Sheila Gunn-Reid and Tom Harris expose COP28’s hypocrisy—an oil-dependent UAE hosting a conference where elites push fossil fuel phase-outs while flying private jets. The final agreement’s vague "transitioning away" language, paired with post-2050 carbon sequestration loopholes, mirrors impractical policies like Ontario’s coal ban, which spiked energy costs. Harris warns Canada’s shift to wind/solar risks deadly blackouts (e.g., Texas 2021) and cites bureaucratic resistance, from Mark Carney’s G-Fans to left-leaning agencies, stifling conservative climate opposition. Gunn-Reid’s coalition strategy—public hearings with skeptical scientists like Ian Clark and Princeton’s Will Happer—to sow doubt and delay policies reflects a broader fight against media bias and censorship, where outlets like CBC suppress dissent while "woke" governments push unproven agendas. The core message: climate alarmism demands scrutiny before costly, unreliable mandates reshape lives. [Automatically generated summary]
After nearly three weeks in one of the nicest destinations on the planet, the United Nations has finally wrapped up their climate scare conference.
How much poorer and colder are we going to be?
I called in an expert to break it down.
I'm Sheila Gunn-Reed, and you're watching The Gunn Show.
Well, this week culminates three weeks of coverage of the United Nations annual climate scare conference.
You might hear it referred to as COP28.
That's conference of the parties, 28th edition, wherein the world's elites fly on private jets to normally these things are at fancy places.
This year it's in the United Arab Emirates, an oil-rich place where they build things just to build them.
And they go there, they have three weeks of parties mixed in with meetings where they celebrate themselves for doing nonsensical things like ramping up ambition to fight climate change.
What does that mean?
Who even knows?
Sounds expensive.
I've called in an expert, though, to help us navigate what happened sort of at the last minute at the United Nations Climate Change Conference.
It's Tom Harris from the International Climate Science Coalition Canada.
Tom and I normally run into each other at these things when we go to the climate change conferences, but going to the UAE is cost prohibitive if you're not a well-funded green activist.
So that's why Tom didn't go.
And I didn't go because the United Arab Emirates is not really a place that I can do unauthorized reporting in.
So I didn't think it was worth risking time in an Emirati jail cell to make fun of Stephen Gilbo.
I can do that from home a lot safer for now.
So joining me now in an interview we just finished recording is my friend Tom Harris from the International Climate Science Coalition.
Take a listen.
So joining me now is good friend of the show, my friend Tom Harris from the International Climate Science Coalition.
This is week three of what the heck is going on at what's called COP28.
It's the annual UN climate change conference for the normal people.
Tom, thanks for coming on the show.
Every year at these things, I just cringe at how hypocritical they are.
They go to some of the more opulent places of the world.
Everybody flies private and they go there to tell you that you need to drive a smaller car, freeze in the dark, and have a low-flow shower head that doesn't get the soap out of your hair.
Did the same thing happen again this year?
I'm pretty sure it did, right?
Yeah, yeah, even more than usual.
It's interesting.
I went to the Copenhagen COP back in 2009 and it was, believe it or not, the biggest climate conference.
Actually, it was the biggest conference of any kind ever held on earth.
They had 30,000 delegates and yet this one has 70,000.
Yeah, because it's nicer.
It's nicer than Copenhagen.
I just came back from Dubai.
And so I know this is a place that is impossible without fossil fuels, either from the revenue and economic wealth generated by fossil fuels, but also the cooling, the heating, the enormous structures that they build just to build them.
You know, you don't build a man-made island where you have luxury condos.
Don't do that without fossil fuels.
So, the idea that they've taken this, this, you know, worry, the world's going to end conference to a place like Dubai to tell Dubai to phase out fossil fuels, good luck to them.
Yeah, I hope you don't mind my dog barking in the background.
Oh, it's fine.
At least, you know, I'm a real person.
Yep.
But, but, yeah, and you know, it's sad because at the beginning of the conference, you're right.
Al Jabber, just before the conference started, you were talking about this last week with Michelle, said some extremely sensible things.
He said, you know, the science does not back the idea that we can limit temperature to 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels, you know, getting by getting rid of fossil fuels.
And that's exactly right.
In fact, on my shelf here, right behind me is climate change fossil fuels.
So the real catastrophe that would happen is, in fact, if we get off fossil fuels, you know, so at the beginning of the conference, I had really high hopes that the Arabs and the OPEC countries would stick to their guns and say, no, we're not going to have any reference in here to fossil fuels.
And indeed, that was the case for the first two drafts.
But the other delegates went berserk.
They just went crazy.
And you saw that 12-year-old that ran up front and got all that attention.
And sadly, they gave her a lot of attention.
But in the final analysis, they didn't actually call for a phase out of fossil fuels or even a phase down.
I'll have the text here.
It says the text calls for, and this is exactly the quote, transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems in a just, orderly, and equitable manner, accelerating action in this critical decade so as to achieve net zero by 2050 in keeping with the science.
Now, it's interesting.
The way it was worded, it gives them the option of continuing to use fossil fuels after 2050, as long as they are focused on the net zero thing.
Fossil Fuels and Net Zero00:04:14
So in other words, they can have carbon sequestration, okay, carbon dioxide sequestration underground, which is, of course, insane.
I mean, who would ever want to do that?
It makes no sense because carbon dioxide is plant food and it'll increase the cost of electricity massively, of course.
So I guess the Arab countries, the OPEC countries, figured, well, this gives us an out, okay?
As long as we're headed towards net zero, we can keep using fossil fuels after 2050.
Now, the bottom line, though, is that in the long run, that means no coal, okay?
Because you might remember Bob Murray, who was the head of Murray Energy, he testified before the U.S. Congress, and that was a coal company, a coal mining company.
And he said specifically, carbon capture and sequestration or carbon dioxide capture and sequestration, it really means no coal because the prices go so high, nobody would ever build a coal station again.
And of course, that's their goal.
They want to see no more coal.
And yet, coal is a wonderful source of energy.
You know, I mean, I showed you last time.
It's China.
Yeah, exactly.
It's a great source of energy.
And if you use proper pollution control devices, it's perfectly fine.
There's no reason not to use coal and to keep using coal.
In fact, you know, coal is what should be used as our baseload energy in addition to nuclear and hydro.
Because if you use natural gas for all of your baseload, that's really a reverse midas touch.
That's turning gold into lead.
Because, you know, natural gas is a special fuel.
It's great for home heating.
It's great for making all sorts of things, you know, pharmaceuticals and stuff.
But, you know, coal is much less expensive if you don't put ridiculous regulations on it.
So we should be wanting to use coal.
A good example is of what happens when you stop using coal happened in Ontario.
We had a quarter of our electricity coming from coal, and we had pretty low rates.
Dalton McKindy, Dalton McGinty in 2002, he said, this is old technology.
He had a big lump of big pile of coal on a desk, which is just the theater.
And of course, coal is not technology.
Coal is a resource.
It's how you burn it that matters.
And he said, we're going to get rid of it.
And he did.
He got from 25%.
We got now 0% from coal.
And our electricity prices doubled and in some cases tripled, depending on the timeframe, largely because we got rid of our least expensive source of energy, our least expensive source for electricity.
And it's also super reliable.
I mean, if you think about it, you keep at least like a year's supply right on site.
You're not reliant on pipes coming in supplying you with natural gas.
Now, I'm not speaking against natural gas because it's a wonderful fuel, no question about it.
But coal actually gives you that additional security of keeping all that resource right there on your site.
Okay.
So there's actually any special containment.
You don't need a tank farm.
You don't need special tanker ships to transport it.
You just throw it on a barge and off you go with it.
And you dump it in a pile and it just stays there until you come back and get it.
It doesn't contaminate anything.
There's no special things that you need to keep coal in one spot.
You're right.
There's no expiry date unless you're dealing in millions of years.
Right.
That's right.
So, I mean, it's a wonderful fuel to use and we should keep using it.
And I know Alberta has a lot of coal in its electricity mix and that's great.
And I really hope, you know, this is one thing Pierre Polyev says that I really disagree with.
I mean, he says that we want to help developing countries get off of coal and move over to clean Canadian natural gas.
Well, of course, it's great to have that additional export source.
But the bottom line is, no, we shouldn't encourage them to get off their least expensive, most reliable source of electricity.
I mean, that doesn't make any sense.
But yeah, so in the case of they, they didn't say they're going to phase out fossil fuels, but what they did say is they're going to transition.
Okay.
So it's such a vague statement.
I'll just read the rest of the statement here too, because it's kind of interesting.
Texas Blackouts Impact00:10:59
Yeah, we're going to be tripling renewable energy capacity around the globe.
Oh, bully for them, eh?
I mean, that has caused a massive increase in electricity prices.
And it's interesting, Sheila, because one of the things that is a result of this massive influx of renewable energy, and it's not really renewable, as you know, because they mine it, mine the cobalt with those children in the Congo and the Ubers doing processing in China.
But regardless, one of the impacts of that is that people are less confident about the reliability of their electricity grid.
And so, you know, it's interesting because various companies that make home generators, you know, gas-powered or propane or whatever, kerosene-powered generators, those companies, their stocks are going through the roof because people are losing confidence in the grid.
And if you actually look at the grid across the United States, you find that there have been a lot of breakdowns.
And the biggest one, and we've spoken about this before, but the biggest one was the Texas blackout in February 2021.
And, you know, eight, let's see, eight million Texans lost power and heat for many days when they had one of the coldest periods in decades, actually, about 30 years.
Now, the interesting thing is that just before the cold hit, and this is really relevant for Canada, especially, imagine this is what happened in Texas, which doesn't get anywhere near as cold as Canada.
What happened was up to 700 people died of hypothermia, carbon monoxide poisoning and all sorts of things because just before the storm hit, they were getting about half of their electricity from mostly from wind and a little bit from solar.
And the wind died.
Okay.
And of course, being a storm, it covered the sun.
So they suddenly lost, I think it was 13,000 megawatts in one step, you know, just over a few hours.
And they quadrupled their natural gas output, but they couldn't keep up.
And of course, then you started to have these breakdowns all through the system.
And, you know, the thing that's really scary about Texas is they came within a few minutes of a total grid failure that could have lasted weeks and killed tens of thousands of people.
Okay.
Now that's Texas.
And Texas did have natural gas.
It couldn't keep up, but they did have it.
Texas is nowhere near as cold as Canada.
So think about what's going to happen when, let's say, Ottawa turns off its natural gas and tries to run the city on wind and solar power.
I mean, it's completely insane.
It's much colder, of course, as usual.
But yeah, this is a real disaster.
So, you know, when people say to me, oh, are you concerned about climate change?
I say, you bet I am.
I'm really concerned about climate affecting us when we've gotten rid of our least expensive and most reliable energy source.
And, you know, this constant move over to electricity instead of natural gas, people don't seem to realize.
But when was the last time your natural gas pipeline into your house broke down?
I mean, they never break down.
Okay.
Natural gas is a very solid, reliable fuel, but electricity systems break down all the time.
I mean, here in Ottawa, we probably have about eight or nine, maybe 10 blackouts in the course of a year.
We get a lot of blackouts here, you know, and it's because our system is so unreliable.
You know, they didn't bury very many cables underground.
But here we are, the capital city of Canada, and we're having, you know, regular blackouts even now in contrast to, I don't know, do you have those kinds of blackouts?
Never.
Absolutely never.
I'm shocked to hear that you have that many blackouts.
Now, I know that our premier is very concerned with the potential for this sort of thing hitting Alberta if we are to adopt Justin Trudeau's climate change targets.
That Ottawa's style of reliability with electricity might come home to Fort Saskatchewan.
She's vehement about fighting the feds in court over those issues.
Well, because we don't want to end up like Ottawa for a thousand different reasons.
Oh, yeah.
Well, you know, Ottawa will get minus 30.
You're praying that you don't get a power failure.
I mean, you know, typically our power failures are pretty short.
They might only last half an hour, but we have had them just in the last year last for, geez, a day, you know, and happily it's happened at times when the weather wasn't bad.
But I can't remember the last time we had a blackout at minus 30, but it's, it's a scary thing, you know, we have a propane, sorry, a kerosene heater.
My daughter bought a big 102 pound lithium battery and I had solar panels so we can charge it.
So, I mean, I'm not against solar and wind and those sorts of things as backups when all the rest of your systems fail.
I mean, they're fine as backups, but to try and bring them in as baseload power is completely insane.
Imagine thinking about having to live off the grid in Canada's capital city.
And that's how you have to think about things.
Now, what does the conclusion of the UN Climate Change Conference mean for Canadians?
What could potentially be adopted by the feds and then just hammered onto Canadian households?
Yeah, I think what's going to happen is less and less government investment in fossil fuels.
I think that will be the major thing.
They're talking about peaking fossil fuel use.
This is the UN by 2025.
And of course, this ties in perfectly to Judea.
And we can't get rid of him soon enough.
But it looks like he's going to stay in as long as Singh lets him stay in.
So, yeah, the impact is that less and less financial institutions will want to lend money for fossil fuel developments because they're seeing a shaky future.
But of course, China will keep developing as much as they want.
And so will India.
And they'll say, oh, yeah, we'll eventually bring in carbon capture and sequestration.
Ha ha.
But I don't think they will.
And, you know, most people have to realize China and India as developing countries don't have to reduce emissions ever because there is that out clause in the Framework Convention on Climate Change that underlies the Paris Agreement.
It says their first and overriding priority is poverty alleviation and development in Article 4.
And so they're going to say, well, we can't develop and pull our people out of poverty if we can't use our least expensive energy.
So I imagine that a lot of these agreements are being made with lip service, knowing that they can get out of it later, quite frankly.
But I think that in Canada's case, it's going to become more and more difficult to get the funding to have these fossil fuel plants and get the pipelines built, et cetera.
So I think as long as Trudeau's in, he's going to use this as a hammer to even more thoroughly destroy our energy network.
And of course, that's the reason that we wrote our report.
I got to tell you about.
Yes, please.
I was just about to ask you about that.
But yeah, if Justin Trudeau isn't creating financial insecurities so that the banks don't lend to oil and gas companies, then Mark Carney and his racketed G-Fans is going to do it, where they basically apply carbon social credit scores to oil and gas projects.
And if they don't qualify, then they just don't get funding.
It's bureaucratic prohibition.
Oh, yeah.
It's a sneaky thing that he does there.
Yeah, what we concluded, partly because I live in Ottawa, so it's easy for me to go to council meetings and things like that.
And the Action for Canada group here in Ottawa is very active and very effective, you know, and I occasionally go to their meetings.
I'm not a member of them, but regardless, I really appreciate them, to say the least.
But yeah, what we decided was that if we can kill this insane climate plan in Ottawa, which talks about putting up 702 industrial wind turbines, 36 square kilometers of solar panels, you know, 122 large containers of lithium batteries, all this kind of thing.
If we can kill that.
Where are you going to put that?
Where are you going to put that, by the way?
Yeah, not in my house.
Not in my house.
Sorry about your luck, suburbs.
You get to be a tank farm for all of Ottawa.
Yeah, and you better hope that you don't have a fire because I don't know if you've seen what happens when lithium batteries catch on fire.
But the bottom line is we thought that if we could kill the climate and ridiculous energy plan in Ottawa, then we could do it anywhere because Ottawa is so woke, you know, with so many civil servants who don't dare speak out of out of turn.
And so what we did is we had a two-step approach.
I mean, at first we wrote one really big report that talked about all the negative impacts of the climate scare in Ottawa and what would happen if we actually tried to do it.
It would cost us a fortune, leave us bankrupt, hungry, and freezing in the dark, quite frankly.
And then we would talk about the science.
But we realized if we released those two parts of the report together, they would say, oh, just a bunch of climate change deniers.
And they wouldn't even pay attention to the detrimental effects part and costs.
So back in January 2022, and it's on our homepage at icsc-canada.com in the lower right-hand corner is the report that we released, as I say, January 2022.
And in that report, we detailed the negative consequences of the climate scare on Ottawa and Ottawa's plans and how it will actually, as I say, just wreck the city.
I mean, it really will wreck the city and kill lots of people if they ever tried to do it.
We also talked about the cost and the impracticality from a policy point of view, because of course Ottawa puts out something like one 100th of 1% of world emissions.
I mean, it have no impact at all.
And so we let that sit for almost two years because we wanted people to start to feel the pain that was coming.
We really did.
And the idea is that if people feel that this is a disaster in the making, they're going to look for some excuse, any excuse to not do it.
And so now we give them the excuse.
And the excuse is that there is no climate crisis.
It doesn't exist.
Okay.
And so that's what the new report is.
We've had two years of letting it simmer, letting people get concerned.
And it was quite nice because I would go to public meetings and I would see people occasionally stand up and they would, obviously they read our report because they're using the same words.
And they would tell counselors and they would tell, you know, city staff, hey, you know, what's going to happen when the power goes out and I can't charge my EV, you know?
And we had one lady get to the microphone and she said, I'm a mother.
I'm a grandmother.
I don't want to see our city electrified on the backs of African children.
And I mean, it was very good.
And they were able to use a lot of the information that we portrayed, these various individuals and groups.
And then we thought, okay, now's the time during the COP conference, the UN conference, to say the whole thing's bunk.
Conservatives Criticize Harper00:07:34
And we explain going through every single possible issue, you know, exactly why there is no climate crisis.
You know, it's interesting.
Will Happer from Princeton University, I work with him occasionally.
He's a really great guy, professor emeritus of physics.
He's actually very well known.
He was an advisor to Donald Trump in the White House for a whole year.
And his goal was to get Trump to get out of the climate scare.
But he, you know, they withdrew from the Paris Agreement, at least.
But he found that generally speaking, the deep state were so strong that he couldn't really accomplish what he wanted to accomplish.
And so after a year, he left.
I mean, he had only agreed to go on for a year anyway.
But regardless, he decided his time had come.
And, you know, it really points out an important problem for conservatives.
And I was hoping we could talk about this.
You get into power with all these great ideas as to what you're going to do.
And then you're facing a very left-wing bureaucracy.
You know, the deep state, as Trump would call it, people who are entrenched, people who are going to be there for like 20, 30, 40 years, and they're very left-wing.
And trying to drain the swamp, as Trump tried, is very tough.
It's very difficult.
I mean, especially in Canada, they have so much protection.
So you get somebody like Stephen Harper.
Before he became leader of the Conservative Party, he actually wrote a letter to fundraisers.
I believe it was for the National Citizens Coalition.
And you remember his term?
He said, the Kyoto Protocol is a money-sucking socialist scheme.
I mean, you couldn't be more direct than that.
And so we thought we were, and, you know, in some of the meetings like in Barrie and other places around Ontario, we got the impression from what he was saying that he was going to come into power and kill the climate scare.
But I'm sure what must have happened is he got in power and the deep state, the bureaucracy was so progressive, so to speak, in quotes, very regressive, really.
They were so left-wing, it was very, very hard for him to actually carry out some of the things that he wanted to do.
And so in the final analysis, Harper changed sides after becoming prime minister.
You know, I like Stephen Harper, but at the same time, he did change sides.
And it was under his watch with John Baird as our local MP here in Ottawa, who was actually promoting and finally signing the Paris Agreement.
Okay, that was in 2015, I guess, towards the end of the Harper regime, because Trudeau came in in November.
And so you have to say, why is it that so many conservatives make these promises?
Kenny, for example, Doug Ford, you know, Doug Ford just announced he's going to start the wind and solar projects again, even though five years ago.
He just did to get rid of that.
Yeah, I know.
He canceled all the contracts just five years ago.
And now he's going to be restarting all of these things again.
So you say, what's going on?
You know, Preston Manning, for example, gave the best speech probably in the House of Commons back in 1997 about the Kyoto Protocol.
He was, and he was right on.
I mean, his speech was solid.
It talked about science.
It talked about policy.
It talked about economics.
I mean, it was a wonderful speech, probably the best ever on this topic in the House of Commons.
And yet he changed sides, you know, to some extent afterwards as well.
Bob Mills, who I worked for, I saw it in real time.
Bob changed sides.
He was the opposition environment critic with the Canadian Alliance.
So you say, well, why do all these conservatives keep changing sides after they get elected?
And it's because they don't have a plan.
Okay, this is the conclusion I come to in talking to various insiders.
They don't have a plan as to how they're going to overcome the deep state left-wing bias and actually bring about their plans.
And, you know, this is something that at least in private conversations, I think it's good to ask politicians, you know, whether you want to publicize is another thing because they might say, well, we're going to have to get rid of all these deputy ministers, you know?
And of course, then they'd have even more opposition to getting elected.
So maybe they don't want to tell us.
But it seems as if, based on my discussions with insiders, that they don't really have a plan as to how they're going to rule from the right when the bureaucracy is so heavily left.
They don't have a plan.
And I think that's one of the most important things they have to develop, not just to have all these pie in the sky ideas.
They have to know how they're going to do it.
And even Trump couldn't do it.
Okay.
Trump couldn't drain the swamp.
So it's a tough thing to do.
It really is tough.
And, you know, we have to remember that, you know, some people say, hey, you're criticizing Pierre Polyev.
He's our guy, you know?
Well, actually, no, he's not our guy.
We want him to be our guy and he could be our guy, but we have to criticize him.
And, you know, it's interesting because Elizabeth May was giving a presentation when she was, I think it was with the Sierra Club.
And somebody put up their hand and said, why are you criticizing Paul Martin?
Because Paul Martin was prime minister then.
You know, he got you an Order of Canada.
I'm pretty sure that that's when Elizabeth got her Order of Canada.
And she said effectively this, look, if we don't criticize him, he won't do what we want.
And once, you know, one of the former advisors in Stephen Harper's office, I spoke to him confidentially, you know, years ago.
And I don't know if he was actually at the time working in the office, but regardless, I asked him, I said, what do you think about us criticizing you for not being right enough, conservative enough on climate policy?
And I thought he was going to say, oh, yeah, we're really angry with you.
He didn't say that.
He said, no, we like it when you criticize us from the right because it makes us seem more moderate.
So I think I've had this discussion at work before, this exact discussion.
And, you know, they also cannot write off our criticism as, oh, that's the state-funded media.
They just want to get Trudeau elected.
They can't write off my criticism of them as insincere.
They know it is coming from a place where I want.
I think the arc of moral, social justice, and fiscal accountability bends to the right.
I believe that.
And so when I'm criticizing a conservative from the right, it is sincere.
Houston, we have a problem.
It is not, you know, some globe and mail, CBC, state-funded, Trudeau colonized media just trying to hang on to their job.
I'm sincere in my criticism, and I think they take it to heart.
Well, that's right.
And I think also they recognize that you want them to win if they're going to do the right things.
Exactly.
And some people have said to me, they say, you're criticizing the conservatives.
Do you want to see Trudeau stay in power?
And I say to them, well, look, if I have a choice between a principled conservative opposition who will bring up good conservative points and push them in the House of Commons, or I could have a woke, fake liberal conservative government.
What's this?
I would rather, yeah, I'd rather they stay in opposition and do the right thing, because at least then somebody is bringing up in the House of Commons proper and sensible conservative ideas.
So I think that's really important.
I think also the very young people and most of the people who are legislative assistants in the House of Commons are very young.
I mean, there are some exceptions.
Window On Public Opinion00:08:46
But one of the reasons is because they pay so poorly.
You know, I was a legislative assistant for Bob Mills.
And, you know, after seven months when he started changing sides and various things happened, I realized that's not my place to be.
But regardless, the salary is very, very low.
You know, so you get only mostly only young people in these jobs.
And, you know, I don't think they appreciate the findings of recent research that shows that they actually lead public opinion by making statements that are sensible and a conservative ideal.
In other words, you know, this Overton window they talk about.
Okay, this is the acceptable window that a politician can stay in.
They can pull that window right.
Okay, I should go that way, not that way.
They can pull that window right by what they say.
And, you know, in a study that was done by researchers at McGill University, Drexel University, and Ohio State, they tried to determine what was the major factor influencing public opinion on climate change.
Okay, because of course they wanted to support the climate scare.
And what they found is it wasn't the science.
It wasn't the media.
It wasn't the special interest groups.
It was the statements from the leaders, the politicians.
They found that when the sorry, when the Republicans and Democrats, because they were looking at the U.S., when the Republicans and Democrats agreed that there was a climate crisis, the public was much more supportive of it, you know, even expensive things to do to supposedly stop it.
They were much more supportive of it than when the Republicans were speaking out against it.
Okay, then public support dropped.
So they've got now two years probably until the next election.
And if I were inside the conservative offices, what I would say, if I was working in strategy, I'd say, look, we got two years.
We don't want to have this climate scare continue.
And I think they honestly don't want it to continue.
So what are we going to do?
Okay, what are we going to do?
Well, here's my recommendation.
Can I go through a step-by-step recommendation?
Yep.
Okay.
Well, the first thing they should do is read our report.
Okay.
Go to ICSC-Canada.com.
Okay.
Read the report because although it talks about Ottawa, it applies to Canada in general.
It applies to any jurisdiction that's thinking of doing these crazy things.
And read, first of all, the negative impact, the cost, the infeasibility, all that sort of stuff.
By the time you finish that, you know, it's about 80 pages, something like that.
You can read it.
It's lots of images and pictures.
You can read it probably in an hour and a bit.
Then go to the science and you'll see the science doesn't back the climate scare at all.
So that's the first thing.
They should read the report and really get up to date on the topic.
And the second thing then is, you know, what I would love them to do is to lead public opinion, to start to say the things that we're saying.
But I recognize that they're afraid of that.
So here's what I would recommend instead.
I would recommend they do what Nancy Green Rain did.
Remember Senator Rain, she was in for about nine years as a senator, wonderful person.
I met with her a few times.
And Nancy actually brought in scientists on the other side of the climate debate in 2011.
Okay.
And the sky didn't come down.
You know, she wasn't assassinated or attacked.
And people came in.
Ian Clark came in.
Jan Weiser came in.
Ross McKittrick came in.
Tim Patterson came in.
They all came in and they gave really nice presentations.
And they're actually on my YouTube channel.
And I think we've got probably about 40 or 50,000 views so far.
So what they should do then is to say, look, we're not climate experts.
We don't know who's right, but this is an incredibly important topic.
And there's been so much censorship.
We're going to have open public hearings so the public can see what various points of view are.
And then they can make up their own minds.
And of course, what will happen is you'll bring in people like Ian Clark, who's extremely good speaker.
He's bilingual.
He's just retired from Ottawa U.
And he was actually a Friends of Science speaker.
And by the way, I love Friends of Science, friendsofscience.org.
They're a wonderful group.
And he was one of their speakers.
So you bring in people like Ian Clark and you give them an open public platform.
Okay.
And you publicize it and you tell the public, look, tune into this web-based station, whatever it is, and listen to this scientist talk about climate change.
You may hear something a bit different.
It might change your point of view.
And what would happen then is you'd also have to bring in people on the other side of the debate too, people who support the climate scare, because you want to be unbiased.
You want to be fair.
And what would happen then is the average public would be so confused, they would say, my God, you got experts on one side saying one thing and experts on the other side saying the opposite.
I don't know what to believe.
That's fine.
It's totally appropriate for a person who's not an expert in climate change to not know what to believe, because this is one of the most complex sciences ever tackled.
And so the natural reaction from the public will be, well, since we really don't know who's right or wrong, maybe we should hang off a bit, you know, just delay these carbon reductions and carbon sequestration, moving to EVs, you know, getting rid of coal.
I think we should just delay all that until the science is a bit more settled, because, of course, the science is totally unsettled.
Okay.
The bottom, yeah, I mean, it's nonsense to say it's settled when you have like literally thousands of references in books like this one, which show that, you know, there's all kinds of points of view.
So nobody in their right mind would invest all their money in a stock that's highly uncertain.
And similarly with this, people would then say, whoa, I don't think we want this.
So the bottom line is without committing themselves to a point of view, they would inject into the public a lot of uncertainty, which is completely appropriate.
I mean, that is the right position to take.
We don't know what's going to happen.
It doesn't appear likely, in my opinion, but nobody has a crystal ball to the future.
So, you know, that's the way they should go.
And then they can start to see public opinion gradually shifting.
And then they can gradually start saying things that are within the Overton window now because we've moved the right side of the Overton window to start to include climate skepticism, which is a legitimate point of view.
And then they can actually say what they really want to say.
But as long as they keep using terms like, you know, carbon pollution and, you know, green energy is ludicrous.
I mean, coal is the greenest of the energies if you think about it, because green is carbon dioxide.
It's plant food.
Right.
So they should should, so that's what I think they should do.
And I think they can do that, you know, gradually over time.
They don't have to have a big push.
They got two years till the next election.
And by then, they'll have moved the Overton window and then they can do what's right.
You know, I think most people actually don't care about climate change.
They know the TV is telling them they should care about climate change.
And all the politicians seem to simultaneously care about the climate change.
But I think normal people just realize that it is exactly what we all know it to be.
It's a big wealth transfer scheme that is eating up the middle class.
Like, I think any politician that points out the absurdity of it all is going to go a long way with normal people.
And Trump did this really well.
Yeah.
Let's talk about their ideas that if I eat fewer steaks, which is not going to happen, that the weather will get colder.
So that's a lose-lose for me is what you're saying.
And you want me to do that?
There's a funny cartoon on the internet, and these two extraterrestrials are in orbit.
And one of them says to the other, he says, is it time for us to reveal ourselves to the humans?
And the other says, no, no, they're still eating bugs to stop climate change.
Yeah, I have to stop eating the steak grown in my backyard and eat some crickets to combat greenhouse gas emissions.
Yeah, that's right.
So, so, so, I mean, I think the average person is just so involved in their own lives and they care about the, well, actually, what they care about is the impact of the carbon tax.
They care about the impact of, you know, stopping the production of oil and gas and therefore prices go through the roof.
You know, so they care about those things.
And that's why we released our first report talking about those things.
Bob Lyman was a big help.
You know, I saw your interview with him.
It was great.
He's great because he talks about the real impact of these insane plans.
Censorship and Consensus00:05:52
I tend to focus more on, hey, there's no climate crisis anyway.
So what the heck?
And Michelle Sterling is just like the trifecta there where she's like, everybody calm down.
The world's not going to end.
Chill out.
That's right.
So if people go to our homepage, icsc-canada.com, what they'll see in the upper right-hand corner is the new report that just came out on Friday.
And it was related.
It was referred to in my National Post article, which was fun to see that they let me do that and push people over.
And so that'll give them lots of ammunition.
And then they have to develop a sensible strategy because I think that most people in the Conservative Party, certainly when I was with the Canadian Alliance, this was the case, they know it's a hoax.
They know it's ridiculous.
So they have to develop strategies to kill it because otherwise it will kill Canada.
Yeah.
Now, quickly before I let you go, and I know we're going a little bit long, but I wanted to talk to you about the censorship that climate skeptics face.
For example, if you are a climate skeptic on YouTube, you're demonetized.
You cannot make money on YouTube.
And, you know, I know for you and I know for Michelle, it's a labor of love anyway.
But that is passive censorship from big tech.
And, you know, the government is the same way.
I know the CBC ombud.
They don't use ombudsman anymore.
It's part of their GBA plus, their gender-based analysis plus, but they won't allow a climate skeptic on air, like on one of their panels.
They just don't have it.
And they've said that when people have filed complaints saying you have published absolute nonsense attributing, you know, the islands shrinking due to tides to climate change.
And you didn't allow any, an actual scientist to come on and rebut.
You just had an activist.
And they've said, well, we don't do that here because the science is settled.
Well, you know, CBC are a case in point because they have a policy book that says point blank that they're supposed to leave their biases at the door.
Okay.
So in the year 2000, I wrote to the CBC and I said, okay, you keep saying that there's a consensus of world scientists that there's a climate crisis.
Show me the consensus.
And they finally got the omsbudsman to give me a 10-page letter in response.
Okay.
So they did a lot of work.
And when I opened the envelope, I thought, wow, they're taking this seriously.
The trouble was they proved there was a consensus in the science by quoting other media.
Right.
They quoted the New York Times and other media saying that there was a consensus in the science.
So I wrote back to the president of the CBC.
I said, well, this is very nice.
He's done a lot of work, but he hasn't interviewed a single scientist or a single scientific organization.
He's simply looking at what other media say.
So it doesn't really prove anything.
But I had to drop the case because I then got hired by Bob Mills as the legislative assistant for him, an opposition environment critic.
And he didn't want me going after the CBC because, of course, he's dependent on good coverage that he hopes to get.
So I had to drop the case.
But the CBC president did answer me.
He said, Mr. Bazze, who was the omsbudsman at the time, has answered your question.
The case is closed.
So the CBC are completely biased.
They don't have any supporting evidence to support what they're saying.
One other thing I wanted to tell you about, and this goes back a few years, and that is this.
It's the Competition Bureau letter to me that specifically told me, I guess that's true.
But specifically told me that the Competition Bureau, as a result of a complaint that was registered less than one month after Trudeau took office, okay, EcoJustice put in a complaint and said that we, Friends of Science and Heartland Institute, essentially what they said, paraphrasing is that we were lying about climate change to please our donors.
I mean, that's at least with regards to me.
That's what they said.
Now, of course, that's ridiculous because we're not lying.
The marketplace of ideas shouldn't be regulated by the Competition Bureau.
For sure.
And they had no idea who our funders were anyway.
So because we always keep it confidential because, you know, I'm attacked, you know, after that National Post article, I got an email from Northern Alberta.
Yeah.
Some guys swearing like crazy at me, calling me a racist.
I don't know what that has to do with my article.
But yeah, so I mean, poor Tim Ball, he had death threats.
So the last thing we're going to do is reveal who our donors are because we don't want them to have trouble.
So, you know, at first, people advised me, well, just sit on this.
Don't do anything.
It's so nutty.
I mean, the fact that the Competition Bureau has received a complaint doesn't mean they're going to do anything.
Okay.
Because the Competition Bureau exists to stop companies from doing things like saying that their toothpaste solves cancer or saying that their opponent's toothpaste causes cancer.
Or that COVID vaccines work.
So there are very valid reasons for the Competition Bureau.
But, you know, one of our scientists said, but the Bureau doesn't exist to regulate the marketplace of ideas.
You know, so nothing's going to happen.
Don't worry about it, Tom.
Five months later, the Competition Bureau sent me that letter, which I showed you.
And they said that they launched an investigation into our actions.
And this is what they said.
Here's a direct quote.
If the results of an investigation disclose evidence that in the opinion of the commissioner provides the basis for criminal prosecution, the matter may be referred to Attorney General of Canada who determines whether a prosecution should be undertaken.
We were told to keep all your records, tell everybody who works with you to keep your records.
And for about 15 months, they kept us in the hot seat, you know, sending us occasional updates saying the investigation is still underway, you know, blah, blah, blah.
They Came, We Covered00:07:59
And so, I mean, it was kind of stressful, but at the same time, it didn't make any sense.
And after about 15 months, they dropped it.
And so that's when I hit back with my article in the Toronto Sun called Big Brother Watched Me.
And I was making the analogy with 2000 or 1984.
But yeah, so, I mean, there are all kinds of sources that are trying to censor us.
The government through that particular avenue.
It didn't work, fortunately.
Big tech.
Oh, wow.
You know, I'm.
what do they call it?
Shadow banning on my YouTube channel.
Suddenly people don't get any announcements.
Back around 2004, 2005, we got published from coast to coast.
Every newspaper, even the Globe and Mail.
Okay.
Sometimes it wasn't positive, but at least we got covered.
And as a politician would say, at least they spelled your name right.
So, but we all got covered.
We got Halifax Chronicle, you know, Vancouver's Sun, Calgary Herald, all these newspapers published me and I wrote with several other scientists giving an alternative point of view on climate.
But around, oh, just before 2010, I guess, the door closed.
And suddenly they stopped publishing us completely.
Okay.
The National Post has started to do it again, which I'm grateful for.
But I asked one of the leading editors, why won't you allow both points of view?
And he said, oh, well, we agree with David Suzuki.
I said, yeah, but do you have anybody on staff who's even got a Bachelor of Science so they can judge between the points of view?
He said, no.
So I said, well, why do you really do it?
And what he told me is this.
He said, we only show the alarmist point of view because if we showed your point of view, even if you had the top scientists in the world, our advertisers wouldn't like it.
And the reason, of course, is not only does catastrophe sell media and they want high circulation so everybody sees their ads, but the last thing somebody who's promoting their product using the climate scare, you know, our printers or our cars produce less greenhouse gases.
So buy our vehicle and save the climate.
The last thing they want is for the page opposite to be a professor Clark or somebody else saying, you can't control climate.
It's all a bunk, you know?
So that's the bottom line is the media do it largely, well, partly because they're ideologically shifted towards left.
And for some strange reason, the climate scare is left wing.
But the other reason is money.
They don't want to get rid of these $10,000 ads for a full-page ad in, say, the Ottawa Citizen because, yeah, it would make their advertisers angry to be told that one of their advertising methods is baloney.
Well, and then, you know, just throw the government on top of that, you know, like when you're reliant on the government for bailouts and then you are publishing things that go against the government narrative.
I mean, for journalists, this is their jobs are on the line.
Well, that's right.
I mean, Rebel News are doing media the way it's supposed to be done.
I mean, this, you know, all the other media networks that are taking all this money from Trudeau and giving him soft coverage, I mean, they're not doing journalists' jobs at all.
They're just being a PR function, you know?
So Rebel News is wonderful, you know, and I encourage people, you know, really check them out.
You know, if this is a free video, go to their website, rebelnews.com, because Rebel News is doing what journalists used to do.
Okay.
They used to do this across the board.
They don't anymore.
So thank God for you guys.
Well, I appreciate that.
And then they wonder why nobody watches them.
It's like this vicious cycle.
It's nobody trusts the media.
And then Justin Trudeau gives them more money because nobody trusts the media.
And so nobody's watching them.
And then because they've been contaminated by government money, people continue to not trust them.
And like I said last week, it's like watching a toilet bowl flush and journalism just goes out the bottom.
Well, that's right.
I mean, if people don't watch the CBC and generally speaking, they don't when it comes to continuing.
Yeah, when it comes to news, especially, they might watch the Olympics or something.
But the bottom line is if media can't get enough viewers, then they're failing.
Their business model is not working.
And so they should go out of business.
You know, so that's just the natural way of things.
And I would say, yeah, let them die.
Let them die.
And then others will come up who give a proper product.
Yeah.
You know, Tom, I could talk to you all day.
We're 45 minutes into the show.
I'm already apologetic to my editor who has to make this look nice in a couple of short hours for publication.
But how do people find out about the very important work that you do at the International Climate Science Coalition Canada and the other places where they might find you?
Yeah, for sure.
Well, I'm also on America Out Loud.
Okay, AmericaOutLoud.com.
If you click on our team, go down, choose my name.
You can see all the articles that I'm putting in and also interviews and all sorts of things.
We had an interview last week with Suzanne Albright, who's a bird expert about the killing of birds by wind turbines.
She's a wonderful person.
People can hear that interview right there.
It's in podcast right now.
And yeah, so that's where they can go.
America Out Loud, they can see our articles.
We also have a podcast that you can see on icsc-canada.com where I have an interview with you.
It's the other, sorry, Exploratory Journeys, which is our podcast.
And go to icsc-canada.com and you can see the two reports that we just did.
And also on the left, you can see where Ottawans are fighting back.
And it's a great illustration of how even in a woke left-wing city, the public can have an impact.
You know, how do people pitch in to help you guys?
Because you are up against not just the government, but the deep green tentacles of these foreign-funded charities that just dump money into Canada to make our jobs vaporize and our utility bills more expensive.
Well, right.
On our homepage in the upper right-hand corner is a big donate button.
We get no money from government.
I can tell you that.
And every buck that we get is spent very effectively on doing all the things that we do, you know, and it helps pay for, you know, having my meetings, for example, you know, when we have to travel.
I gave presentations out about an hour west of Ottawa just a couple of weeks ago.
And, you know, all that costs money.
So to make us effective, we need some funding.
Then we can put out press releases, you know, write reports, go to conferences.
That's why I'm not at the COP conference this year.
It's because it's expensive and we don't have the funds.
So anybody who donates, I'll answer and thank you very much.
Awesome.
Tom, thanks so much for taking the time today.
And thanks so much for the hard work that you do on behalf of science and reality and normal Canadians who are just struggling to pay their bills.
We'll have you back on again very soon.
Okay.
Thank you, Sheila.
Well, we've come to the portion of the show where we invite your viewer feedback.
And apologies to the regular viewers of the show.
I know this gets annoying and redundant, but we're getting new people on board all the time and they need to know the rules.
At Rebel News, we actually care about what you think about the work that we do.
And so I give you my email address at the end of every show.
It's Sheila at RebelNews.com.
Let me know what you think about the show today.
Put gun show letters in the subject line so that I know why you're writing to me because I do get a lot of emails in a day and some of them are not always that nice, depending on what I've said on the show or in a video or on the live stream on Fridays.
But don't hesitate to leave a comment or a story idea or viewer feedback wherever you're watching us.
For example, if you're watching the free version of the show on Rumble or YouTube, sort of towards the weekend is usually when we publish that, leave a comment there.
Emails and Feedback00:03:56
Sometimes I go looking over there.
So don't let a subscription be the bar for entry.
I want to hear from you, however you watch us.
Now, today's viewer feedback comes from the email inbox and it comes to me on a show.
I did a couple of weeks ago.
And on the November 22nd gun show, I was talking about our environment minister, Stephen Gilbo.
Lord only knows what I was saying about him.
There's so much to be said.
But anyway, Peter writes me and says, hey, Sheila, loved your coverage of Stephen Gilbo on the November 22nd gun show, but I think you're being far too kind to our environment minister, was I?
That doesn't sound like me.
I'll have to be a little bit more vitriolic about him.
I don't want to be kind to him.
Anyway, the well-documented fact about Gilbo is that he's a convicted criminal eco-terrorist.
As if the idiot stunt he pulled in Toronto wasn't bad enough, him and his gang climbing on the roof of the Alberta Premier Ralph Klein's house, terrifying his home alone wife, really took the cake.
Very scary to me that he's now in government, especially the environment minister.
Every time anyone mentions Gilbo in my presence, I point out his criminal record as a convicted eco-terrorist.
Many people, especially here in Toronto, don't have a clue about Gilbo's criminal history, despite it playing out in the local media just 20 years back.
You know what?
I am not whatsoever against redemption.
I believe that people have passed and they can change their ways and I cheer for that, right?
But he hasn't.
He is still an eco-terrorist.
Now he's just eco-terrorizing your bank account by making the cost of everything go through the roof.
Anyway, let's keep going.
Like Climate Barbie said in her drunken rant in the Newfoundland Tavern, just keep saying it and people will totally believe it.
She did say that.
She thought she was clever, but she was not.
She was honest.
It was a moment of honesty from her.
I seem to remember Joseph Goebbels had a similar quote.
We have to counter the enemy pounding out the propaganda, repeating it over and over by pounding out the truth and repeating it over and over so the people will get it.
The problem is that since 2015, thanks to social media, the average attention span of a human fell to less than that of a goldfish.
So the frequent reminders are now necessary.
Also, there's heavy social media censorship.
So you might be reminding people frequently, but they might not be getting the message because the message is never getting to them, as I discussed with Tom today on the show.
I never mentioned Gilbo's name without the words convicted eco-terrorists in the same sentence, because that's exactly what he is, and the people should know it.
Keep up the good work and all the best, Peter.
Well, I will, Peter.
Thank you so much.
And thank you for taking the time to write that very thoughtful letter to me.
I appreciate it when people see the work I'm doing, stop and let me know their viewer feedback.
You know, how many of us just ingest the news, grumble to ourselves, and go on about the day?
I know that Peter sat down at his computer keyboard and typed out a message to me, and I really appreciate that.
And I appreciate his desire to make sure that people know the truth, because if you don't hear it from Rebel News and like a handful of independent journalistic outfits, you're not going to hear it from the CBC.
That's for sure.
Have you ever heard CBC tell you that Stephen Gilbo is a convicted eco-terrorist?
Not since he was convicted.
Am I right, people?
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 weekend.