Tucker Carlson - Ep. 62 If fossil fuels come from fossils, why have scientists found them on one of Saturn’s moons? A lot of what you’ve heard about energy is false. Dr. Willie Soon explains. TIMESTAMPS (01:49) Fossil Fuels in Space (14:27) Global Warming Throughout History (25:31) Outside
Tucker Carlson sits down with Dr. Willie Soon, a Harvard astrophysicist, who debunks the organic origin of fossil fuels—citing methane on Titan (-290°F) and Russian experiments proving hydrocarbons form abiogenically in Earth’s mantle. Soon argues untapped deep reserves and innovation, not scarcity, will dictate energy supply, dismissing CO₂ as a minor climate driver while pointing to solar cycles and orbital mechanics as key temperature regulators. He slams the IPCC’s "hockey stick" graph as manipulated, accuses Harvard of suppressing dissent, and warns against $2T-subsidized renewables failing to replace 85% fossil-fuel dominance—concluding that climate alarmism is a politically driven myth. [Automatically generated summary]
In the United States, we often refer to our main sources of energy as fossil fuels.
Oil, natural gas, coal, they're fossil fuels because they come from fossils, ancient organic material, forests, jungles, plankton, dinosaurs.
Held under the ground for millennia, they transform into oil, gas, and coal.
Everybody thinks that's true.
On the other hand, there's evidence that maybe it's not the whole story.
If that's where fossil fuels come from, if that's how hydrocarbons are made, then how come they're found so deep under the oceans and at the top of the Earth?
How come one of Saturn's moons, according to scientists, has more oil and natural gas than Earth?
Were there dinosaurs and planktons in forests at one point on one of Saturn's moons?
Probably not.
So if all hydrocarbons aren't from fossils, where are they from?
And why isn't this commonly known?
And what are the implications of it?
And what does it tell us about our modern climate change policy?
These are not just esoteric questions, they're central questions, actually, as we chart the future of energy usage in the world.
Willie Soon has been thinking about this for a long time.
And I want to spend most of our time talking about the implications.
But just to the strict question of where hydrocarbons come from, it sounds like they're not necessarily all from ancient forests or plankton or dinosaurs, are they?
Yes, the story can be a bit long, so give me a few minutes to explain.
You are certainly right, but most important to clarify is that the information that is found on the largest moon on Saturn, which is called Titan, is actually results from NASA, European Space Agency, and then the Italian Space Agency, who built this spacecraft called Cassini.
And Huygen, actually, one of my thesis advisor committee has actually built the UV spectrometer.
But the one that they use to discover this, basically the ocean liquid, liquid form of methane, which is in ethane form, which is much more complicated hydrocarbon.
It's a whole ocean of it.
Because Titan is in such a way that it's very cold, by the way.
And clearly that the question of abiogenic method, which means no need of any biology, is true.
Because we know.
Actually, one experimental experiment was done in 2009. It was done in Swedish Royal Academy, one of those groups.
But it's done by one Russian leader.
He was able to show that if you squeeze methane, CH4 in chemical formula, so four hydrogen, one carbon, squeeze them in a form in which they simulate the condition of the earth mantle, which is 1,800 miles deep, kind of below the surface, because the earth is deeper, right?
And it's within this 18 miles, but basically the condition that is only about 40 to 150 miles in, that you actually can form...
Complex hydrocarbon.
You got benzene, you got ethane, you got all this other stuff forming.
So that proves beyond doubt that you have such a way to make this.
Plus that Titan proves beyond doubt.
You actually see methane also.
In all the atmosphere, Jupiter, you know, you even find benzene in the rocks of Mars.
And then for me, astrophysicist, I can tell you even more.
You find this complex hydrocarbon called polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon.
It's another one of those complex hydrocarbon.
Then actually you found it in interstellar space, between space within stars, intergalactic space.
These are everywhere.
Because temperatures there are cold and probably the right pressure condition.
It's kind of incredible because all of us, including myself until very recently, assumed that all of our main energy sources are these so-called fossil fuels.
And of course their existence is going to be limited.
It fits very well in terms of saying that it's all matter of cost, even oil.
Most, I don't know if any of you know, the audience know that 50 to 60% of the oil that you already drilled, the drill hole, you can only pull out 40 to 50% of it.
60% of that remains in it.
Simply because there's not enough pressure to get it out.
This is why the idea of abiogenic oil is interesting.
It's true, clearly true.
It's all a matter of cost, really.
Because this thing has to form way inside the earth, the mantle, which is 50 to 100 miles, right?
Human, how deep have we ever drilled?
Only the skin, which is only 5 miles maximum, 5 to 6 miles, basically.
That's at most that we can drill.
And then all this stuff has to permeate.
Into the reservoir.
I got this information from the top.
People that physically have to look for oil every day.
One of my friends, Joseph Lime Cooler from Beacon Energy, Offshore Energy.
Those are the guys who work day in and day out to bring us the energy, actually.
So, I mean, if we haven't been told the truth about where hydrocarbons come from, and we haven't, I mean, I've never met a single person in my life who said, wait a second, they're not all fossil fuels.
Then we keep hearing there's a scientific consensus on climate change.
Every scientist believes the same thing about it, believes Al Gore and John Kerry.
Please, thank you for asking that question, Tucker.
I've been working on this subject of CO2 causing climate change or what other factors we can ask that cause climate to change for close to as long as since my postdoctoral year 1991, right?
So it's about 31 years, 32 years.
And on this question, I think we have a very definitive answer.
What we know now is CO2 ain't gonna cost nothing.
It's not gonna change much.
Of the climatic system, which means it won't change the speed of the hurricane.
It won't change how fast or how frequent tornado form.
It won't even actually make any difference to the polar bear population.
It's all conservation issue, right, on polar bear.
It won't even cause how much fish you don't catch or catch, you know?
It won't even cause what they call ocean acidification.
It won't even cause this problem that they claim.
It's all artificial.
Everything they do, it's all dream from their model and the tyranny of the field again.
That those few people just dream up this scary story that just ain't true.
And then when you come down to the most responsible group for this kind of bad stuff, I was reminded by my colleague, Dr. Ronan Connolly and Michael Connolly, my two co-workers with me on my group, is to say that since I work so carefully and I have about more than 100 scientists the last three years alone, Working with me.
So I don't speak on behalf of them.
I speak on behalf of myself.
My view is that the UNIPCC, United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is one of the primary problems, which means they have been misleading people.
They've been using authority of science, which is not true, right?
It's all governmental hackers, basically, right?
People like John Kerry, who I guess can barely take a proper physics class who keep...
Claiming that greenhouse effect is so simple, right?
And then he refused to explain how does it work, right?
I mean, he did all of that.
That is very terrible.
That really embarrassing to America.
He did that in Bali in Indonesia several years back.
Even Al Gore, who claimed to know something about science.
I challenge Al Gore.
I did some of that in his face, actually.
I was lucky enough to be in one of those Wall Street Journal eco-conference, and I was giving, you know, setting up with all the UC Santa Barbara students.
Please make sure when the question comes out, give me the mic.
I was making friends with them the night before.
I explain now my details of my work.
So I got the mic and asked questions about Al Gore because one of the primary sad things that they refuse to recognize, that I know you know that in even grade school sciences.
CO2 is a gas of life.
When you have more CO2, the plant kingdom, the whole ecology, even the oceans, gonna have more, basically, ability, more fishes, more everything.
And these people want to demonize it as some gas that can cause global warming, can cause hurricanes to run faster or weaker.
I don't know what they want.
To have more rain, more droughts, and all these other nonsense that they claim.
All of that.
It just ain't so.
That's the problem.
By the way, this is how serious I am.
I check everything they say.
I check.
As a scientist, you cannot just dismiss them.
You cannot laugh at them.
You cannot, you know, chide them.
You cannot just make joke of them.
You check everything.
So as a very serious scientist, and I publish scientific paper refuting all of these arguments.
Scientific papers maybe mean nothing to the average people, but it's really important.
It's like a document that you have to document.
And then put out the proper scientific arguments about what is right, what is wrong.
So that's what we have been doing at my particular center called series-sign.com.
So anybody who wants more information about this, please go to the website, right?
And study what we do there.
Because we are the one that is truly independent from any funding agency, any money that you could possibly give me.
Like Bill Gates, please don't give me money.
Thank you.
And Al Gore, please don't give me money.
Don't give me any money if you tell me what to do.
You know, even some of your money, I might not want it.
But the point is that I want to be independent, just like you.
In the media, I want to be fearless.
I just set my own agenda.
You don't tell me what to research either.
I research what I want to research.
So we've been researching on many, many topics.
So on the climate change issue, I'm fully convinced.
After all these years, even though we may not know exactly what is causing climate change, we suspect it's the sun.
We have a lot of evidence to show that it's probably the sun.
Very high percentage, you know, I would say 90%, we're sure, but not 100%.
But we know carbon dioxide is not the gas, it's not what you call your thermometer in your room, can adjust up and down that you can set the temperature to be whatever level you want it.
First of all, they can never tell us what temperature do they want it at.
What is the temperature you want to set the global temperature?
Al Gore has not been able to answer that.
John Kerry has not been able to answer that.
Because we know the temperature from the coldest in Siberia to the desert in Sahara.
I mean, these are huge, at least 100 degrees or more kind of differences.
You know, Jupiter, Saturn, and even Venus and Mars.
They're actually controlling what we do.
And the Moon, of course, is very important.
But that other factors, the orbits, plus the changes of the Sun by itself, between how bright...
How dim it is?
These two factors can explain just about everything that we know.
All the data that I have, actually.
So I've been studying.
This is why I was so fascinated in studying this issue.
I spent my whole life, actually, studying this.
Nothing but doing just this.
And the more I understand, the more I think that, wow, it's just a gap to be filled in.
We have too much information.
And then these people come along, say that CO2 is causing everything.
I check.
I check.
Oh, maybe they're right.
I check.
As a scientist, I have to check them.
But then it's not even close.
I mean, these people are talking about things like this.
I mean, there's a famous phrase by a very famous Wisconsin meteorologist.
His name is Professor Reed Bryson.
He's one of the father of climatology, really.
He just said that you go out and then you might as well, if you think CO2 is so, you might as well spit into the air and see what happened to the airflow.
He was just basically saying that CO2 is nothing.
Cannot cause the climate to change or anything.
It doesn't change anything, actually.
It's the sun.
Why do you think the most important things that you should talk about?
They never talk about that.
They always want to average the data.
The most important thing they should talk about, you know what?
It's the season.
No two winter are the same.
No two summers are the same.
And they never explain that.
It's actually the orbits with the sun changing it ever so slightly.
I'm not talking.
I have published papers, papers and papers and papers like that on all this to show and document why and how.
That's what the fun part of doing science is not only chit-chatting, hand-waving like crazy.
You have to be.
Even though I may look like one now, but I am always very calm when you write down.
You know, like every time I have to write a paper, I always tell my wife, please, don't disturb me for a few days.
The only thing we don't know is how to predict the sun changes by itself because the magnetism, you know, just the magnetic field on the sun is too complicated.
The sun is the magnetized ball, right?
It's a gas, hot gas.
It's about, you know, the magnetic field is so strong.
It's 10,000 times stronger than the earth.
The earth is also a magnet, a bar magnet, basically.
It's one gauss.
We have 10,000 gauss at least.
On the Sun.
So it's a very different property.
And it works very differently because it's heated by basically a thermonuclear reaction inside the Sun.
So it created all kinds of hot gas behavior that is very difficult to try to master or even to model using mathematical equations.
Actually, it's much easier to study the Earth than to do the Sun.
So that's part of the problem in scientific tasks, the physics tasks.
They're very difficult.
But then we learn a lot.
We learn a lot through just...
Watching the sun.
I mean, Galileo Galilei, right?
He pointed his telescope.
He was smart enough.
First, he pointed to Jupiter, the moon, right?
Jupiter.
Then he saw the moon, right?
He saw four moons around it.
And then he's smart that he go the next day to watch it again.
He watched and then he started to move.
By the way, the famous story of Galileo Galilei, we'll talk about it someday.
When he wrote that down, initially it was in Italian.
When he realized he discovered something so unique.
He changed the language to Latin the next day.
Yeah, you know, I got it, man, the good one.
So he started writing in Latin, precise language, okay?
But anyway, for the sun, it's really so complicated that actually I've been studying this actually as long as you know me.
I mean, I studied this for so long.
We know a lot.
I even wrote a popular book actually to try to explain why that during a period of the sunspot, so Galileo Galileo started in 1609, 1610 or so.
So we have about now 400 and...
13 years of data.
But there's a period that deep inside the Little Ice Age, 1645 to 1715, is called the Monder Minimum.
Because during that period, the sunspot almost all disappeared.
Especially in the northern hemisphere.
It disappeared completely.
Nobody knows why.
And that's why the French astronomer, famous people like Cassini, the one that the Cassini spacecraft, he was observing at that time.
He said, man, this Galileo guy must be either drinking too much or lying or things like that.
He said there's a lot of sunspot, but when we observe at this time, we didn't see nothing.
What's wrong?
But it's an actual phenomenon, right?
My friend, my good friend, which is the number one world sunspot historian, he just wrote an email to me, Douglas Hoyt.
He actually was the master of this, collecting all the sunspot data, going back to all the major libraries, you know, from Galileo First Point all the way to present point.
Basically found that this phenomenon is true because during that period, the sunspot was not there, not because nobody was watching.
It was at least observed 80% of the time during the 70 years.
You see, it's so unique, that period.
But now we're beginning to try to learn what happened there.
So during that period, we really think that the sun was so much dimmer, was substantially dimmer.
This is why you have this little ice age phenomenon.
All the Thames River were froze.
You know, we have the...
Thames River in England, well-known, and then all the ice skating thing, you know, in Holland, all the different cultures.
And then these are all real, actual phenomenon.
And then this day, they're trying to say that maybe Little Ice Age is not Little Ice Age.
They even try to change that in scientific field, actually.
He basically say that the temperature history, first of all, the true temperature history looked like this.
It was very warm from 800 AD, let's say warm, warm, and then it cools down.
About 1300 started to go down, cool.
And then since about 1900 century, it started to warm back up.
Way, way before CO2 is important, okay?
That's another puzzle that they never want to explain.
That looked like this.
That's the real story.
Michael Mann came along.
Say that, well, he used mathematical algorithm.
You can use fancy words, but believe me, it's just mathematical algorithm.
That he produced a stick for 880 to about 1900 AD. It's all flat because it changed.
It changed a very tiny amount.
So small that actually it doesn't mean anything.
0.1 or 0.2 degree Celsius.
So small.
It doesn't mean, the one that I talk about, the change is one degree at least, you know, five, six times stronger than what he said.
And he just said it like this, and then it warmed up because of the blade, which is the warming because of rising carbon dioxide.
But he forgot to explain to you, this warming of the temperature started way before even the human part of the atmospheric carbon dioxide could be anything meaningful.
This is part of the problem.
It's all been crazy from day one.
When this thing was published in 1999, I was the first field guy who raised a hand at the back of the class and said, excuse me, Professor, man, he used to be my friend, by the way.
Now he will never answer me.
He used to exchange email with me because, you know, we more or less share the same passion, want to understand things.
Now he just say that his story is the only one that is correct.
But it's not bear out by any data that we know.
That's the problem.
It's all mathematical products.
This is how scary the whole world can be.
And United Nations, the IPCC group that I mentioned, promoted his work, turning him into a major hero because he has solved one of these old puzzle problems that climatologists over millennia have been trying to solve since the day of the Greeks to try to understand how climate change.
And this guy comes along and says that it looks like this.
So, I mean, some of this is very complex, but in the way you're describing it, if he's saying the warming period began before there was a meaningful addition of CO2 into the atmosphere caused by humans, even I can understand that.
Einstein used, when he formulated the famous general relativity or special relativity, actually, that was criticized, that basically talk about speed of light is constant.
Anyway, so yes, I think science is a problem now because of funding structure.
People won't speak out.
I don't know why.
I think it's natural for people to be afraid, but you can only be afraid for so long.
For me, I was frustrated because I was not afraid ever since I was in science.
Because I'm in science because I love science.
This is why, from my own perspective...
I'm just very sad to see that science is being trampled by all these other non-science forces, you know?
That's why when I look at COVID also, I cannot stand by and say nothing.
On COVID-19, there are so many things wrong with it.
That's why I want to pre-advertise.
With my group, series.sign.com, we work with a bunch of people.
One of the good guests for you potential will be Professor Harvey Rich.
He said he's been interviewed by you twice.
Even guys like Bob Malone, we work together, produce a paper.
So when the paper comes out, hopefully we can have them on your show so they can tell more stories.
We want to provide the...
Medical community or even the world to document this episode of Dark Ages in medical sciences.
Something went terribly wrong.
The mask never really worked.
The vaccine never really worked.
All of this doesn't work.
The lockdown doesn't work.
And what are we doing this?
Now they're trying to scare with another news scare all over the world now.
Newspaper.
This morning, I just got one newspaper from my sister who has to start to...
Oh, they start masking up in Malaysia now.
Because cases start to increase the usual story.
I laugh in a serious way because I see this is another one of those attempts again to try to scare people.
So I did digress now.
Science is just so complicated now that every aspect of the science that I look at, I've become very unhappy.
Science is no longer able to do where science leads.
This is the theme of my series, that's science.com.
With few only colleagues, I don't have enough funding.
I just hope to get as many donations, by the way.
Donate, but don't tell us anything.
Do anything.
Trust us, because we are decent scientists.
You can look at our publication record that we are able to produce the most interesting and pure work.
Like IPCC, they have to reply to us.
Two years ago, we published a very important paper.
One of my journalist friends, a colleague, wrote a paper, newspaper article.
And then he go and ask IPCC, why are you guys not signing this paper?
They use the excuse to say that, oh, these people published late.
We have a deadline here, red line.
Oh, if you don't publish before some date, like 2021, okay, like January or 2021, then we won't include your work.
So we published in August, so they won't include my work.
But they forgot to say that they claim themselves, they proclaim, UN IPCC proclaim themselves to be the best of the scientific world, produce the most updated and all that.
They're already outdated because they haven't included my work, which is the most comprehensive review of how the sun affects the climate.
That's the work we did.
So this year, just two months ago, we published two more papers convincingly show that even the thermometer data that they show you is not what it is.
It's actually not measuring climate.
It's measuring urban heat island changes.
Something that I think everybody can understand.
If you go to the inner part of the big city, like TC is one of the best examples.
I have graph to show that you go to the inner city is much warmer than outside because of concrete retaining all the heat or you change all the surfaces or the, you know, the surface becomes impervious between there's no breathing, no water going in and out, things like that.
And what we show is that it's not a phenomenon just on local science.
If I'm wrong and I don't know, I'll tell you I don't know, Tucker.
A lot of these things are really under a lot of careful consideration, really a lot of deep meditation, thinking about this topic.
What I think is very problematic, I'm so glad to have this opportunity to go this far to be able to talk for this long now, is that really the IPCC product is actually substandard.
Of course, they have a different mandate.
Their mandate is political, right?
To provide policy.
We understand that.
But how many people really understand that pure science doesn't support anything they say?
I mean, in the beginning of this COP28 meeting, the chairman, this guy from UAE, United Arab Emirates, the chairman, I don't know his name, Sultan al-Jaber or something, he was saying that there's no scientific reasoning to say that we should face out.
He's right.
But then he backed off because of all this everybody's hurt mentality.
Everybody's doing the mad thing.
Everybody, science is not about that.
They all agree now.
They all agree to face out, right?
For some kind of agreement.
You know, everybody declared that they're going to do that, that they're going to face off.
I don't even know how, actually.
Why?
Why are you doing this?
And then one of the claims is that they're going to triple the amount of solar and wind power.
That is a sad story.
You know, of the amount that we spend that we can document, some $3.6 trillion, they spent almost $2 trillion on solar and wind power over the last, I don't know, 5, 10 years or so.
And then what they did is that they spent more of the money, $2 trillion on solar and wind.
And solar and wind can only account for only 3% of the world power, 85% from fossil fuel, as you can see, hydropower and nuclear.
Nuclear is another puzzle.
I checked with all my nuclear expert friends that have been working for years on nuclear power.
Nuclear power is one of the saddest stories.
I believe that we actually have...
Almost a solution in hand.
Not the fusion, of course.
It's the fast reactor or the good generation of nuclear power.
Peaceful use of that.
Won't even generate nuclear weapons.
We can do all of that technology.
The only barrier is red tape.
Environmentally scared of radiation.
All these other problems.
We almost have all of that in hand.
The power can last.
One estimate shows that if we were to use it at the demand of that by 2050, we can have enough power for 2,700 years.
That's far more than any other fossil fuel can promise.
And we're still not doing it.
We're not doing it.
America is so far behind now.
We just made one in Georgia, one of the nuclear plants that is so over-caused because of all the red tape.
That is so embarrassing.
There are numbers.
I mean...
It's costing 1,000 or 2,000 times even more than what Korea and, you know, even Korea now is a major guy who makes this nuclear power plant for any country who wants to do it, right?
I mean, Korea, India, they are making a much cheaper cost.
And the design, French designs are the best, right?
French, they are all doing that.
And we're not doing it.
China, of course, left and right doing that.
But we're not doing anything.
Oh, we're trying to tell you that we're going to shut off fossil fuel.
Actually, back then I also didn't care, but most of the time I get called into the director's office, this and that.
They're always trying to tell, oh, why are you saying that?
Why are you saying this?
I say, well, I'm a scientist.
I should say whatever I want to say.
Not only that, the problem when I was at Harvard, part of the reason I quit as I tried to explain is about JAP requirement, but another one is a bit of censorship.
I can only do certain things.
I cannot do certain things.
I would never be able to write paper on COVID-19.
I would never be able to work...
On, let's say, environmental air pollution issues, you know, like, you know, so-called NOx or SOx and all these other things, or mercury and things like that.
I have a lot, I study a lot on those issues because I personally are concerned, so I dig into the literature, one thing after another, basically because I sleep very little, so I really do a lot of things.
I flip every rock, pebbles, anything you want.
So I study a lot.
I produce a result that is good enough that can be making a lot of scientific, but I never publish them because...
It's about a matter of allowing, because they say it doesn't fit the theme of the Center for Astrophysics.
So I don't want to talk back about the institution, but it is the finest astrophysics institution in the world.
In terms of instrument building, in terms of technology, we can produce the best.
You know, you often look at the X-ray picture of the sun.
Those are from very fine cameras that we built with multi-coding layers because the x-rays, they come in very slowly and then they're going to diffuse, come out, but we make a very fine way to catch them so they can come out so the images are crystal clear.
You can see all the structure on the sun.
It's made by my center.
They are good scientists, except that when it comes down to a larger picture of science, shh, shh, don't say this, don't say that, this and that, and then all of that.
This is why...
Even at Harvard, I quit taking money from NASA, NSF, all these other places in 2004 because I'm beginning to think that science being so unaccountable, funded by taxpayers, that all these people, it's so unconscionable.
So I personally chose that.
That is nobody to blame but myself.
But I chose to take only from foundations who are willing to give me money.
So I wrote those kind of proposals and then got to go through the director's office, this and that, right?
I have a very, very happy and fruitful career.
Everybody can look up my publication list.
It's very long.
And not only that, it's not the number that counts.
It's the quality of the paper.
I always want to remind people, I don't like talking about how many thousands of papers you write, this and that.
It's not important.
Which paper that is really important for certain issues, that's important.
If you are able to show that, that's good.
That's what I mean.
All my papers are basically under a lot of this...
Serious, serious thinking and serious evaluation, checking and rechecking before I would care to write about anything.
Because you don't want to write anything that's wrong tomorrow.
You want something that can write.
But science is basically garbage can now.
These scientific papers.
I categorically would even make this statement.
I would make the statement that about 80 to 90% of the paper published in so-called climate science today should not be published.
You know, just like the other day, you hear that Yale University, you know, a large part of it, most of the students on 2022 or something all got grade A grade, you know?
Grade A, they diluted the grade.
But Harvey Rich assured me that in medical sciences and heart sciences, Harvey Rich is the professor at Yale University.
But one of the things that sometimes you see in equation is so amazing.
When you formulate equation, maybe it's not right.
Maybe it's this and that.
You doubt yourself.
But one of the most beautiful equations was the one that derived by Paul Dirac.
He's a professor at Cambridge University, but he retired in Florida, by the way.
He died in Florida, Tallahassee.
I mean, it's a refuge for him because he doesn't like to talk.
He would sit there for five days.
He don't talk.
One day, all of a sudden, he talk.
But anyway, he formulated that.
He's a beautiful man.
You know, Paul Dirac.
He formulated this relativistic equation for electrons.
But in one of the equations, the solution comes out to be a negative sign.
Not only that, there's a square root involved.
So there's strange behavior.
There's a negative sign.
But it has the exact property.
Like an electron and all that stuff.
How come?
Everybody say, you crazy, you stupid, this and that, right?
He's not even weighed.
He didn't, no sweat, buddy.
He just say, I am right.
Many years later, a few years later, it is shown in Caltech by Carl Anderson to show there's actually such a thing called positron.
You know, the opposite, the brothers of electron.
There's such a thing.
And then if you ask yourself, how is it possible?
Right?
There's something, this is out of...
Out of nowhere, where does this thing come from?
And then in mathematical sciences, there's a lot of things like this, like geometry.
There's an even more famous thing about in geometry.
It's called Calabi-Yau manifold that related to string theory.
This thing was basically a revisit of Einstein's general relativity equation, asking itself whether is it possible to have close curvature in space-time that you actually don't require even gravity to be there.
And they show that Calabi was trying to prove this Yao.
Xing Dong Yao is one of the great mathematicians, right?
He's at Harvard, but he retired.
Now he go to China, right?
He was the one who tried to disprove this thing, but he turns out to be true.
That it's true that you can have close curvature in space-time without gravity even.
So that added even more reach in this world than from mathematics to real world.
We already have enough hard time understanding Einstein.
This guy added even more.
And his discovery was in the 70s and things like that, you know?
So, there's so many examples and incidents like this.
There may be some ever presence of these forces, these forces that allow us to illuminate our life.
And I tell you, God has given us this, all this light.
That tell us that we have to follow the light and do the best we can.
Rather than everyday devouring planet Earth saying that we are the Satan, we are the evil people.
You know, these people are constantly trying to, you know, make all of us a lesser human being.
I would never allow them anyway.
So, good luck, you know, for those people like Al Gore and all that who think that they're high and mighty, right?
And trying to always, always lecture us on, got to cut down on fossil fuel because we, you know, Heard the planet Earth.
I say, Al Gore, do you ever think twice?
Who are you to think that you can actually try to save the planet Earth even?
Because they always use the word, I'm trying to save the planet Earth.
I don't know who gives them the right to save the planet Earth.
Same with this experiment that they're trying to do, by the way.
The experiment to say that we must cut down CO2 emission.
I told you CO2 is good for, you know, for life.
Because I asked Al Gore, indeed, when I asked Al Gore the question in UC Santa Barbara, it's what?
Is that CO2 is gas of life.
Who gives you the audacity to cut down this?
Then aren't you, are you going to be responsible for the ecological and humanitarian, all this crisis?
Even, we know, rising CO2 affects even plants, especially food production, right?
Maybe not exact number we know, but it does, positively, right?
We have technology to help it, better seed, better all this fertilization, all this other thing.
But...
Who gives them the idea to do that?
To cut down?
Because it's generally going to be good for life.
Because you have to push them around.
Because nobody should give them the authority.
So far, I don't think anyone can answer that question for me.
So I tell them to please bow down to God.
Really answer to that question first before you do anything else.
Because it's ridiculous for them to claim that they have the upper moral and ethical high ground to try to prescribe everybody to live in certain conditions that they chose.
Please, I hope that I don't disappoint anyone, but please come to series-sign.com.
And I want to make one plug for my good friend, Hal Shurtleff.
As I get older and older, including my own kids, my own kids, three kids, has been going to the CAM Constitution at New Hampshire.
and we also wanted to invite Tucker Carlson to come because Vivek Ravaswami came last summer and because we are a very, very small group we are a tiny little group called Camp Constitution so campconstitution.net we offer basically family kind of a Christian kind of a background but we don't talk about Christ all the time but we talk about Bibles we talk about Constitution we talk about science so I'm the science instructor I've been doing that for almost 6-7 years now
So I've been doing every year, I would give one or two classes, depends on how many, whatever they want me to do, I'll do.
And my own kids came to those things, and then, you know, we play music, we have campfire.
It's a family event.
Used to be that's focused on kids, but this day, I'm sorry, too many adults started to come.
So we have even people like my good friend, Lord Christopher Moncton from England, he spoke twice.
So, small little group, but if anybody who thinks that, you know...
You have the time and even come and learn what we do here and emulate in your own city and towns and all that.
You know, people from Wisconsin, please come.
People from California, please come.
You know, we have it in New Hampshire every year.
Every summer, we have this camp and it's a very good thing.
So, campconstitution.net.
Okay?
And I talked to your friend Vince Allison from Maryland.