Ezra Levant critiques Justin Trudeau’s UN speech on September 23rd, mocking its clichés and AI-like tone while dismissing his focus on climate change as irrelevant to Canada’s housing crisis and job shortages. His diplomatic failures—like NATO exclusion and Trump’s exposure of military spending lies—highlight incompetence, yet he still promotes domestic policies like $10/day childcare at global forums. Levant ties this to Scientific American’s politicized endorsement of Kamala Harris, citing Nobel laureates John Clauser and dissenters Jay Bhattacharya as proof science now bows to activism. Elon Musk’s free-speech stance contrasts with government overreach, while Bill Nye’s shift from science to woke ideology underscores the erosion of rigor. Audience letters reveal generational disrespect for veterans and traditions, signaling a broader cultural deracination—where institutions prioritize dismantling heritage over honoring it. [Automatically generated summary]
Did you know that Justin Trudeau is in New York City, a place he has visited more than he has visited Calgary or Edmonton?
We'll talk about his speech to the UN there and his upcoming visit with RuPaul.
But first, I want to invite you to become a subscriber to Rebel News Plus.
That's the video version of this show.
I want to show you his speech at the UN, so I'd like you to see it, not just hear it.
Go to RebelNewsPlus.com.
Click subscribe.
It's $8 a month.
And not only do you get great content five nights a week from me and Sheila Gonride does a weekly show, but you also, you know, keep Rebel News strong.
We don't get any money from Trudeau and its shows.
We rely on you.
And that $8 a month might not sound like a lot of money to you, but it really adds up for us.
Please go to RebelNewsPlus.com.
All right, here's today's podcast.
It's the news event of the year.
Canada's most controversial premier sits down with Canada's most controversial journalist, and everything is on the table.
Come watch Ezra Levant one-on-one with Alberta Premier Danielle Smith in front of a live studio audience in Calgary.
Nothing's off limits.
Nothing's held back.
Questions that would make Justin Trudeau invoke martial law.
Answers that will make Stephen Gilbo pee his pants.
You're not going to want to miss this one, but you have to be there in person at the Rebel News Live mega conference in Calgary on October the 5th.
Tickets are limited, so drop everything and go to RebelNewsLive.com right now.
Special discounted prices for Patriots and special extra high prices if you're with the CBC.
Go to RebelNewsLive.com now.
Tonight, Justin Trudeau runs away from his troubles in Canada down to New York, his favorite city.
It's September 23rd, and this is the Ezra Levant show.
Trudeau's New York Escape00:16:07
Shame on you, you censorious bug.
Justin Trudeau is back in New York City again.
I used to keep track of how many times he went there.
It's in the dozens.
He has gone to New York more than he's gone to the great cities of Calgary or Edmonton, probably more than he's even been to Vancouver.
He just likes it in New York, and who doesn't?
But he finds every excuse to go there instead of to deal with Canadian issues and Canadians.
When he goes to New York, he can pretend he's in the big leagues.
If you've ever been to Manhattan, it can be quite awe-inspiring.
The masters of the universe, the biggest people in every realm are there.
Trudeau is a little person, but he can look bigger even if he doesn't quite fit the suit because he travels in style, the government of Canada private jet and lots of money and power to clear the way for him.
He couldn't earn it on his own.
Now, in fairness, Trudeau doesn't really get a lot of invitations anymore because he's a bit of an idiot.
I mean, listen to this.
Obviously, he got this invitation, but would you invite this guy back?
Mr. Prime Minister, the final word, any ask or advice for everyone listening today?
Well, one of the things, you started getting me thinking about science fiction, and I was thinking about Jurassic Park, the original book, where Ian Malcolm, played by Jeff Goldblum, talks about in the movie, talks about the accelerated pace of learning and knowledge and science.
And the fact that if you're a martial arts expert, you will spend decades, perhaps, getting to the point where you can kill someone with your finger.
And the idea is once you gain that particular power, you will have lived with it and grown into it so much that you'll never use it or never have to use it except in unimaginable circumstances because you have gained control over the power you have.
And the story of Jamassic Jurassic Park waking up dinosaurs again or AI now means that we are all busy stepping on each other as we're creating more and more tools that we haven't had time to sit back and reflect on what's going to be the consequence of this or what's going to be the challenge of that or what's going to be the benefit of this.
We just sort of throw it, throw it because we can.
We're creating all these amazing new technologies.
Yeah, thanks for giving us some Jurassic Park analogy.
And you know what he said, oh, I read the book.
Oh, you read the book.
Did you also read the Superman book?
It's sort of embarrassing.
I'm sure he's told that story when he was a lot younger, like 20-something, trying to impress some chicks.
It doesn't really work when he's with some deep thinkers.
I suppose it's an improvement over when he used to do his fancy socks thing.
Remember that?
I mean, I remember he met with Angela Merkel.
I disagree with Merkel on every single thing, but it's hard to think of a more serious, dour, sober-minded woman.
And there was Justin Trudeau introducing himself and saying, look at my socks.
Did he get a load of my socks?
Did you see that?
Just absolutely embarrassing.
And after that first sort of chuckle at the new kid, the grown-ups really didn't want anything to do with Trudeau.
So many images of him attending G7 meetings or NATO meetings or other meetings, G20 meetings, and just no one comes over to Trudeau.
They just, why would they say hi to him?
They're there for very serious matters.
When he does manage to strike up a conversation, like here he is with Xi Jinping, who absolutely tears a strip off him.
Take a look.
Everything we discuss is unleashed to the paper.
That's an autopilot.
And that's not how the way the conversation was done.
If there is a sincerity of your part, free and open and frank dialogue, and that is what we will continue to have.
I continue to look to work constructively together, but there will be things we will disagree on, and you will have to do more.
Let's create the conditions first.
One of my favorite shots is when he was sitting next to Yair Bolsonaro, who just wouldn't even make eye contact with him.
No one thinks of Canada as a serious contender anymore.
When Stephen Harper was our prime minister, they did.
We punched above our weight.
These days, we're not included.
As we talked about with Aaron Gunn, NATO has exercises.
We're not invited.
There's a subgroup of NATO, actually it's beyond NATO.
It's called AUKUS.
Australia, UK, and US is what that stands for.
We're not included.
We're not invited.
They're going ahead and making decisions and planning without us.
We're sort of at the kids' table at Christmas dinner.
You know, Justin Trudeau really should have listened to Donald Trump.
Remember when Trump visited Trudeau, asked how much Trudeau was spending on military spending, and caught him in a lie?
Do you remember that?
Canada does not meet the 2% standard.
Should it have a plan to meet the 2% standard?
Well, we'll put him on a payment plan, you know?
We'll put Canada on a payment plan, right?
I'm sure the Prime Minister would love that.
What are you at?
What is your number?
The number we talk about is 70% increase over these past years, including, and for the coming years, including significant investments in our fighter jets, significant investments in our naval fleets.
We are increasing significantly our defense spending from previous governments that cut it.
Okay.
Where are you now in terms of your number?
We're at 125.
1.3.
1. 1.4.
1.4.
And we're getting there.
They know it's important to do that.
And their economy is doing well.
Yeah, that was embarrassing for Trudeau.
Donald Trump did more accountability journalism there than any actual Canadian journalist have done.
But, you know, I suppose when you're still the prime minister of Canada, even a degraded, dilapidated Canada, you could still get certain invitations.
I mean, I'm sure the president of Malawi, just to pick a country at random, you know, you're still the president of something.
So, I mean, he can still get audiences, like at that Jurassic Park conference.
It wouldn't surprise me if he had to buy his way in with some $100,000 grant for the privilege of speaking.
But I think there's a little bit of what happens out of town, stays in out of town.
You know that phrase, what happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas.
I think Trudeau thinks he can sort of live a second or slightly different life outside the country.
He can be himself.
He can indulge a bit.
It's a very limited press corps that travel with him.
And since they're flying with him, they are sort of chummy.
It's also, I think he can let his hair down a bit.
Look at this next clip.
I call it the triple wobble.
He's there in Chicago with David Axelrod.
This is a few years ago.
He stands up.
He lurches.
He lurches again.
He almost falls a third time.
I really think he's either drunk or high here.
And I'm not saying that to be mean.
I'm just trying to observe why is he so wobbly?
Thank you so much.
Let's go into America.
He's letting off some steam, shall we say.
And he's back in New York.
And I understand he's going on the Stephen Colbert show tonight, along with RuPaul, the drag queen.
So actually, that's a dream come true for Trudeau.
Now, that show is just so unwatchable.
It is a full-out propaganda machine.
Bill Gates is going on the show later this week.
I mean, if you actually wanted something exciting to entertain your viewers with, you would not invite Bill Gates.
But if your job is to propagandize your remaining viewers, you have Bill Gates on.
Remember how atrocious Stephen Colbert was during lockdowns with his vacc scene sketch?
This is so embarrassing.
Remember this?
The vaccine.
Anyways, a place where any prime minister or president, no matter how disreputable or unpopular or childish or past his prime, a place where any of those people are welcome, no matter what, is at the United Nations.
That's the point of the United Nations.
Even accused war criminals can go there.
They have diplomatic immunity coming to the UN.
So they couldn't very well turn away Justin Trudeau now, could they?
Not that anyone came out to listen to him give his speech.
I mean, look at all the empty seats.
Oh my God, in a room that holds hundreds of people.
It looks like maybe 10 or 15 people were there, max.
And I'm pretty sure they were just waiting for the next guy.
They were just taking a break.
Anyways, I want to show you what Trudeau actually said.
It was a very short speech.
Don't worry.
It's not like a Trump speech, 90 minutes or so.
It's a short speech.
I don't think he wrote a word of it.
I think it's just like some AI collage mashed up of his past speeches.
It's very banal and it's full of clichés, but I'll show you what he said.
Here's how Canada's prime minister put our face to the world.
Here, take a look.
As we meet here in New York at the UN General Assembly for this summit of the future, we're at a global inflection point.
Faced with escalating instability, undermining the very foundations of the international order, beset by the increasingly dire costs of climate change, contending with rising inequality that is leaving the most vulnerable behind.
So you're at the United Nations, and what's your message in September of 2024?
The increasingly dire cause of climate change?
What is this?
2015?
Why is he talking about that?
No Canadians, no Canadians care about that.
All Canadians care about is vast immigration, the cost of housing, jobs.
You're talking about climate change?
Oh, my God.
Here, I'll play some more.
The erosion of women's rights, LGBT plus rights, and Indigenous rights, and grappling with dire humanitarian crises, perpetuating record levels of displacement.
We have a choice.
On the one hand, we can bury our heads in the sand, eschewing multilateralism in favor of short-sighted self-interest, or we can recognize that collectively we have a responsibility to set our differences aside,
to confront the serious global challenges, and to deliver on a pact for the future that builds a more peaceful world, but also one where everyone, every generation, has a real and fair shot.
It is true that women's rights are eroding.
I'll give him that point, but not for the reasons he would claim.
Women's rights are eroding in Canada, in America, in the UK, across the leftist West, because of the LGBT plus.
I note that he no longer says the Q2SL or any of the other alphabets suit.
It's true that women's rights are eroding because transgenderism allows men into women's places, whether it's sports teams on the field or changing rooms or bathrooms or even in prisons.
So yeah, so it's not happening the way I bet he would say it is.
And it is true that there are record levels of displacement in terms of mass immigration, but it's not push.
It's pull.
If you look at the top countries from which so-called refugees are coming to Canada, for example, they're not being pushed here because of global wars.
India is the number one source of refugee applicants.
There's no civil war in India.
India is a fairly liberal democracy.
It's getting better all the time.
If you're coming here from India claiming you're a refugee, it's not because you were pushed out.
It's because you were pulled here by Justin Trudeau's promise of easy entry.
He goes on to talk about people getting a fair shot in Canada and a global order.
But I don't really understand this speech.
It feels like his Canadian stump speech that he would give in a losing by-election campaign.
It doesn't really feel like a United Nations speech.
Here, watch some more.
Believe it or not, we're halfway done.
In Canada, that's what we are squarely focused on.
As I travel across my country, Canadians of all walks of life, but particularly young Canadians, tell me that they're worried.
They're worried about the state of the world and the future.
But most importantly, they're worried about the very promise of Canada.
The promise that if you work hard, you can do better than the generations that preceded you.
That promise is slipping out of reach.
So as a government, we are stepping up.
The solution to anxiety and angst is not to deceive and deflect, but to take action.
We know that confident, successful countries invest in their citizens, in their workers, in their middle class.
In national $10 a day childcare that saves families money while ensuring women can choose the best path for themselves.
In nutritious school meals so our kids can focus on learning and growing.
In an ambitious housing plan that will deliver good, abundant, and affordable homes.
In a national dental care program that in its first months has already delivered quality care to three-quarters of a million Canadians.
In a growth and industrial strategy that creates good-paying, community-building, middle-class jobs, all while fighting climate change.
Yeah, none of those are really United Nations things.
I think we know why the other leaders weren't there.
He's talking about $10 a day daycare.
He's talking about getting free dentists or something, all while fighting climate change.
That phrase, fighting climate change, not solving climate change or stopping climate change, because it's insoluble, it's unstoppable.
If you think of it as a human problem, the climate has always changed.
That's why they never say stopping climate change, just fighting it, the process of it.
No achievement.
The achievement is the fight.
That's where all the money comes from.
So he said the United Nations to talk about 750,000 people seeing the dentist.
It's just no wonder no one's there to listen.
Commitment To Global Challenges00:05:02
Here's some more.
These choices reflect a commitment to investing in our people and in our future.
But also a commitment to tackle global problems that we all share.
Climate change and inflation don't stop at borders.
Inequality is a problem for the entire world, for people from all walks of life.
If we really want to serve our own citizens, we must together tackle the great global challenges.
We should work within institutions such as the United Nations and renew our commitment to the sustainable development agenda for 2030.
That's a globalist socialist environmental agenda he's talking about there.
By the way, that can never be achieved by design.
Like I say, they're not trying to actually fix a problem and then call it quits.
They want the problem perpetuated.
This is the left-wing mindset in so many things.
The poverty industry, the safe drug industry.
They don't actually want to clean up these homeless camps or these drug dens in Canada, because then they'd be out of their jobs and out of their grants.
We need to protect and support the rule of law and democratic values.
We should spearhead efforts to reform the international financial institutions.
Really, really?
This is from the guy who declared martial law illegally and unconstitutionally, seized bank accounts, but also at the same time laundered Chinese corrupt money into the Liberal Party.
Yeah, right.
We must put women's and girls' rights at the very heart of our efforts, much like we have done with our feminist international assistance policy.
We must recognize also that rich countries such as Canada have a duty to fight climate change, which is what we're doing through our commitment of $5 billion towards global climate financing efforts.
And we are the first big oil and gas producing country to establish an emission ceiling in this sector.
Fight climate change.
Does anyone even hear, when someone says, Marlboro, fight climate change, do you hear more, do you hear just that muttering, mumbling in the background?
Does anyone actually hear any words when they say that?
Even Greta Tunberg has moved on from climate change.
No one cares anymore.
Show me what the people looks like.
Show me what power looks like.
Show me what democracy looks like.
Show me what democracy looks like.
Feminist climate change.
God, this is so tired.
All right, last clip.
Delegates, nearly 80 years ago, in the aftermath of the most destructive war in our collective history, we formed these United Nations.
And we did so with the aspiration to build something better for today's generations, yes, but also for many generations to come.
All of us gathered here have an opportunity to hold true to that mission, to fulfill the promise of our pact for the future to deliver fairness for every generation.
And that's it.
It's done.
Lord have mercy.
He did say he's going to spend another $5 billion of your money in climate finance foreign aid.
Oh, it's feminist climate finance.
What does that mean other than he's just going to shovel more cash to his friends?
I don't know.
No one in Canada knows what any of this means.
Why did he even go there?
Is it just to get away, to get away from his ex, to get away from the by-elections he's losing?
It'll be interesting to see if he has any brightness in his eyes on TV tonight with RuPaul and Stephen Colbert.
He used to love going on those shows.
They treated him like a star.
I think even he knows it's sort of sad.
Stay with us.
more ahead.
I'm in Brazil, so I'm using a VPN to get on the internet.
What's a VPN?
It stands for virtual private network, and you get around these government firewalls.
Suddenly, the president of Brazil banned his whole country from going on Twitter.
It was a political censorship news.
I've downloaded the VPN from a company called PIA VPN.
We've teamed up with them at Rebel, and it's a great deal.
I got on the internet really quickly, safely, and even I'm a bit of a technophobe.
I managed to figure it out with two clicks.
And here's the great news.
If you go to piavpn.com slash rebel news, not only do you get a big discount, but they pay us a bit of a commission too.
Feynman On Teaching Thinking00:11:04
Everyone's a winner.
Your freedom, your VPN, and a little bit of cash coming to support Rebel News.
I'm using it myself to get around the censors in Brazil.
You can use it too.
That's PIAVPN.com slash Rebel News.
When I was a kid, we didn't have a lot of TV channels, but one of them had a great kid's show called The Hilarious House of Freightenstein.
It's sort of a cult classic in Canada.
They filmed it all in like three days, like the entire, all the episodes for the season.
And there were funny characters, and it was sort of a comedy and it's sort of a spooky vampire thing.
But they had one of these little vignettes every episode.
It was like a mashup of little skits and sketches.
But every day, they had a physics professor named Professor Julius Sumner Miller.
And although he was quite dramatic to look at, and I think he tussled his hair to fit in with the hilarious house of Frightenstein, he was absolutely brilliant at physics.
And more than that, he was brilliant at talking about physics.
And I don't know, I must have been 10 years old at the time.
And I laughed at all the jokes, but I could hardly wait till Professor Julius Sumner Miller had his weekly appearance.
I loved it.
Here's what I watched as a kid.
And it was sort of by accident because I was tuning in for the funny stuff.
Take a look.
How do you do, my friends everywhere, ladies and gentlemen and boys and girls and children and men and women and people?
I am Professor Julius Sumner Miller, and physics is my business.
And before we go further into these wonderful adventures with nature, a word regarding our modus operandi.
Modus operandi.
On occasion in some of these programs already done, and on those I will do further, it is clear that I have used some language now and again of an elevated sort, words like, phrases like modus operandi and such.
And the impression may be got that this is too much for young ones to hear and understand.
But I am of the philosophy, having been for 60 years in the academic scene, that my singular purpose is to make everyone reach, and thus their brains are stretched and their emotions moved and their spirit touched.
So these things that I have done and we are now doing should have virtue for the youngest and the oldest.
As I am given to say, the stuff we do here and we talk about is good for ages 3 to 93 or 2 to 92 or 4 to 94.
Indeed, one-year-olds could enjoy what we are doing.
So let's do some more of it.
Well, Julius Sumner Miller was simply a brilliant professor and great communicator, but the granddaddy of the popularizers of science has to go to Richard Feynman, who was actually part of the Manhattan Project.
He won a Nobel Prize.
This guy was probably one of the greatest minds of the last century.
But in addition to being a great scientist, and Feynman said this about experts, let me quote it so I get it right.
He said, science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.
When someone says science teaches such and such, he is using the word incorrectly.
As in, he says you must always have doubt.
You must always welcome criticism.
That's how we learn.
If it disagrees with experiment, It's wrong.
And that simple statement is the key to science.
It doesn't make a difference how beautiful your guess is.
It doesn't make any difference how smart you are who made the guess or what his name is.
If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong.
Boy, I miss the likes of Julius Sumner Miller and Richard Feynman.
We sure could use them now.
In the place of those giants, truly great men, we have Scientific American.
And again, when I grew up, it was a thoughtful magazine that felt pretty sciencey.
When you were reading Scientific American, you knew you were in the serious stuff.
It wasn't, I mean, sure, it popularized science, but it was scholarly and rigorous.
Well, not so much.
Look at what they've gone and done.
Scientific American has waded into the U.S. presidential debate.
And wouldn't you know it, they have endorsed Kamala Harris.
And the reasons why, well, they're most unscientific, joining us out to talk about it is our friend Mark Morano from climatepot.com.
Mark, great to see you again.
Hey, good to see you, Ezra.
Thank you.
Mark, I don't know if you, when you were growing up, if you ever encountered some of these science, they were sort of lecturers.
They were actually at a high level, but they made it so simple that even kids could follow it.
I loved that.
I looked up to these men because they were pure reason.
That is not Scientific American in 2024, is it?
No.
In fact, I think a simple way of saying it would be they used to teach you how to think about science, how to view it and how to conduct it.
Now they teach you that you have to follow the science, that you can't dissent on the science.
And of course, as part of that, for only the second time in their, I think, 179-year history, they are endorsing Kamala Harris for president because, and this is the key reason, she, quote, treats the climate crisis as the emergency it is.
And of course, they contrast her with Trump, who has said climate change is a hoax, according to the magazine.
So this is decades of government funding, corruption, suppression of speech, and the idea that if you disagree with any scientific claim being made on any topic that disagrees with what any government agency,
whether it be NASA or the World Health Organization or the World Meteorological Association or any government or international body, you are by de facto and by definition wrong and a misinformer, and you should have your ability to express that suppressed.
So it's in that spirit that Scientific American is endorsing Kamala Harris because they claim she supports science.
She doesn't support science.
She supports mandating one scientific view that is not allowed to be questioned.
And this is just a sad history of this magazine.
If you go back just another 10 years, it was just as bad.
Climatologist Judith Curry, who was the darling of the UN climate science crowd, friends with Michael Mann, totally in on the whole global warming agenda.
After ClimateGate, she started questioning the science.
What did Scientific American do?
Feature article, cover article calling her a heretic of science for daring to challenge the UN climate view.
And of course, as a heretic, that's the language of what, Ezra?
The language of religion.
No more science.
Yeah.
You know, even the phrase emergency, climate emergency, that's not a very scientific phrase that suggests a political or moral decision.
It is time to panic.
This is really serious.
That's not science language.
You know, I want to, and it's fake science.
It's politics presenting itself as science.
It's like when Fauci himself said, I am the science.
How dare you question me?
Feynman, if he would have seen that, would have said that is every scientist must question you.
That's how we learn.
And let me just, I've got Feynman on my mind because I'm nostalgic for the era when we could learn these things.
And you didn't have to be on your guard when you went to school, when you went to a museum, when you went to an Arch art show, that everywhere would be propaganda.
Last time I went to the Vancouver Aquarium, one of the best fan aquariums in Canada, I just couldn't stand.
Like, I loved looking at the critters, but I couldn't stand reading any of the plaques.
It was all propaganda.
Same thing here.
Like, I love going to museums, but I can't stand reading their propaganda.
Here's Feynman talking about the difference between people who can fake knowledge and people who actually understand something.
This is a great little clip of Feynman talking about, do you know the word, the name for that bird?
Do you know what that bird is called here?
Watch this wonderful clip.
This is what a scientist is.
Once Sunday, all the kids were all walking in little parties with their fathers in the woods.
And the next Monday, we were playing in a field.
And the kid said to me, say, what's that bird?
What's the name of it?
Do you know the name of that bird?
I said, I haven't the slightest idea.
He said, well, it's a brown-throated thrush.
He says, your father doesn't teach you anything.
But my father had already taught me about the names of birds.
He once we walked and he says, that's a brown-throated thrush.
He says, know what the name of that bird is a brown-throated thrice.
In German, it's called a Friendsberge.
In Chinese, it's called a Qing Wong Pong.
In Japanese, a Tahat, and so on.
And when you know all the names in every language of that bird, you know nothing, but absolutely nothing about the bird.
Then we would go on and talk about the pecking and the feathers.
So I had learned already that names don't constitute knowledge.
It's the knowing the name of something.
That's caused me a certain trouble since because I refuse to learn the name of anything.
So when someone comes in and says, you got any explanation for the Fitzclonin experiment?
I say, what's that?
He says, you know, that the long-lived K-Mezon disintegrates into two pies.
Oh, oh, yes, now I know.
But I never know the names of things.
What he forgot to tell me was that the knowing the names of things is useful if you want to talk to somebody else.
So you tell them what you're talking about.
Yeah, Scientific American doesn't do that kind of critical thinking, acid test thinking, challenging thinking.
Can I show you something that I saw online after this endorsement came out?
Someone went through what's called the masthead of Scientific American.
That's a fancy way for saying, well, who's the editor?
Who's the deputy editor?
And they checked, well, what credentials, if any, do these people have?
And it was John Carter, PhD, and he starts off with the editor-in-chief of the magazine, Laura Helmuth, who actually does have a PhD.
We'll give her credit, although she is much more of an advocate than a scientist.
Elon's Scientists Under Attack00:13:10
And then they go through pretty much everyone else.
Most of them have no science degrees.
Like, for example, here's Megan Bartels, senior news reporter, doesn't have any scientific training, just calls herself a science reporter.
She's got a master's in journalism.
That's not science.
Sonia Bata, the chief audience engagement editor.
So she's just writing things for clips, clicks, excuse me.
They have the senior graphics editor, Jen Christensen.
Well, it's okay that she doesn't have a science degree, I guess.
He goes through every single person on the masthead and says, folks, this ain't a science mag anymore.
It's a political campaign that speaks in jargon.
That's what it is.
And that's exactly what it is.
In fact, you can make the same argument for what we're seeing to our scientific establishment to what the medical journals have become.
During COVID, all they became was consensus enforcement, government enforcement, and whatever the big pharmaceutical funded by Bill Gates and others wanted to say.
So they would, if Donald Trump said anything, you know, like the infamous, oh, use bleach, which he never actually said, all of that stuff, they would turn that into, how dare anyone question this?
Don't do your own research.
You can't question authority.
You need to actually trade in fact finding for emotion and give in to this.
All of this from our medical journals to the scientific journals to the Scientific American.
It's really accelerated since March of 2020 with COVID because their whole attitude now is if we decree something and we decree, as you said, Anthony Fauci, that we are the science and we say there's a climate emergency and we say there's a viral emergency or a pandemic, then there's one scenario that they will allow play out.
Everyone's on board, no dissent.
That's what the whole World Health Organization pandemic rules are about, the pandemic treaty and the amendments.
It's all about no one dissenting.
We all have to be on the same page.
They don't want another Ron DeSantis in Florida.
They don't want another Sweden.
They're going to make it so this is global, have global instant lockdowns, global instant vaccine mandates, et cetera.
And this whole Scientific American approach, and that's why it's so historic, the few times in their history they've ever endorsed a candidate.
They're coming out now and they're basically saying this is who you have to because she supports science.
And right there, that should be a reason to be run like hell because supporting science in today's world is like Thomas Sowell, the political economist and philosopher said, when you hear the phrase the science, it doesn't mean that they're actually going to consult experts and get data-driven views.
It means they're consulting experts for political opinions already made and they need that credential to support the decisions they've already made.
And that's what happened, of course, during COVID.
That's what's happening during climate.
And you have the entire world has gone crazy here.
It's almost a power trip, and it's an idea of suppressing any dissent and allowing questioning.
That's anti-science.
It's anti-democratic.
It's anti-free speech.
But somehow, particularly the last eight years, it's all become just the norm.
It's the most of, you know, I'm 55 years old.
It's the most bizarre thing I've ever encountered in my life, just how the entire once sane sort of free world has collapsed and been collapsing in the last 10 years with the acceleration, of course, four years ago with the COVID.
You know, one of the things that I always chafed against during lockdowns was calling the chief medical officer of any jurisdiction the top doctor, Canada's top doctor, America's top doctor.
And I kept saying, top how?
Most innovative, best patient care, voted the best by their patients.
Like, how would you measure the top doctor?
And just be a government.
Being a government doctor doesn't mean you're the top of anything.
Other than you're the top political doctor, you probably haven't practiced medicine in years or decades, or if ever, a lot of public health, you know, a PhD in public health, that's not an actual medical doctor.
And so we were told, well, this is a top doctor and ignore the doctors who are practicing in the field and what works, you know, hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin.
No, The top doctors say don't do that.
Who would you say is the top real scientist of our age?
I think you know who it is.
Who by any measure, I'm not talking about the top scientists.
I'm talking about like with quotation marks, like a government scientist.
Who's the best scientist out there?
Who's the Thomas Edison or the Nikola Tesla of our time?
Well, when I think of that, I think of the scientists who challenge the establishment.
So, people like in public health, Jay Bhattachara, Michael Levitt, in the climate science world, people like Richard Lindzen, John Klauser, who just won the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics and actually went to Joe Biden's face to tell him he disagreed with him on climate.
And Joe Biden said, You're practicing right-wing science.
Excellent story.
I didn't know there was right-wing or left-wing science.
I thought there was just science.
Yeah, that's OLOFIS.
So, those are the scientists I look up to, the ones who challenge, question authority, and question and are dissenter because they're the ones who advance science.
They're the ones who understand the scientific method, not the ones who enforce the science coming from government.
Well, here's my answer.
And I thought you were going to say the same thing I would, but I respect your answer because I see your way of thinking there.
First of all, the answer is not Bill Gates.
He's not a scientist at all.
And it's absurd how much credibility he has been endowed by the media he pays, that he's an expert in anything.
It's quite something.
I think who is the man who is putting more into space than all other countries combined?
Who is developing Neuralink, which would allow people who are quadriplegic to move or communicate again?
Who is the person that has a tunneling company called the Boring Company, a satellite company, a Starlink?
I mean, he's not a free speech, too.
Yeah, he's not a pure research scientist.
Is he a scientist?
Yeah, I was saying, what is his background?
I never considered him a scientist.
I don't know his background.
Is he an engineer?
He calls himself an engineer.
I'd have to check it out, but I would call him maybe a technologist.
He does, his companies do develop patents.
Quite often, they put them in the public domain, such as with his electric cars.
But what I like about him is he took over Twitter and he sacked 80% of the staff.
He sacked the people who were the DEI fake scientists.
They weren't scientists at all.
He only kept the guys who know how to do computer stuff.
He got rid of 80% of the staff.
And look at this headline here.
Our journalist Sarah Stock was flying and popped through an airport and she saw this book in the airport bookstore.
It's called Character Limit: How Elon Musk Destroyed Twitter.
And this is a New York Times book in an airport bookstore.
So not everyone gets in that limited space.
And I'm thinking, destroy Twitter.
It's the number one news app in the world.
It's increasingly relevant.
It's got more functionality than ever.
As a scientific or technological project, it's a great success, but it's a political failure, according to the New York Times.
I don't know.
I think they're trying to smother an actual scientist technologist because he's focused on science and technology instead of politics.
I think you're absolutely right.
I mean, you have the reason he can't even have certain high officials of X or Twitter in a country like Brazil is because they will imprison them because he's violating their censorship requirements.
Elon Musk has court cases going.
He's basically told the EU censorship committees to F off, if I can be so impolite to use that phrase.
He is the champion, not only of that, but you're right, of science.
And it's amazing his transformation because you had asked me about him 10 years ago.
I was no fan of him because he was spouting all this climate alarmist nonsense.
But he is really one of the most significant and important people of our age and becoming even more so.
And depending on how the election goes in the U.S. and how these next couple years go in the world, you know, people like Elon Musk, you know, if he gets crushed and his battle gets crushed on the free speech issue, we all lose because this is a world that's turning very dark very quickly.
Yeah.
You know, in Canada, the government just announced a two and a half billion dollar loan to a SpaceX competitor called TeleSat.
Yeah.
By the way, they have to rent the rocket ship from Elon Musk to get anything up there.
If they want to go, Elon is obviously a billionaire.
I think he's, I don't know if he's number one or two or where Jeff Bezos stands next to it or sometimes Arab oil sheks are up there.
But if he continues on this, he will lose government contracts.
They will be threatening imprisonment.
They'll come after him with investigations.
They'll come after his ally.
They will do to him what they did to Donald Trump.
And I predict in five more years, 10 more years, he may not even be in the top 10 wealthiest people.
That's the way the forces of darkness will try to take him down slowly at first, and then they're going to come after him as needed.
And I'm talking, they have that ability to do that because so much of his, of course, initial wealth anyway, relies on government cooperation and government corporate collusion, if you will.
You know, it's incredible.
The U.S. internet scheme, $42 billion to connect rural Americans, hasn't built a single internet connection, could have done it all at a fraction of the price with Starlink.
But that's the difference between science, the Scientific American way, and science, the get-it-done Elon Musk way.
I don't know, it's turning into a fan club here, but I see him as an indispensable person.
I suppose you could say the graveyards are full of indispensable men, but Elon Musk so much rides on him.
Industrial, he's the greatest wealth creator of all time, measured by increasing stock market capitalization.
In terms of how much money he's made for investors, he's the greatest wealth creator of all time.
In terms of technology and just forcing it through, I really think he is the Edison and the Tesla of our time.
And it's not surprising he chose Nikola Tesla's name for his car.
Listen, we're talking that we meant to start talking about Scientific American, but we wound up talking about a real scientist instead.
Last word to you.
Does anyone actually still read Scientific American?
When I was growing up, it was considered quite a prestigious journal, along with the magazine Nature, which I think was one degree more rigorous.
Do people take these magazines seriously anymore?
Is it part of the general discrediting of official academia?
Well, yeah, it's definitely part of that general discrediting.
It's kind of like Time and Newsweek.
What happens is they still exist, but they're no longer that mainstream impact that they used to have.
So whether it's Time magazine, whether it's Scientific American, these are now niche publications for sort of their base.
And they really don't get beyond that.
I know that from talking to all the scientists that I know and interview the climate scientists, Scientific American isn't even in the field of discussion.
It just doesn't exist.
It's not a peer-reviewed journal.
As you said, it popularizes science, but it's all agenda-driven.
And it's all going to go by whatever the government-mandated consensus of the science is.
They're not going to allow dissent.
As I mentioned, they called Judith Curry a heretic.
So this is just the way the world is.
It's very similar to the way our media is in many ways.
There's really no mainstream, except maybe Twitter X, there's no mainstream media that has where everyone coalesces around and watches, maybe other than a presidential debate here in the U.S. Otherwise, everything's just all divided up.
Now, that's not necessarily a bad thing, but it's certainly something like Scientific American is pretty much a joke now when it comes to science.
Kind of like Bill Nye, if you can go back to the 90s, actually did a lot of great science presenting, told kids what difference between a man and a woman.
Fast forward to the Bill Nye of today.
He's telling you that there is no such thing as a difference between a man and a woman, and anyone can be a woman.
So it's just amazing how the science has changed in just a few decades.
Back to the 90s00:04:23
Yeah, I'll take Julius Sumner Miller any day over Bill Nye.
The science.
If you've got to call yourself the science guy, maybe that's a sign that you aren't.
It worked when he was actually presenting science that wasn't like this back in, say, the 90s.
He was nothing.
I could go back.
I can't find that much of anything offensive about him.
It's just that he later turned into this the science activist.
Yeah, well, let me leave with a quick clip from Julius Sumner Miller, my childhood physics hero.
Take a quick look and then we'll say goodbye.
How do you do, my friends?
Good evening.
Good day.
Good morning.
All these are wonderful phrases to awaken the spirit.
Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls and others, I am Professor Julius Sumner Miller, and physics is my business.
And our business today has not only enchantment, but aesthetic abundant.
So physics, you see, can be a pretty thing to work with.
Here is a metal plate.
It happens to be brass.
It is so big in projected area.
It is so thick.
The material has certain mechanical properties.
It is fixed to a bolt firmly in the middle, tightly there, and I'm going to hold it by that shaft and bow it.
Well, there you have it.
Julia Sumner-Miller and Mark Morato.
Take care, my friend.
Thanks for joining us today.
Thank you.
Appreciate it.
Hey, welcome back.
Your letters to me, Citizen Jerry says, Hi, Ezra.
I look forward to watching Forsaken Warriors.
Even the trailer has a lot to say.
Unfortunately, our American military is also being victimized by the same woke agenda.
I'm hoping that under new leadership, both our nations can return to an observation from George Orwell.
We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who do us harm.
I'm not sure if that's an Orwell quote, but it's a good quote, anyways.
You know, it's funny you say that because Stephen Harper was prime minister when Barack Obama was president, and those men couldn't be more different.
And then Donald Trump was president when Justin Trudeau was prime minister.
Out of sync in so many ways, and I think they hated each other.
Wouldn't it be something if we had Pierre Polyev as a conservative prime minister at the same time you had Donald Trump as the U.S. president?
Imagine the actual things that could get done between our two countries.
Wouldn't that be great to actually be in sync with the U.S. again?
Blade says, I'm an older student.
I go to a campus with thousands of students, mostly Gen Z, I suppose.
Last year, I was the only one wearing a poppy on campus.
I went looking for them on purpose.
Some people might say, so what?
But I think it represents the decline of our country and the disrespect to people who put their life on the line.
Absolutely.
And the word deracinate means to pull out by the root, to cut off from the roots.
And I think if you've forgotten your past, You've been cut off from your roots, from your memory, from who you are.
It's like if someone wakes up with amnesia, they might be very bright, they might have a wonderful personality, but if they don't remember anything about their past, they're absolutely lost.
And frankly, anyone could take advantage of them.
You need to know your past, not to be trapped by it, but to understand it and to understand the sacrifices that thousands of people before you have done one generation to the next to get you to where you are today.
We take that for granted, and our school system and our cultural institutions, TV, movies, books, have all focused on tearing down and canceling, not remembering.
That's our show for today.
Until tomorrow, on behalf of all of us here at Rubber World Headquarters, see you at home.