, of course, and forget about CO2 capture.
But, you know, this whole business, I think a lot of the grassroots are not happy about the way that Pierre Polyev and Daniel Smith are promoting the climate scare through their language.
Okay.
They're actually using the language of their enemies.
I'll give you an example.
Last year we were at the Strong and Free Networking Conference and we had a booth and it was quite interesting because a lot of conservatives, grassroots people, they came up and said, yeah, we agree with you.
This whole thing is a hoax.
There's no climate crisis.
And I asked some of the candidates' campaign managers, I said, you know, do you think or does your candidate think that we have a climate crisis?
And they said, no.
I said, well, then why are they promoting the climate scare?
And of course, the answer was because they want to be prime minister.
Well, just down the hall, there was a special session about a conservative approach to stopping climate change, you know, and reducing emissions and all that.
So I went there and sat right in the front because they were supposed to have a question period, but I guess maybe they saw me there because they scared the question period.
But anyway, I went to the coordinator afterwards and I said, do you think we have a climate crisis caused by humans?
And he said, no.
I said, well, then why are you pushing the climate scare?
And you know what he said?
He said, well, we fought that war and we lost it.
I said, you never fought that war.
I mean, except for a few speeches from people like Preston Manning at the very beginning, and he changed sides later, and Bob Mills, who changed sides later, and Stephen Harper, who changed sides later.
They never fought the war.
I mean, people have to remember that Stephen Harper with John Baird as environment minister, they're the ones that signed the Paris Agreement.
Let me just have a glass of water here.
Yeah, so, I mean, what they should be saying is carbon dioxide is not causing dangerous global warming.
We don't need any carbon solution at all.
But they won't say that.
And, you know, I think that the liberals who are pushing and anybody who's pushing the climate alarm, they must be thrilled when their enemy uses their language.
Well, and these are the same people, by the way, that like that conservatives are cozying up to who will accuse anybody who says, you know what, I'm not, I don't think taxing my car will stop forest fires.
The other side of this argument calls those very reasonable people arsonists.
They are using wild, insane, hyperbolic language, and the conservatives are completely adopting it.
And this is a winning issue, by the way, across all political stripes.
I think it was, I just, I'm pulling it up out of the corner of my eye because I remember when I co-hosted for Ezra, a guest hosted for Ezra, I had done a show on the polling data on Canadians' opinions on climate change.
And it was an Ipsos poll commissioned by the Montreal Economic Institute.
And it showed that Canadians across all age groups, including younger, traditional left voting demographics, are completely over the carbon tax.
Six in 10 Canadians can't or don't want to pay more in taxes to fight climate change.
And it's two in three people are pro-pipeline, pro-oil and gas.
This is a winning issue.
If conservatives would campaign on it, they're just scared to for some reason.
Well, it's not just that they're scared to.
I mean, they're letting the camel in the tent and they're parading it around.
I mean, they're actually promoting the climate scare.
I mean, listen to this.
We have a group in Canada.
They're MPs, Conservatives for Clean Growth.
Okay.
It was founded last year by Lisa Ray.
Of course.
She's a former federal minister, Jim Dinning, who's a former provincial minister, and Ken Buzenkall.
And here's what they say.
A stable, credible, long-term net zero climate plan today will open the door to opportunities in the future.
Yeah, opportunities to end the oil and gas industry.
I mean, you have to realize that is their goal.
I mean, they don't want to have carbon capture.
They don't want to have less oil and gas.
They want to have none.
Okay.
Look at these big protests that are happening in, well, Ottawa just a few days ago, but also all over New York City.
I mean, the whole focus of that is end carbon cap and all carbon dioxide producing fuels.
And the same thing's happening in the United States.
I'll just read you a quote here.
It's a group called the Conservative Climate Caucus, a caucus within the House of Representatives.
They got 73 members, and here's one of their main statements.
And I'm going to show you in a sec that industry, believe it or not, are promoting this too.
They're completely colonized by this nonsense.
I know, it's insane.
The Conservative Climate Caucus in the House of Representatives, they say climate change is a global issue, and China is the greatest immediate obstacle to reducing world emissions.
Solutions should reduce global emissions and not just feel-good policies.
No, guys, you should not accept guilt for a crime that you're not committing.
Okay.
It's as if you're charged with murder and your lawyer comes to you and says, look, if we plead guilty and we act really nice, you might only get life imprisonment instead of being executed if you're in a state somewhere that executes people.
You say to your lawyer, no, I'm not guilty.
I didn't do it.
Okay.
But, you know, right now there's something called the 24th World Petroleum Conference that's going on right now in Calgary.
And it's interesting because the head of the World Petroleum Congress, Dennis Panchot, okay, he told Global News, it was either yesterday or the day before, that we need to decarbonize the oil and gas industry as much as we can.
And here's a quote.
Industry has come together to recognize and to appreciate that we're all in this together, that we all need to tackle climate change.
It's real.
They're using the language of our enemies.
Yeah, and using the language of COVID, by the way.
Like royal misery.
And so what can industry do to address the contributions to climate change or its contributions to climate change?
And you got the same thing from the Canadian Energy Center.
You know, that is really frustrating.
I mean, they are promoting.
They're saying, you know, we'll probably not be able to do without technical solutions like underground storage of CO2.
And of course, then you got the Pathways Alliance, which is, of course, the oil sands people who are focused on reducing climate change.
And they say, our path to net zero from operations will help our country achieve a sustainable future.
Well, come on, guys.
You know, so I always, you know, I look at this from the point of view, look, if those researchers are promoting this language to support the climate scare, then why are you using their language?
And, you know, there's a lot of studies that have gone into the use of language in war.
I mean, it is extremely important.
It changes the way people think.
It's like right out of 1984.
So, I mean, the bottom line is that conservatives feel that they fought this battle and lost.
The truth is they've barely started.
No, they haven't barely started.
Since Kyoto.
Yeah.
Yeah.
No, no, I find it quite pathetic.
And, you know, it's interesting because many in the grassroots are not at all happy that Pierre Polyev and others are promoting the scare.
Pierre Polyev stands up for carbon sequestration, as he calls it.
He wants us to move to electric vehicles and, of course, do a lot of the mining for lithium, et cetera, in Canada, which is better, I guess, than getting it from China.
He wants to push developing countries off of coal onto Canada's carbon dioxide lower natural gas.
Now, natural gas is great.
You know, I support natural gas.
But the idea that you should be pushing them off their least expensive form of electricity, that doesn't make any sense at all.
You should just simply help them with better pollution control.
So, I mean, I think that, you know, just right now, you know, they have this big climate week in New York City.
And people like Joe Biden and others are saying, you know, this is the greatest threat to humanity.
I don't know if you saw, but Biden said that he said the only existential threat, this is what he said in Hanoi just two days ago.
Guess what?
In addition to helping the environment overall, and the only existential threat humanity faces, even more frightening than a Lincoln War, is global warming going above 1.5 degrees in the next 20, 10 years.
And we're here to real Trump.
There's no way back from that.
The only existential threat to humanity, more frightening even than nuclear war, is global warming of 1.5 degrees.
That's why they don't seem to be taking that conflict between Russia and Ukraine all that seriously is because they're all worried about climate change.
And I'm like, are they going to nuke the world?
I'm not sure.
Yeah.
But you know, Sheila, there's lots of polls around the world, even UN polls, that show that the average person is not concerned about climate change in comparison with things like peace and prosperity and food and water and freedom and all that sort of thing.
And, you know, the UN itself did a poll called My World.
They started in 2015.
And they got over 9 million people voting all across all across the world, largely in developing countries, which is interesting.
And they listed 17 possible priorities for the UN to focus on.
You were supposed to choose your top six.
And climate change came out dead last of the 17 priorities.
Yeah.
And you see this over and over.
I mean, Gallup just did a poll in the United States.
And, you know, they're asking people questions about, you know, how seriously they take this, et cetera.
And the bottom line is that the politicians are leading us into kind of a never-never land that the average person does not support.
Okay, so you're right.
This is an election issue.
I don't know if you saw the GOP debate, the first primary debate for a candidate to be the GOP candidate for president.
Ramaswamy, his name is Vivek.
He got up there and he said three times, he said, the climate scare is a hoax.
He said it three times, okay?
You couldn't miss it.
And he said, the only people dying from climate is from climate policy, not from climate change, which of course is true.
Nobody dies from climate change.
And well, you know, unless you have extreme cooling the way we did in Greenland, you know, which of course led to the extinction of the Greenland colony.
But Vive Swami was very, very smart.
Okay.
And I was reading a recent opinion poll, and apparently after Trump, he's now the leading candidate.
And, you know, we have to remember also that Stephen Harper was a strong climate skeptic.
Okay.
He said that the Kyoto Protocol, how did he put it?
Parking Problems?00:05:04
Yeah, socialist money-grabbing scheme, I think were the terms he used.
Evergreen.
And yet he became prime minister.
So I don't know why these people are so afraid of it.
I mean, the average person would agree with them.
It's stupid.
You know, going back to, I was just while you were talking, because, again, I live next door to a carbon capture facility, Shell's Quest facility, and they just proposed another one called Polaris.
And I've seen the data on what this thing actually does.
It releases more carbon than it captures.
It's supposed to capture like 90% of Shell's greenhouse gas emissions.
And I think it sequestered like 40% and released 60% of the, and it's just a big taxpayer boondoggle.
The thing initially, like 15 years ago, cost a little over $1 billion.
I can't even imagine putting a shovel in the ground for less than $2 billion at this point.
But more than half of that money came from subsidies and grants from the provincial government and the federal government.
It's just a make-work virtue signaling project that even if you cared about greenhouse gas emissions, and I definitely don't, it doesn't do what it says it's going to do.
Yeah, yeah.
And actually, this is interesting.
If you were a true left-wing, socially conscious environmentalist, you should oppose wind and solar power.
You should oppose many of the plans that they're promoting.
And you might have seen the film by Michael Moore, a very left-wing film producer, called Planet of the Humans.
And in Planet of the Humans, they show that wind and solar are probably the most filthy energy sources on the planet when you look how they mine the lithium, the cobalt, you know, and children in the Congo to get you the cobalt.
They have no plan for getting rid of all the wind turbines.
They don't actually decompose easily, the fiberglass, et cetera.
And of course, enormous amount of toxic waste from solar panels when they're used up.
They just throw them in the ground.
So, you know, the whole thing is that if you, and also if you were interested in social justice, you should absolutely support Canadian oil and gas, okay?
Because we have the highest ethical standards in the way we treat our workers.
But, you know, you look at how they treat the children in the Congo.
Children as young as four years old are in tiny mines.
Okay.
They use children partly to get into the little mines.
Yeah.
And they're breathing radioactive dust and everything so that a North American can feel virtuous to drive their EV, you know?
So, I mean, if you really cared about the environment, if you really cared about social justice, you would oppose virtually everything the left is pushing on this.
So I think what's happened is partly through the choice of language and also through the suppression of information, you know, like the wind turbines were definitely a major contributor to the Texas blackout in 2021 when it all failed, 50% of it in just a few hours.
So, I mean, what's happening is people who have a good heart on the left, and there are some, one of my sisters is a strong socialist.
She understands the situation now, but most of them simply don't.
They've been bamboozled.
Yeah, I was talking to Michelle Sterling from Friends of Science about this not all that long ago when, you know, there's this push to get the entire grid contaminated with green energy is what I would call it.
And she said, the problem is the acres and acres of batteries that you need to park somewhere, usually arable farmland because the city people don't like looking at this stuff.
So it ends up next door to me.
And then she said, there's a real problem with these facilities in that if there is a fire at one of them, the fire departments don't know how to deal with them.
They are toxic.
It's not like up the road at the refinery, they have their own teams of firefighters who are specifically trained in a fire at that facility.
They know how to deal with it almost instantly.
They don't know how to deal with the kind of chemical fires that could arise from a battery plant.
And that's a real problem for people who have to live next door to them.
Oh, yeah, for sure.
And I understand Norwegian shipping will no longer take battery-powered cars, EVs, because, of course, we've seen some complete cargoes lost because when the car catches fire, you know, you're on a ship.
That's pretty dangerous.
And I was reading that in some places in Europe, I believe it's in Germany, they're banning underground parking for electric vehicles.
The other thing, of course, which is insane, is that I can see a circumstance developing in the future, not too long from now, when insurance companies are going to say you can't park your EV in your garage.
Oh, I believe it.
It's too dangerous.
Yeah.
And yet you have to, in cold weather, you have to park your EV in your garage or you can't start it because the batteries don't work very well when it's minus 30.
So you're just going to have this useless piece of junk that's going to sit on the side of the road for the whole winter.
You can't use it because you'll void your insurance plan if you park it inside.
And if you don't park it inside, you can't use it.
Free Version Viewers00:15:17
But you know, there's a way out of this for people like Danielle Smith.
And what Danielle Smith could do, and I think this would be very, very important, is without actually doing like you might remember, she actually was lambasted at a CBC event about 10 or 12 years ago when she expressed some doubt about the climate scare.
And she didn't actually set the stage.
And so it was actually not very smart from a PR point of view.
And of course, it was a CBC audience.
So they, you know, and it was completely loaded with leftists.
So as soon as she expressed some doubt about the climate scare, they just massacred her.
And of course, she thought, oh my God, you know, and so she backed off and now she changed sides.
But instead of doing that, what she needs to do is say something like this: Look, I'm not a scientist, but I think that we have to look at the science very carefully before we make major life-altering decisions for our society.
So without actually biasing them one way or the other, I'm going to hold open hearings in which I bring in scientists from across the political spectrum and a political scientist.
And I'm going to actually have them tell us what they think about climate change.
And of course, being Alberta, it's a great location to bring in geologists.
Yes.
Okay.
Like Michelle's group, Friends of Science.
You know, they're founded with geologists, like people like Albert Jacobs.
So what would happen is that she should make the hearing open, okay, should be public.
She should not take a position.
She should simply say, let's hear what the experts have to say.
And what would happen is there would be a Donnybrook, okay, within this meeting.
You'd have some scientists like Michael Mann saying, oh, it's the end of the world.
And you have the geologists saying, come on, we've had CO2 10 times higher in the past and it was colder.
So, you know, what are you talking about?
And so what would happen is the public would watch this and they'd say, wow, these guys don't agree.
There's no consensus.
You know, I mean, the science isn't settled.
It's all over the map.
Maybe we'll wait for 10 years.
And in 10 years, if the science is settled, yeah, sure, then we'll talk about reducing CO2.
So then after the hearing, Danielle Smith can say, geez, you know, based on what I've heard, it sounds like a big gamble to be trusting only one side of the science.
See, most people right now, they don't even know there's another side.
Okay.
So what she should do is have these open hearings, invite scientists in a nonpartisan way from across the spectrum, and also bring in some engineers.
What would happen if we tried to run our society on wind and solar power, Mr. Engineer?
And the engineer would say, like you'd be back to living conditions from the 1800s and you'd probably have thousands of people die, you know, freezing in the dark because they don't have any power, just like in Texas, where up to 700 people died.
You know, I mean, it's amazing.
If you look at the Texas statistics, and remember, Texas was more than 50% powered by wind power just before the storm hit.
And within a few hours when the wind died, 13,000 megawatts went offline, bam, in just a few hours.
Now, to give you some perspective, Ontario today, its demand is around 16,000 megawatts.
So it's almost as if the whole of Ontario went offline in just a few hours.
Okay, that's what happened in Texas.
And they ended up with 8 million people without power, without water, because of course the water filtration plants couldn't pump the couldn't pump the water without heat.
Yeah, without heat.
And this was in Texas, okay, where it was very cold for Texas.
But you compare that, let's say, with Ottawa.
It was interesting because I was watching the temperature graph over that time period.
I was comparing Ottawa with Austin, Texas.
Okay, Austin, Texas had a few days where it went below zero, just below zero.
Okay.
Ottawa, in that same period, had a few days where it went just above zero.
Okay, so it's much colder, of course, in Ottawa.
And in Texas, they didn't get rid of their natural gas and they were able to quadruple its output to help compensate, but it wasn't good enough.
You get places like Ottawa, and I'm not sure what Calgary is going to do, but Ottawa wants to turn off its natural gas.
So it's a lot colder and we'll have no natural gas to suddenly ramp up.
Yeah, you're inviting thousands of deaths.
And that's exactly what I would tell them.
That's what most engineers would tell them, that you can't rely on these energy sources and batteries to back up.
Oh, come on.
You know, like what fantasy are you in?
The biggest battery pack in the world is in California.
And it's interesting, Sheila, if they had to power the state with battery power from the biggest battery pack in the world, it would last for 102 seconds.
So they'd have enough time to find a flashlight.
And so, I mean, what Daniel Smith should do without taking any point of view is bring in experts, and I'd be very happy to go in, but other engineers too, I'm sure, would, especially from Alberta.
I mean, you guys have geologists and engineers galore.
You know, go in and just tell the public what would happen.
And, you know, then she can back up and say, oh, well, you know, I didn't really have opinion on this before, but I'm starting to think that this is a big mistake.
Yeah, these politicians have to quit taking advice from people who don't understand how the power grid works.
It's very complicated.
And the people on the left who are telling us that the world is, are we dead already?
I think we've died a couple times from climate change, either cold or hot, based on their doomsday cult timelines.
And we just have to quit taking advice from those people because that's how we all end up dead from, you know, Sheila, they've got to realize that a lot of conservatives, although they say, oh, well, we can't say that because that's not public opinion.
But, you know, they have the cart before the horse in this case.
There was a study done.
I think we've spoken about it before by McGill University, Drexel, and Ohio State University researchers, social scientists.
And they were looking at what is the major driver of public opinion on climate change.
And they did all sorts of polls and very sophisticated studies.
And, you know, at first you would think it would be media.
Nope, it wasn't media.
Then you'd think, well, maybe it's the science.
Nope, it's not the science.
It's not the statements of the environmental activists or these big protests.
The thing that drives public opinion more than anything in the United States, but I'm sure it would apply in Canada, is the statement of the elites and in particular the statement of politicians.
And they gave a very interesting example.
When John McCain was alive as a Republican, he was promoting the climate scare.
He was supporting it.
And the conservatives in the United States, the actual government people, the Republicans, were supporting the climate scare.
And public support for taking action to supposedly stop climate change, public support was very high.
But when we got Republicans like Trump and others, you know, in power and they started saying things that were true, you know, things like this whole climate scare is ridiculous, the support of public went way down.
Okay, so what's happening is many of the inside advisors in communications and strategy for the Conservative Party of Canada, the impression I get is that they're either so young that they don't understand it, or they're thinking more about getting jobs in the PR sector afterwards, which, you know, it's pretty well all left wing in the PR industry.
And so what they're not doing is they're not taking their role seriously.
Their role, to a large extent, is leading public opinion.
And that's why I think Daniel Smith could really turn the whole debate around for not just Alberta, but for Canada by having open hearings in which experts are allowed to speak and then say, oh, yeah, wow.
Geez, you know, this is nothing.
This is not settled.
I think we've got to wait a little while and then back off the whole carbon capture and all the other things she talks about.
Yeah.
I mean, and it's just so expensive and apparently, according to the things that I'm reading, also very ineffective.
Tom, I could talk to you all day, as you know, but I got to skedaddle.
I got to go to Regina.
Tell us how people can support the work that you do at the International Climate Science Coalition Canada.
Because as I say to Michelle Sterling all the time, there are like just a tiny handful of climate realists in this country.
And you are up against the deep pockets of the big green machine being funded out of the United States and unfortunately from Ottawa to damn us all into energy poverty.
Yeah, exactly.
Well, if people go to icsc-canada.com, you can see a big red donate button in the upper right-hand corner.
And we only get donations from individuals.
You know, we're a nonprofit and we use all the money, of course, for our campaigns.
And we'd love to expand our efforts.
We were very successful in the Ottawa election, as you and I have spoken about.
We want to do that in other cities.
We want to do that in Calgary, where the average person learns enough about this that they can go and contest the climate scare at the municipal level.
And with sufficient funds, we will exactly do that.
You've got another project.
You've got your podcast.
You always forget to tell us about the podcast.
That's right.
The other side of the story in the United States and exploratory journeys here in Canada.
If people go to AmericaOutloud.com and click on our team and click on my name, you can see our podcast.
We actually had an interview with Joseph Benemi, who's a leading conservative communications expert.
He worked actually for Stephen Harper.
And this week's topic, and people can hear it, it's right there.
It's the first issue actually under my listing, is a discussion with him about how the Conservatives are making a massive mistake on their language use.
Okay, so that's what it's talking to Joseph about.
Awesome.
Tom, thanks so much for coming on the show.
And thanks for being such a realistic breath of fresh air in this topic that is just polluted with hyperbole and hysteria.
And Newspeak.
Newspeak from 1984.
George L. Orwell would be thrilled to see how they've used stuff right out of his book.
Yeah, it was a novel, not an instruction manual, but here we are.
Thanks, Tom.
Well, friends, we've come to the portion of the show where we invite your viewer feedback.
You see, unlike the mainstream media, I actually care about what you think about the work that I do here at Rebel News and the work that the rest of the team does here as well.
It's why we leave our comment section open.
And it's why I give out my email address right now.
It's sheila at rebelnews.com.
Drop me a line.
Send me an email.
Let me know what you thought.
Put Gun show, g-u-n-n show letters in the subject line so that I know why you're reaching out to me and it also makes it easier for me to find.
I get sometimes hundreds of emails a day, especially if I said something crazy or controversial.
Um, given my honest opinion about a, um prickly topic, sometimes people like to put me on blast and uh, you know what whatever, if I were in the mainstream media i'd be over on twitter crying about it, but i'm not.
So anyway, If you, maybe you don't want to send me an email, maybe you just want to leave a comment on the show wherever you're watching the show on YouTube or Rumble, if you're watching the free version.
Thank you, by the way, for sitting through an ad.
And thank you to our subscribers who make it possible for the people to watch the free version of the show on YouTube.
Now, this week's comments come to me because of last week's show.
Now, last week's show I filled with my friend and my colleague and my partner in documentary filmmaking, Kian Simoni.
You see, we were both in Israel and then in Dubai to investigate the impacts of the Trump negotiated Abraham Accords between Israel and five Muslim countries, including the United Arab Emirates.
And it's really been a boom for trade and peace and prosperity.
And if Donald Trump were on the left, he would have gotten a Nobel Peace Prize for what he had done.
But it was interesting for me to see, as a third time visitor to the state of Israel, to see my friend Kian Simoni experience Israel for the first time.
Because when you go there, you realize that most of everything you hear about Israel in the mainstream media is a complete and total fabrication of the left and the anti-American institutional socialist complex.
Anyway, so I did a show with Kian asking him, you know, like what were his thoughts experiencing Israel and learning what are the facts from on the ground, having learned everything he thought he knew about Israel just from the media and from like his peer group who tend to be pretty anti-Israel.
And so anyway, we've got some interesting comments about that from people who probably have never been to Israel and who, like Kian, only know what they know about Israel from mainstream media sources and anti-American sources.
Anyway, let's go to comment section.
That guy, A, on YouTube, by the way, this is on YouTube, so the free version of the show.
He writes to me and says, saying that standing behind Israel is important because it's about capitalism sums up the sociopathy of Rebel better than I ever could.
It's an interesting comment about being anti-capitalist from a guy who's watching the free version of the show, a version of the show that somebody else through their donations made possible for him to see.
Just a little on the nose, don't you think?
May Bernard, 6735, and I'm just taking these at random, by the way, says, this was very interesting and I enjoyed this, but Sheila, your hair looks amazing here.
I am curl jealous.
You know what?
Thank you.
But the entire time that I was in Israel and Dubai, I felt like my hair was just, I couldn't get it right.
It was so humid.
And so I'm going to be honest here.
It was three degrees this morning.
It was oppressively hot while I was there.
Next person says, Rolf 09, why go to Israel, just stay on Canadian news, not donating money for international news, not about Canada?
I think it's interesting because part of our mandate here at Rebel News is to tell the other side of this story.
And if you don't think the fact that peace broke out in the Middle East, thanks to Donald Trump's mantra of figure it out if you want access to the White House, I think that's pretty interesting.
If you don't think that peace breaking out in the Middle East is newsworthy, well, what is newsworthy?
And by the way, we talk about Canadian news all the time.
Sudden Symbol Controversy00:01:59
And again, you're watching the free version of the show.
So thanks very much.
Guy Frazier, 8157 says, are you allowed to have a Canadian flag in Ottawa or will the Stasi accost you under political directives?
Guy, that's an interesting comment because when I was in Israel, it was pretty clear that no matter your political leanings, and I think this has a lot to do with the mandatory military service there, people fly the Israeli flag, the left, the right, doesn't matter.
They unite around the common cause of the existential threat of terrorism all around them.
And if you wave the Canadian flag, you're not seen as some, or I'm sorry, if you wave the Israeli flag, you're not seen as some sort of right-wing radical, as is the case these days in Canada.
You know, you see those moral printing people on social media and in the news saying, is the Canadian flag a far-right symbol now?
I'm uncomfortable flying the Canadian flag.
I'm triggered by Canada Day, blah, But it isn't the case there.
It really isn't the case in Israel.
It's, I think it is a testament to mandatory military service, of course, because you have to put aside your political differences to deal with, as I said, the existential threat all around you.
But it also is a testament to the power of the mind virus of the Trudeau-funded mainstream media in this country upon the malleable Canadian population who will read an article saying, oh, is the Canadian flag a symbol of the far right?
And then you all of a sudden you think, well, maybe it is a symbol of the far right.
And then all of a sudden you hate Canada Day because you think it is a day that celebrates fascism.
It's something for us to learn from the state of Israel, that's for sure.
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.