Sheila Gunn-Reid and Michelle Sterling expose COP28’s hypocrisy, where the UAE—dependent on fossil fuels—pushes emissions cuts while targeting dissenters like farmers and Indigenous groups through carbon credits and criminalization threats. Canada’s S243 bill, backed by Brookfield-linked Mark Carney (whose firm underreports emissions), forces climate-aligned finance, while CAPE conflates healthcare with climate messaging. Sterling critiques academic censorship, questioning unproven "mass graves" narratives tied to monetization incentives post-Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and warns against silencing debate. Their work reveals systemic efforts to punish skepticism while ignoring historical religious burial traditions, demanding accountability over fear-mongering. [Automatically generated summary]
The world's control freaks and busybodies are meeting this week in the United Arab Emirates to devise new ways to control your life.
I'm Sheila Gunn-Reed, and you're watching The Gunn Show.
Today's show topic is similar to last week's.
I'm talking about the annual United Nations Climate Change Conference.
It's known as COP or Conference of the Parties 28.
You might see that in news jargon, but really it's the annual climate summit where the people who want to control what you can do and say and think and move and eat all meet together for their little cabal talk fest where they devise new ways to make life more expensive for you.
And it's often held in some of the nicer, more exotic places of the world with the exception of Katowice, Poland, although I thought it was really nice because when I was in Poland, it was in Poland's coal country.
And so I really liked it.
I'm not sure the climate gurus did.
But this year it's in the United Arab Emirates, one of the most energy-intensive places on the face of the earth, a place that was built nearly entirely with oil and gas wealth.
And the United Arab Emirates isn't about to change that.
I'll discuss all that today in my interview with my friend Michelle Sterling from Friends of Science.
So we're building on last week's show where we interviewed Robert Lyman about what to expect from the climate change conference.
Michelle is going to talk about what we're seeing now coming out of the climate change conference.
And then we're going to talk about the ongoing problem with academic censorship, both on the issue of climate change, but also on all issues.
If you wonder why the academics of the world have this bizarre homogeneity to their opinions, they literally all think the same.
It's not because all academics do think the same.
It's because the ones who think differently are having their papers pulled and are getting canceled.
And that happened to Michelle.
So here's the interview we recorded just moments ago.
take a listen.
So joining me now is my friend, Michelle Sterling from Friends of Science.
We're going to be talking about what's happening in the UAE right now.
It's called COP28, but it's the annual UN Climate Change Conference.
That's just UN academic jargon, COP28, so that you don't really know what's going on.
So we're going to talk about that, but then we're going to talk about some academic censorship, which is happening in the climate change debate all the time, but it happens in a bunch of other places too, so that the powers that be can say, look, see, everybody agrees with us.
Michelle, thanks for coming on the show.
Let's start with what's happening at the UN Climate Change Conference in the UAE.
I recently got back from the UAE in September, and that is one place that needs a lot of reliable energy.
Now, it is also a place where renewables can work because they get so much sun, but they are also living on fossil fuels just like the rest of us.
It's a place where they just build things because they have the energy and resources to do it.
And I really don't think that environmental considerations are that much of a thing there.
But tell us, what can we expect from COP28 the UN Climate Change Conference?
Well, let me just start by thanks for having me on the show.
But also, you recently interviewed Robert Lyman, and Robert had given us six themes that would be discussed at COP28.
So we did six short explainer videos going through each of those themes.
One of them is a course correction for climate action.
So they're trying to evaluate how far countries have progressed along in their goals in the past five years, because that's all part of the Paris Agreement that every five years you have to report on how far you've gone along.
So contrary to public belief in Canada, the Paris Agreement is a not binding agreement.
Canada made it binding, but it's not a legally binding agreement.
So they're going to try and see how far the gap is between nationally determined contributions, NDCs, that's the country's promise to reduce emissions, and where they are today.
There's also going to be delivering on promises, which is related to promises made to the developing world that they're going to create this huge funding.
There's another one, a phasing out fossil fuels.
Now, all of them, as you noted, are in a place that relies entirely on fossil fuels and they only got there by fossil fuels, but they want to phase it out.
And they're really making strident efforts to do that.
And I'll tell you a funny story after.
Another one is the exponential expansion of renewables, the doubling of energy efficiency, and the reduction of methane, methane, however you want to pronounce it, which of course has just popped up in the news because Minister Gilbeau jumped a surprise on Alberta.
And then there's also the scaling up of accountability.
This sounds kind of lightweight, but when you think that the tiny island of Vanuatu went to the UN General Assembly with a report that was probably co-authored by West Coast Environmental Law because they've been working very closely with the tiny island of Vanuatu,
they took their report to the UN General Assembly and asked it to forward it to the International Court of Justice for an opinion as to whether or not climate laggardness can be criminalized so that criminal action can be taken against countries for not meeting their targets.
So you can see where that would go.
Lots of business for lawyers, but lots of ridiculous things for us.
And last of all, delivering for nature and people.
And that's all about creating the monetization of natural resources.
And I'm not talking about oil, gas, coal, forests.
I'm talking about turning oceans, forests, pasture land, indigenous protected areas into commodities that people can trade for carbon credits.
And this is where the whole land back movement and land guardian movement within Canada's Indigenous community is, this is where it's going, that people will pay to keep a forest or grassland or seashore pristine because they'll be buying carbon credits.
Now, of course, you and I will never benefit from that money.
And these are ostensibly Canadian resources that belong to everyone.
So I think that that's one of the more important things that people should be keeping an eye on.
But I don't think anyone's even talking about it.
No.
No, and where do farmers fit in the mix, right?
Right, right.
Like we steward the land.
If you care about carbon sequestration, we do that through cattle grazing.
But nobody pays us to keep the land nice and tidy.
In fact, we pay onerous carbon taxes.
Well, you see, I think part of the plan is to make the carbon tax so onerous that if somebody came to you and said, Sheila, how about if you and your family didn't farm, we'll pay you to not farm.
How about if we pay you to get rid of whatever livestock you have?
So we'll be saving the planet.
You'll be making a buck.
Everything will be great, right?
Yeah.
It's just, you know, ultimately we'll all starve or have to eat cricket.
Yes, well, yeah, exactly.
Fewer farmers.
Food inflation continues to go sky high.
And yeah, we're all enjoying the cricket milk of tomorrow.
I wanted to talk to you about this topic of phasing out fossil fuels.
They really are pushing for this at the United Nations.
Now, I got to give it to the UAE for being a little bit cheeky.
And it's something that I've seen before and we're seeing again this year in a couple of different ways.
So I saw this in Katowice, Poland.
Poland was happy to take the United Nations money and all the tourism and the tens of thousands of activists coming into this small city and spending their money and staying in the hotels and renting the Airbnbs and using the Ubers.
But they also put the UN Climate Change Conference right next door to the Coal Miners Museum.
And Katowice is in the heart of coal country.
They're a super duper, like pro-coal.
You go to the mall and they have coal miners displays.
And they opened the UN Climate Change Conference with the Coal Miners Marching Band.
And I thought, okay, I see what they're doing here.
They just want the UN's money.
They're not on board with any of this.
I really enjoyed it.
And then in Bonn, Germany, the Trump administration, happy to go to the Climate Change Conference to talk about fracking and coal.
They had a big pavilion there promoting how U.S. energy is cleaner.
Alberta is doing the same thing this year.
They're bringing a massive delegation, but it's more of a sales delegation talking about carbon capture and natural gas and how Alberta's energy is much cleaner than a lot of places of the world.
And the UAE, to their credit, I got to give it to them.
They've decided that, oh, since all the diplomats are in town for the climate change conference, let's buttonhole them on some liquefied natural gas deals since they're here.
So UAE is using the fact that all these diplomats and dealmakers are in town and they're using it to not phase out fossil fuels, but to sign fossil fuel deals on the side.
And I love to see it.
Well, you know, the late Professor Dr. Ist van Marko wrote a blog post for us back in about 2015, I think it was.
And he outlined that these conferences of the parties where everyone thinks they're addressing climate change, they're actually just a big trade fair.
And up until the recent energy crunch, what's happened is all the countries would go to these events and say India would say, wow, you know, we'd love to build a solar farm if only we had the money.
And Germany would say, well, you know what?
We'll give you $20 million and you can build your solar farm with that.
And India would be like, oh, that's fantastic.
Thank you so much.
And they say, the only stipulation is you have to buy it from Siemens, our Company in our country.
So that is probably the circular economy that everyone talks about.
When people think the circular economy is about recycling, I think this is the kind of, let's call it, financial recycling that goes on.
Now, of course, what's happened in the past couple of years, and especially since two things, the divestment program, the Mark Carney comments that anyone using fossil fuels will be, and not recognizing climate change will be bankrupted, and the conflict between Russia and Ukraine.
These elements have caused a tremendous energy shortage.
Like there's a huge energy gap in the world that cannot be met without at least a decade of additional exploration and development.
So everybody wants to buy energy because many countries are completely reliant on it.
You know, nobody, you can't even run your wind and solar farms without conventional energy to back it up.
So of course, at this COP, the countries are doing big business on oil and gas because they desperately need it.
Otherwise, their country will die.
I mean, look at Germany.
Germany's industry is leaving.
They look what's it called?
The BASF plant.
They have a huge plant there.
It's about 10 square kilometers.
And they need natural gas as a product stream and for the energy to run the plant.
It employs about 29,000 people.
Well, they're moving to China because they just don't have energy supply at an economical rate in Germany anymore.
Germany's importing LNG from the United States.
They made some floating tank LNG terminals kind of as a desperate effort.
They managed to build it within a year because they didn't even have one terminal.
They completely relied on gas pipelines from Germany.
So, you know, they're really suffering.
The people there are suffering.
And even the economists reported last year that more people died of energy poverty than of COVID.
So, you know, it's a real crisis.
And, you know, we're so blessed with fossil fuels in North America and especially in Alberta.
We don't see it.
We don't even know that this kind of thing is happening.
But it's also impacting us as well.
Well, yeah, and it's coming for us if our premier doesn't fight these onerous regulations that are being just smashed onto us undemocratically.
From our friends in Ottawa, you mentioned the methane targets.
Buildings in a Shocked Desert00:04:30
That's directly targeting Alberta after we've decided to fight the feds and win on C69, on the plastics ban.
And so we've embarrassed the feds.
And so they're coming at us another way.
Yeah, and also, I mean, one of the interesting things that COP-I don't know if you heard about it, but the host president, Sultan Al-Jabar, was in a conversation with Mary Robinson, who's one of the elders, you know, and a couple of other women.
And they were doing sort of like Catherine McKenna-style, you know, women are kicking it on climate.
We're the one who's changing the world, right?
And so he confronted them directly and said, listen, you know, there is no path to keeping temperatures below 1.5 degrees Celsius by phasing out fossil fuels, you know, and we'll all end up living in caves.
And I mean, this was like, how could it be?
You know, and Elizabeth May tweeted, he showed his true colors.
He's just an oil guy.
It's like, Elizabeth May, how did you get there?
You know, he's a realist.
He's a chemical engineer by training and an economist.
And I believe he got his scholarship to go to university in the States via the oil company, the national oil company there.
So, you know, and he lives in this magnificent city of Dubai built in the desert, literally from the sands, right, into this fantastic city.
So anyway, we did a little explainer about that.
We called it Shock at COP.
And we just posted it the day before yesterday.
It's already got 4,000 views.
But it gives you very good insights into the reality check that he threw, you know, like a cat among the pigeons at everybody there.
And they're all in shock.
Like, how can it be?
But he's right.
Yeah, of course he's right.
Like I said, I just got home from Dubai.
And it's an amazing place where if you can dream it, they will build it.
And it is this place of just absolute industry.
And it's like a city of the future with bullet trains and massive buildings and glass everywhere.
And it is only made possible through the opulence and wealth and reliable energy of fossil fuels.
And so I don't know what the UN thought that they were going to get going to this benevolent dictatorship of the UAE and thinking, yeah, no, these people here are totally going to adopt our ways of the future.
I think the UAE is one of those places where you can showcase renewables because they work in that climate.
And also how energy wealth does wonderful things for both an economy but a society.
Yeah.
Yeah, really.
I mean, and one of the great things is there's so many pictures on shutter stock and Adobe Stock, literally of the desert and the city right behind it.
So, you know, if all those cop activists had to go out in the desert for a day or two without the conveniences of Dubai, they'd be begging for help within a couple of hours.
Yeah, I mean, they did that in Morocco.
They built an entire disposable city right next door to Marrakech.
And you went inside this little disposable city that was made of plastic.
It was all just sort of plastic quonsets and climate control buildings.
And once you got inside, you couldn't really, you couldn't see outside.
It was like this magical bubble where the temperature was so low that I came home with a cold.
Like that's how high they had the air conditioning cranked up to make it comfortable for the people telling you that you have to have a low-flow toilet in your house.
Bizarre.
Yeah, well, that's also one of the ironies of this year's COP is the UNEP just put out a report on air conditioning and how bad it is and how they want to find other ways to cool the world.
In the UAE.
It's like, come on, you guys, like, wake up.
It's just crazy.
Anyway, have you seen Dr. Vipon there?
Informed Consent Crisis00:13:04
Oh, oh, yeah.
Dr. Vipon showed up at an environmental defense conference the other day wearing some kind of a, what do you call that for horses?
A feedback on his face.
So I guess he was trying to show that he's a medical doctor, but he couldn't really do that on the panel.
You know, here when they were doing coal phase out, he kept showing up in his scrubs and stethoscope around his neck, like, hey, I just left eMERGE and here I am to advocate for coal phase out.
But he did manage to do a little bit of street theater.
He's got a huge plastic earth that he was doing CPR on the other day because he took his white coat with him and his stethoscope.
So anyway, and he was front page news for climate news, walking down the street in his white lab coat and the earth, the big plastic earth on his shoulders.
Plastic earth.
You know, these people with the gob complexes, hey?
Like walking around like Atlas with the earth on his shoulders.
I just want to touch on this because you talked about Mark Carney and we didn't talk about this as we were talking about what we were going to talk about in the interview today.
But did you see the news?
It was yesterday.
Mark Carney's group, his investor, his little group, Brookfield, which is not little at all, is Canada's largest investment firm.
It's accused of underreporting its carbon emissions because they only track theirs.
They don't track the ones that, like the, of the companies that Brookfield funds.
So one of those is Oak Tree Capital Management, which accounts for about 22% of Brookfield's assets under management.
And Oak Tree has stakes in at least 118 fossil fuel assets.
Now, the greatest irony in all of this is that Mark Carney is the head of GAFANS or G-Fans or whatever you call it.
But he's also the UN climate czar.
He's the chief climate scold at the World Economic Forum.
But his GAFANS, I forgot what it stands for.
Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero, I think.
Right, that's exactly what it is, the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero.
And what these guys do is they go around and threaten companies and say, look, if you're not meeting the Paris targets, which are non-binding, but boy, we're going to make them bind to you, then we're going to make sure that you don't qualify for finance for your projects or insurance.
So it's this social credit, climate credit, debanking scheme that Mark Carney has organized against other companies because nobody should be making money off fossil fuels except if it's him at Brookfield through Oak Tree.
Yeah.
And speaking of these draconian measures, Senator Rosa Galvez is over at COP28 as well.
And she's leading the charge on climate-aligned finance.
She's got a bill called S243.
And basically, they want to ensure that no company that's invested in fossil fuels can be financed and that no energy experts can be on the boards of company.
They have to put a climate expert on the board, which of course will be someone from the Pembina Institute, you know, some graduate from these foreign-funded environmental groups that have been part of the tar sands campaign for the past 30 years.
They will be elevated to a position of climate expert on the board.
So now we'll have corporations with people on the board who don't know anything about energy advising us into the real end scene of Atlas shrugged.
You know, when the lights go out, then we can start rebuilding society again.
Like, this is a very, very dangerous bill.
And I don't know why it's coming from the Senate.
You know, there's a whole group of climate senators, about 40 of them, I think, who are on this bandwagon.
And if you look on the Senate website, especially on Rosa Galvet's website, you'll find that all these big ENGOs, of course, are pushing behind it.
So it's very, very dangerous.
You know, this is the death of society.
Like, people don't realize without fossil fuels, about 6 billion people would die within 6 years.
And it's also the death of your retirement in your investment portfolio because you don't have the proper people managing these companies and they will just lose money.
We already have this push for gender parity.
And look, I believe that women can do business.
Don't get me wrong.
But to just shoehorn women onto the boards of these companies instead of let's go out there and find the best person for the job, that also has a detrimental effect to the financial affairs of regular people investing in these companies.
But now we have like climate justice activists whose only experience with business has been working as a barista while they were getting their busy body social justice degrees before they went to work for Pembina.
I think we're like this is why normal people should really care about what happens on the boards of these big companies.
Yeah, and people are not aware of it.
And, you know, the other thing, of course, at COP is the COP, the CAPE doctors are there.
That's Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment.
And I just had an article in the Western Standard, actually, about the fact that these climate doctors are creating very serious issues for the public because they're more focused on putting things like solar panels on the roof of hospitals or measuring grandma's carbon footprint of her frailty rather than actually treating patients.
So there are two doctors there, Dr. Courtney Howard, and she in a TED Talk video showed a graph a few years ago, I think it was 2017, a graph of who is most trusted in society.
And doctors and nurses were at the top of the list.
Well, you can take a similar graph from Abacus Data back in 2018.
And the Canadian priorities were improved health care.
That was number one.
And at the bottom of the list was climate change.
So you see what they've done is that they've married climate change and health care because no one cares about climate change.
Not real people, right?
Only the activists care about it.
But everybody cares about health care.
But that's a very dangerous, dangerous conflation.
And we have a few videos.
Even Tedros from the World Health Organization the other day was talking about how, you know, to change climate change, we need to address health care.
And to do that, we need to build more renewables.
That has nothing to do with health care.
That's just an expensive waste of money and a way to make your power system more unreliable, which, you know, in surgery, you need reliable power.
Yeah, we saw this play out in real time in Texas when they got hit with a freak snowstorm and then they had no power at the hospitals because renewables couldn't keep up.
So I don't want to live like that.
Now, I want to just quickly change lanes, but I think it's all part of the same issue.
And this is something that Friends of Science, this is like on Michelle Sterling personal side, but this is also something that Friends of Science has been asking for, wanting, advocating for, since always, and that's just civil debate on contentious issues amongst people.
And, you know, there's so much shut-uppery coming from the other side of the climate debate.
But this is something that happens across academia and politics constantly.
In the climate change debate, we hear frequently from advocates of taxes changing the weather that 97% of scientists agree.
what happens to the other 3%, even though, I mean, that number is, there's a lot of explanation why that number was never accurate to start with.
But even if that were the case, it's because so frequently people are just told to shut up, canceled, and their papers scrubbed from the internet.
And you've had this happen to you.
Tell us about this.
Yeah, well, this just happened recently, actually.
I have a number of papers posted on Social Science Research Network, which is a pre-print network.
So it doesn't go through actual peer review, but it's like where you can post working papers and then you can interact with other people about the content.
Do they see your point of view?
You know, should you modify it in some way?
Debate.
One of the papers.
Sorry, I just wanted to cut you off.
A debate.
So people can engage in a rational debate and share ideas on contentious topics or even not even contentious topics.
Just make the work better.
And anyway, sorry to interrupt.
This seems like a great thing, but apparently it's not.
Yeah, well, that's the whole idea of having like a pre-print working site, you know.
And then, so one of the papers I had written critiqued the work of Professor Timothy Haney, who's at Mount Royal University.
And he had done a paper called Scientists Don't Care About the Truth, I think.
That was the quote.
It was with Taylor and Francis that it's published.
And what he'd done is that he went through a series of interviews that were done about the Calgary flood in 2015.
And it appears that he mined the informal comments made by about 40 residents who live in those flood-prone areas.
Most of them were engaged in the oil and gas industry in some way, executives, geophysicists, financiers.
So it looks like he mined this very old conversational data and then applied his own interpretation to it to basically show that they're all a bunch of climate change deniers.
So I believe that this violates the fundamental principle, ethical principle in academics of informed consent.
Because if I interview you in 2015 and I don't ask you any direct questions about scientists or science or climate change, then how can I many years later go back to your material and claim that this is representative of what you actually thought then or think now?
Because, you know, A, I need your approval to reuse material.
And B, you might have changed your view, and one of the principles of informed consent is that no harm should come from interviewing subjects in social sciences.
You know, and that's a very real thing particularly, let's say, you're interviewing vulnerable people say, prostitutes or drug addicts or something you don't want them to end up going to jail because you did an interview with them.
At the same token, in this case, the whole policy framework for climate change has changed very dramatically from 2015 when the Trudeau government was elected,
and climate change was something that people could still debate quite openly to today, where people like Mark Carney and Minister Gilboa are quite keen to put people in jail or to bankrupt them if their views don't align with the federal public policy.
So I think that serious harms have been done to the reputation of the industry and I've requested from Montreal University evidence and proof that people did actually offer their informed consent.
So 40 people were interviewed.
If any of those people would like to contact me or do so anonymously, you can get me at media at friendsofscience.org.
40 Interviews Rebutted00:13:37
So that paper was taken down, but I have reposted it on my own blog.
And then about the same time, I'd done another paper that which is on a slightly different topic on the issue of Indigenous residential schools.
And this rebutted a paper by Sean Carlton out of the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg.
And Carlton had written a paper some time ago that attacked former Senator Lynn Bayack and basically smeared and mocked her and really didn't provide any information.
So I wrote quite an extensive rebuttal because, you know, what a lot of people don't understand about the treaty issue and the residential school issue is that at the time of the signing of the numbered treaties, the United States was engaged in an Indian war.
From 1644 to 1924, the U.S. cavalry was hunting down Indian tribes and murdering a lot of them.
So much so that Sittingbull and his people came to Canada for safety after they wiped out General Custer.
So, you know, they saw Canada as a safe haven.
Anyway, because of the push for settlement across the United States, the buffalo were all wiped out.
There was no more future as a buffalo hunter.
And it was Sir John A. MacDonald who invited the treaty chiefs to come east and see how society was developing there and also to tour the Mohawk Institute as a residential school and industrial school and see what they could do to train up their people for the just transition of the 1900s.
And they agreed to this model.
They thought it was a good idea.
So anyway, I rebut Sean Carlton's material and I included it.
Well actually it got also taken down rather summarily and I was told that I could never post anything again on social science research net.
But anyway I've incorporated it into a report that also deconstructs the media claims.
This is another Carlton report where he and Reed Gerbrand of the University of Manitoba, they claim that the media never created the mass graves hoax.
But I show point by point that in fact the media not only created it, but they continue to embellish it and press it on.
No bodies have ever been found at Kamloops.
No graves have been exhumed.
It's most likely that those are clay tiles of a septic trench that was abandoned years ago that were found by Dr. Sarah Beaulieu with her GPR.
So people are actually wearing t-shirts and marching for the 215 septic tiles.
They're not children.
There are records of 50 children who did die related to the Kamloops Indian Residential School.
Most of them did not die of any nefarious cause at the school.
So Nina Green has a very detailed report and in fact I included it in my report.
So, you know, that's the only thing you can do is to try and post your material elsewhere when you get canceled, but you must not give up because, you know, we live in a society that is still to some extent democratic and the only way to keep it that way is to keep open civil debate going on.
Now, there are some pretty serious implications, though, of some proposed federal government legislation that would criminalize your dissent on the issue of residential school graves, specifically at Kamloops.
They want to make residential school denialism akin to Holocaust denialism.
Well, I don't deny that residential schools existed or that some people did suffer harm, but I disagree that the harm was widespread.
And certainly, you know, the wilder stories that have been told and most of these very wild, nefarious tales have popped up after the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
We never heard them before.
And, you know, I spent many years in the Glen Bow Museum.
I did a series of documentaries over the course of three years working under the research supervision of Dr. Hugh Dempsey.
And none of these kinds of things were ever brought up at the time.
And he knew the elders of the Blackfoot Nation very well.
His father-in-law was Senator James Gladstone, and his wife is Pauline Gladstone Dempsey.
So, you know, he had first-hand information and not secondhand and not from some knowledge keeper who was six years old at the time that the alleged events happened, right?
Yeah, and, you know, it's just so easily resolved to put a shovel in the ground.
But nobody is in some of these places.
And you're right to point out that some of these claims have popped up post Truth and Reconciliation Committee because now these claims are monetized.
Yes, that's part of it.
That's a significant part of it.
And I think there's also an element of mass formation psychosis, where because these are such horrific tales, it does grasp the imaginations of people and does sweep them away.
And we saw that with media coverage around the world.
Like nobody asked any questions about it.
You know, they just continued to spew the information that mass graves had been found.
And, you know, not only criminalization of so-called denialism, but there's also this push now to keep this international forensic group from working on these projects because the Indigenous groups say, oh, well, they don't have Indigenous cultural ties, and therefore we can't have them excavate.
Well, I want to point out that a lot of these graveyards were community graveyards.
That means my relatives might be buried there too.
And maybe my cultural preferences should be observed as well.
You know, like this is sacred ground to me too, and I'm a Canadian too.
So we should have an independent organization reviewing this material and everyone's rights and sacred observances should be considered.
You know, because people who were buried there typically were buried as Catholics or Anglicans and Methodists with those rights.
Well, the people who sent their children to those schools were already Catholics.
They were already Anglicans.
They had chosen Christianity decades before.
So, you know, these were not forced conversion units as people try to impress upon others.
The people who died were given proper burial rights in the religion of their choice.
And that should be respected too.
Michelle, how do people find the work, not only of Friends of Science, but also yours too?
Because you, on both issues of climate change, but also of just reality and truth, you do great work on that.
And I don't think you get the credit you deserve for it.
And you're fighting cancellation and fighting for free speech all the time.
So how can people find your work, but also how can people support your work?
Well, for Friends of Science, you can find us at friendsofscience.org.
And you can just send us a little e-transfer.
Christmas present would be nice, you know, to contact at friendsofscience.org.
For my work, I'm on Medium, just under my name, Michelle Sterling.
And also, you can find me on a blog, Michelle Sterling, S-T-I-R-L-I-N-G.com.
And I've started a substack called Climate of Hope.
And that's where I want to address the mass psychosis against children, you know, the fear-mongering that's so devastating so many of our young people on climate change.
So any of those, you can subscribe or send an e-transfer or just whatever.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Michelle, thanks so much.
If I don't speak to you before Christmas and Hanukkah, Merry Christmas, happy Hanukkah, and thanks so much for the work that you do to just bring reality and some calm to these hyperbolic debates that I think so many Canadians are just getting absolutely overwhelmed with.
Thank you, Sheila.
And yes, happy Hanukkah to all of our Jewish viewers and Merry Christmas to all of our Christian viewers and to you and to all the rebels.
Keep being rebellious.
Keep asking questions.
that's all we can do.
Well, friends, we've come to the portion of the show wherein we invite your viewer feedback.
I know if you're a regular viewer of the show, you're sick of hearing me say this, but we get new people all the time.
And if you'd like me to read your viewer feedback on air, you can send it to me at Sheila at RebelNews.com.
Put gun show letters in the subject line.
So I know why you're emailing me, because I get dozens of emails every single day and it gets a lot worse if I've done something controversial on the internet, then the email inbox just absolutely blows up.
But also if you are watching a free version of the show wherever you're watching that on Rumble on YouTube and you're sitting through a couple ads, thank you for sitting through those ads.
Every little bit helps, but leave a comment in the comment section there.
Sometimes I go looking over there and I do frequently go and look and read the comment section, so don't think that I won't see your comment.
However, today's letter comes to us from the email inbox and it's from Robert who writes to me and says, dear Sheila, as a withering octogenarian I don't know, you seem kind of frisky in this email so I wouldn't call yourself withering, but you know what.
I'll let you identify it however you feel like.
But Robert writes, dear Sheila, as a withering octogenarian.
I get quite upset whenever Justin Trudeau refers to the honorable leader of the opposition as a mega Republican.
I don't get upset.
I'm like, are you trying to make me like Pierre Polyev, more like if you're calling him Trumpy.
Are you trying to make me like him more it?
When people say that, particularly Justin Trudeau, it shows that he doesn't understand the inner workings of the conservative mind, or really the inner workings of literally anything, for that matter.
So I'm never offended, but let's find out well why Robert's offended.
Please ask Pierre Polyev to respond with a preface, such as with respect to the honorable member of the World Economic Forum.
Oh, that's very, very funny yes very, very funny.
You know, if Justin Trudeau is allowed to question Pierre Polyev's loyalties to Canada by calling him a I don't know what is that a mega Republican?
Then yeah, we can do the same for Justin Trudeau, calling him some sort of loyalist to the oligarchs at the World Economic Forum, but also the United Nations too.
Regrettably, I can't get through to Pierre Polyev as an old plebeian.
I thank you in advance, Robert.
Well Robert, I don't know if Pierre Polyev watches the show, but I think some people around him do.
In fact, I know some people around him do.
So you know who knows.
Maybe he'll see your comment, but you know, I don't know if Pierre Polyev needs our help.
Thinking on his feet, he's one of the best that I've ever seen think on their feet in politics when handling the media, but also when handling the government side of the aisle.
It's why the media doesn't know what to do with him and the liberals are making up, I guess, insults, like mega Republican, as though that's some sort of insult.