About this transcript: This is a full AI-generated transcript of Climate, Energy, and The Midterm Blue Wave — The Climate Realism Show #224 from The Heartland Institute, published November 7, 2026. The transcript contains 15,971 words with timestamps and was generated using Whisper AI.
"One of the most urgent tasks for our country is to decisively defeat the climate hysteria hoax. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction. The ability of CO2 to do the heavy work of creating a climate catastrophe is almost nil at this point. The price of oil has been artificially elevated to the"
[00:00:00] Speaker 1: One of the most urgent tasks for our country is to decisively defeat the climate hysteria hoax.
[00:00:12] Sterling Burnett: We are in the beginning of a mass extinction.
[00:00:15] Jim Lakeley: The ability of CO2 to do the heavy work of creating a climate catastrophe is almost nil at this point.
[00:00:21] Speaker 4: The price of oil has been artificially elevated to the point of insanity.
[00:00:26] Speaker 1: That's not how you power a modern industrial system. The ultimate goal of this renewable energy, you know, plan is to reach the exact same point that we're at now. You know who's tried that? Germany. Seven straight days of no wind for Germany. Their factories are shutting down.
[00:00:45] Speaker 5: They really do act like weather didn't happen prior to, like, 1910. Today is Friday.
[00:00:55] Jim Lakeley: That's right, Greta. It is Friday, and this is the best day of the week, not just because the weekend is almost here, but because this is the day the Heartland Institute broadcasts the Climate Realism Show. This is episode number 224, if you're scoring at home. My name is Jim Lakeley. I'm your host and vice president of the Heartland Institute, which is an organization that has been around for 42 years. We are known as the leading global think tank pushing back on climate alarmism. Heartland and this show bringing the data, the science, the truth that counters the climate alarmist narrative. You've been fed every single day of your life. There is nothing else quite like the Climate Realism Show streaming anywhere in the world, so I hope you will do us a favor and bring friends to view this live stream every Friday at 1:00 p.m. Eastern time. By the way, about half our channel's audience are new viewers, so welcome to you. And 37% of you are not yet subscribed, so do that today. And you can also share and leave comments underneath this video. These all convince YouTube's very mysterious algorithm to smile upon this program, and that gets the show in front of even more people. And as a reminder, if you want to support this program, ask you to visit heartland.org/tcrs. That's heartland.org/tcrs. And you can make a tax-adaptable nodation that helps bring this show to the world every single week. And before we get started, we want to thank our streaming partners who help extend the reach of this program. JunkScience.com, CFACT, what's up with that, the CO2 Coalition, and our friends at Heartland UK Europe. Let's get started. We have a big show, a little bit sad, but we're still going to try to have some fun. And we have with us, as usual, Anthony Watts, senior fellow at the Heartland Institute and publisher of The World. Most Feud website on climate change, what's up with that? Sterling Burnett, the Archbishop of Ranterbury, whose day job is being Heartland Institute's Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy. He's the director of that. We also have Linnea Lucan, senior fellow at Heartland and host of all of our excellent climate and energy videos. A new one just dropped yesterday on coal. And we also want to thank our producers working behind the scenes to make sure the show looks and sounds great. That's Andy Singer and Silas Pearson. And our special guest today, we're welcoming him back, is Jason Isaac. Jason is a former state representative in Texas, elected to four consecutive terms, and is the CEO of the American Energy Institute. We know him as the Carbon King and as a friend. Welcome back to the show, Jason.
[00:03:25] Sterling Burnett: It's great to be on. It is great. It's Friday. It is the first day of Worst Fest in New Braunfels, Texas. It's a 10-day salute to sausage. It's the Texas equivalent of Oktoberfest. So I'm donning my German hat, I'm sure. I know last year, I think I spent five of the 10 days at Worst Fest. I'm going to try to match that again this year. I gained probably five or 10 pounds during the 10-day salute to sausage last year. I'm not going to try to match that this year, but it's great to be back on the Climate Realism Show.
[00:03:56] Jim Lakeley: You should probably go to Worst Fest as much as possible because with all the Democrats moving into your state, they may outlaw it and make it, you know, near sausage or fake sausage. Yeah. Oh, no.
[00:04:07] Speaker 5: Oh, no. What? No, no, no, no.
[00:04:12] Sterling Burnett: Yeah. No, no. Oh, gosh. Yeah. Beyond sausage.
[00:04:18] Jim Lakeley: Beyond sausage. So, yeah. Get the real article while you can. Yes. Yeah.
[00:04:25] Sterling Burnett: I love to don my German hat. I've got my good old coal pin right on the side of it. So, you know, the Germans love coal. They started dismantling wind to get to coal a few years ago so they could actually survive a winter. Yeah. No kidding.
[00:04:36] Jim Lakeley: All right. Well, we're going to get into it here. We're going to call this because maybe it's not that crazy, but this is part of how we always start the program. And that is with the crazy climate news of the week. Hit it, Andy.
[00:04:59] Sterling Burnett: Worst fest music if I've ever heard. That's right. I love it. I was just trying to, like, find some polka music to play in the background, but you guys had it. It's just perfect.
[00:05:11] Jim Lakeley: Yeah. I know your lederhosen's at the cleaners. I know. You had it for Halloween. Get it. All right. Well, all right. So, look, we all know what happened in the midterm elections on Tuesday. There's really no need to bring up a story on this at the moment, Andy. But here we'll summarize it for you. In the United States Senate, Democrats gained seven seats and will hold 54, at least, in the next Congress. They took Michigan, Kansas, Iowa, Ohio, Maine, North Carolina, and Texas, Jason, and maybe also Alaska and Mississippi. They're still counting votes up there. In the United States House of Representatives, the Dems gained about 40 seats so far and will hold their largest party majority in decades. Governors flipped five. Governor positions held by Republicans, Georgia, Iowa, Nevada, Ohio, and Texas, Jason, and maybe Alaska, we have to see. And this is something Jason knows a lot about. State legislatures, Dems flipped at least nine of the chambers, maybe as many as 12, including Texas, Jason. The first time that Democrats have taken control of the state legislature in Texas in about 20 years, I believe. Jason, earlier this week, you and I were talking, you were kind of glum. You know, I don't imagine, I imagine your mood has improved just a little bit. But, you know, what was your reaction as somebody who has served as an elected official, is very plugged into it, obviously, in the state of Texas? You know, what happened, man?
[00:06:46] Sterling Burnett: Yeah, it was a pretty shocking night on Tuesday evening, watching the election results come in. We knew that a couple of races, our lieutenant governor, or not our lieutenant governor, which is weird, though. Well, I started to hear some stuff the week before the election. That race may be close, but it was our U.S. Senate race, Ken Paxton against James Tallarico, and our – there's a race for the Railroad Commission, which is the Energy Regulatory Authority. We knew that one was going to be close as well. We did not think that the governor's race would be close, nor, like, comptroller, attorney general. I mean, it's just unreal. Every single statewide got wiped out in Texas, and this was – and you look, they voted in a block. Some of the results were so near – very similar. I mean, the number of votes that Abbott got, the number of votes that Paxton got – I mean, they were very close. The number that our opponents got, the eventual winners received, was incredibly close. I mean, it was just mind-boggling to basically see – we don't have straight-ticket voting in Texas anymore. That's been gone for almost a decade now. But it's – the bloc went in, and they voted straight-ticket Democrat and elected leftist up and down the ballot. So it was quite the shock of what happened on Tuesday. The only good thing coming out of Tuesday, our only state-made race in Texas, is our Texas Republican Senate majority. So our state Republicans have a majority, a 1912 majority. They will set the rules in the first couple of days, the legislature. So that will be really interesting to watch. I might actually pay attention to the Senate, being a former House member and married to a House member. The House has always been more exciting and more fun to watch. So it may give me a reason to watch the live stream of the Texas Senate or go sit in the gallery and actually watch them debate the rules. But the majority of Republicans will set the rules and likely strip away a lot of power from what is now the most powerful position in Texas. And that's our lieutenant governor. We have a pretty weak governor by design. And so it'll be interesting to see if our Republican majority in the Senate can strip away some of the power of the lieutenant governor position.
[00:09:17] Jim Lakeley: Well, yeah, I just want to ask real quick, Sterling, and we're going to get to the climate angle on this. Oh, nice Buc-ee's cup, by the way. Thanks. Thanks. Yeah. Excellent. Yeah, you're cheering me up already.
[00:09:28] Speaker 4: That place is like a Costco for hillbillies.
[00:09:31] Sterling Burnett: Yeah, gosh, best place ever.
[00:09:34] Jim Lakeley: But so I saw a tweet yesterday. I didn't mean I wasn't going to bring this up, but I just have to know. I saw a tweet the other day from somebody noting that urging the, while they still have control, Republicans in Texas, to start implementing policies that at least limit the emergency powers of the executive so that, you know, they can't declare, say, another COVID emergency that goes on forever and any other sort of emergency you want to do. The Harlan Institute actually was at the forefront of pushing back on that with a program, with a, I guess, a campaign we called Governors Not Gods, and was advising state after state after state to, right after COVID, implement these things. You cannot have governors, like we had here in Illinois, basically locking down the state indefinitely because they feel like doing it, and they have the power to do it, and the legislature has no checks upon those emergency powers. Texas did not, at the time, take advantage of that opportunity, and, you know, they might do it now, who knows, but is that something you're also keeping an eye on?
[00:10:35] Sterling Burnett: Yeah, and it's just not going to happen. I mean, they limited some of the powers of the last couple legislative sessions following COVID, but now you've got a state representative that is really just looking for clickbait. The governor's not going to call a special session to come in and do some things over the last couple of months. You'll still be likely within the veto period with a new legislature, and it'll just get undone right away. It just doesn't make sense. But we have the firewall in the Texas Senate, and we are going to be counting on them to do a lot of lifting. It's something they're typically not used to. In my opinion, in my experience, the lieutenant governor in the past has lifted a lot of the weight and controlled what made it to the floor and ultimately made it to the governor's desk. That's how powerful the lieutenant governor position has been in the past. That will likely change significantly with a Republican majority in the Texas Senate.
[00:11:38] Jim Lakeley: Okay, great. Well, you know, you cheer me up with that hat. Now I'm back down again, but let's see if we can have a little bit of fun here. There's actually, you can bring the story up now, Andy. Wait, wait, wait. Oh, go ahead, go ahead, Sterling. Sorry.
[00:11:50] Speaker 1: I also, unfortunately, suffer in Texas. I think, and Jason, correct me if I'm wrong, I know we lost the Texas legislature, but I think we're still represented by a majority of Republicans in the federal House. Most, most of, the majority of our Republicans were returned to the House of Representatives. We may have lost a couple, a few seats, but not, not majority. I'll say this, a friend, I won't say mockingly, but she tried to console me last night. And I pointed out to her that it swung one way before. It will likely swing back again, hopefully in two years, but certainly in my lifetime, probably. And regardless of who holds the House or the Senate or the White House or the governorship of Texas, I've got work to do. I fight bad laws and promote good laws under Republicans and Democrats alike, and I will be doing so again. So, yeah, it's changed, but has it, people say, oh, it's doom, and it's, this is politics. Politics shifts, and we've got to muddle through and do our jobs and promote good stuff and fight bad stuff, regardless of who's in office. Believe me, Republicans do plenty of bad things.
[00:13:29] Sterling Burnett: Yeah, and really, they've got to accept a lot of the responsibility. I certainly do, from my time in office, that we didn't get things done that we've campaigned on. And it was interesting. I was on a radio show, the Cardinal and Woolley show. I was co-hosting just the Thursday before the election. And that morning, I had seen a commercial for Gina Hinojosa, the now governor-elect of Texas. And she's running this ad of Governor Greg Abbott talking about cutting property taxes. And she ran this clip of him every year, like sequentially, we're going to cut property taxes, cut property, using his words. And then at the same time, showing a graph with property taxes going up, which is interesting because the state doesn't have a property tax. But every subdivision of the state, or everyone that does set a property tax, is a subdivision of the state. And so the state ultimately has authority over them. It was also interesting because when Gina Hinojosa was on the Austin Independent School District Board, property tax revenues went up 52% during her five years in office there, while enrollment went down, which is interesting. But it was a sticking point that she's like, hey, look, property taxes haven't gone down. And Republicans should have delivered a lot more on that, being in control of Texas for 30 years and people campaigning on it. I campaigned on it. My wife has campaigned on it. And they've made some progress, but it's still really frustrating that they're giving out like billion-dollar subsidies for people to build natural gas generation because our market is so distorted and messed up in Texas that it still favors wind and solar. We've learned nothing since winter storm Urie. Our Public Utility Commission has failed to act on directives from the governor. They have the legislative authority to fix this issue. And over those last five years, we've added 56 gigawatts of capacity, and 53 of them are wind, solar, and batteries. We've only added three gigawatts of natural gas. New natural gas generation out of 56 gigawatts of capacity added. We've lost like 0.6, so 600 megawatts of coal during that same time. We've learned absolutely nothing, and costs are up 30%. Residential rate payers are paying 30% more for electricity in the state of Texas since winter storm Urie. Our transmission and distribution costs are skyrocketing as people build new transmission lines. And I think this is another thing that hurt the governor and all of the statewides in their election efforts was some rural stuff.
[00:16:00] Speaker 1: You're 100% right. Look, right now we've been battling over transmission lines coming from East Texas to West Texas where no one lives. So you don't need power shipped all the way across Texas. You lose power all along the lines. But they're muddling through despite people not liking it, despite the legislature telling them not to do it. And you're right. They did nothing. You know, they did one thing. So they said, we are now going to subsidize natural gas. We're going for lots of money. It's like they're spinning like drunken sailors, too. Rather than just stopping the wind and solar, they said, oh, we're going to make it equal. How? Not cutting subsidies to wind and solar, but adding subsidies for natural gas, which added to our electric bills, folks.
[00:16:46] Sterling Burnett: It sure did.
[00:16:47] Speaker 1: In the background.
[00:16:49] Sterling Burnett: Yeah, it was a billion dollar plan for low interest rate loans. That's a billion dollars they could have used in property tax relief and made some of the commitments that they said they were going to make. But they didn't. And you're right. Those 765 kilovolt lines, these high voltage transmission lines that are proposed to go all across Texas, $14 billion in spending has been approved that the transmission and distribution companies will get to pass on to rate payers. And the total project is $33 billion. And you look at that over 20 years, that's $100 billion of new costs passed on to rate payers. And Gina Hinojosa was out meeting with people in rural areas, talking about data centers and talking about these high voltage transmission lines. And I guarantee you, she is going to be a huge proponent for wind and solar, which needs these high voltage transmission lines. But she was meeting with the communities and talking to people about these very issues and listening. And there's numerous Facebook groups that our team is a part of, people fighting these high voltage transmission lines. Those people are now thanking Gina Hinojosa. And they were weeks ago thanking her for coming out and meeting with them and talking about their concerns for their loss of private property. I mean, it's just, I hope it's a wake up call for Republicans in the state of Texas. I hope that there's some consultants that are, will no longer be involved in politics in Texas. So I think, again, I'm an optimist. I'm grateful we have the Senate. We have 25 U.S. members of Congress that are Republicans out of 13 Democrats. But I just, I'm thankful for the Senate that we have. They're going to have to confirm appointments. This governor, Gina Hinojosa, will have the opportunity to appoint all new commissioners to the Public Utility Commission. Over her four-year term, she'll have an opportunity to replace the entire Texas Commission on Environmental Quality that does air permits for new refineries, new distribution facilities. So there's just going to be a lot of change. But the Senate will have the appointment and have to confirm those appointments. So there is a lot of, hopefully there will be at least one check and some balance as we move forward over the next four years.
[00:19:04] Jim Lakeley: All right, let's get, before we leave this, the subject, there is the climate angle. This is the Climate Realism Show. We should touch on that before we leave this topic. I want to read from this story from Grist. That's a left-wing publication. They are giddy, as you might imagine. Their headline is, What Historic Blue Wave Midterm Means for Climate Action. They write, Flipping control of Congress will allow Democrats to hinder Trump's numerous attempts to roll back federal climate policy. In the first two years of Trump's term, party leaders could do little more than write strongly worded statements to administration officials. They were powerless to stop the suspension of clean energy funding, the elimination of climate rules for power plants and motor vehicles, and the hollowing out of agencies like the U.S. Forest Service and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Now, the Democratic Party will have a lot more leverage. Democratic senators and members of Congress can issue subpoenas to force administration officials to testify before Congress, and could even impeach Trump administration figures over funding clawbacks and staff reductions that Democrats have called unlawful. Democrats will also have control over must-pass funding bills, and Trump will have to negotiate with them in order to avoid a government shutdown. This could lead to the restoration of some funding for energy and climate resilience programs that Republicans have been trying to whittle down. With majorities in the Senate and the House, the party could even seek to reimpose some of the clean energy tax credits that Republicans rescinded last year. In Pennsylvania, for instance, State House Democrats have said they intend to pass bills making it easier to build community solar, warehouse solar, and battery energy storage, as well as preventing local governments from banning renewables. In Georgia, Democrats flipped both the governor's mansion and control of the Public Service Commission, which regulates electric utilities. And I'll just note that the Washington Post had a story this week that noted that voters passed more than 20 ballot measures to ban and or restrict data centers. And, Jason, in a video you recorded from your car yesterday, you noted a Washington Free Beacon story reporting that Michael Bloomberg is going to restart his program, in which he pays millions to install environmental lawyers in the offices of Democrat attorneys general. It was shut down in August. But, hey, you know, the politics have changed. So, you know, that to me is the big is the big angle here is that under the second Trump administration, so much was done. A lot of it was challenged in court, but so much was done to basically turn off. For instance, pouring billions of dollars to these startup NGOs that are just staffed with Democrats and takes money out of our pockets and enriches them for no good to the climate. All of this stuff is being clawed back. The famous throwing gold bars off the Titanic. Lee Zeldin, EPA administrator, saying we're going to get that money back.
[00:21:57] Sterling Burnett: Probably not now, right? No, yeah, probably not now, which is really infuriating. But it's so interesting the Democrats hate billionaires, except for people like George Soros and Michael Bloomberg. You know, this is something Bloomberg's been doing for, gosh, I think the better part of a decade. I first started learning about, I think, in 2018-19, him actually funding attorneys in AG's offices, in district attorney offices, to go after industries that they seem unfavorable, that they don't like, primarily the energy industry. And so this, I was kind of excited when I heard in August that this organization was getting disbanded, and now here it is popping right back up in Bernie's backyard in Vermont under a new name. And so Bloomberg is back funding these AG's and attorneys in their offices. It was really interesting to me, like, some of the exit polling that I've seen is that the number one issue of the voters was corruption. And I'm like, what? I mean, how is this not an issue? And I think it was a lot of people just voting against incumbents and voting against Republicans with their frustrations with the war in Iran and prices. But I just don't know how corruption, being the number one issue, didn't bode well for Republicans. When you talk about the issues that have been uncovered and clawed back in Minnesota, in states like Illinois and California, just all of the fraud that was going on at these so-called daycare centers and senior facilities, there's so much fraud. The billions of dollars to Stacey Abrams, whose nonprofit had raised like a total of $200, all of a sudden gets $2 billion. That's a pretty big difference. And this administration exposed it. But I guess the media just didn't talk about enough of what a great job was happening. And then a couple of other things pulled voters just to completely revolt, especially young voters. But here we are again. Now you've got billionaire Bloomberg funding efforts to make our lives miserable.
[00:24:09] Speaker 1: It's an odd thing when I come off as the optimist in any conversation. But I'm going to take a different view. I think Gris is largely whistling past the graveyard in a sense that they can't reverse us being in the IPCC. or the UNFCCC. They can't reverse our getting out of Paris. They can't reverse the funding that we've already cut. They can try. But we still have a man in the White House that did all the cutting. And he's got a veto pen. Now they might try to attach some stuff to must-pass bills. And then we'll have that dispute and that debate. Of course, there's still not a veto-proof majority in the Senate. The filibuster-proof majority. In the end, a lot of stuff that's been done can't be undone. And whether the court battles that are going on will continue to go on and Trump wins or loses, they don't control that. They control funding going forward, but he can veto funding. So I don't think it's all doom and gloom. More importantly, I don't think the story mentioned it, but dozens of stories I've seen have mentioned. Guess what they weren't talking about in the election? Climate change. Democrats didn't run on climate change. They ran on affordability. Affordability. That was what they ran on. That's what the people cared about. So if they now pull the sheep's wool off and they become the wolves that they were before and start doing climate change and raising costs, they're going to suffer in the near-term elections because people didn't vote for climate change. They voted for affordability. And you can't do what they've done in the past and make energy more affordable. Look, Spanberger's tried to walk that line. She ran on affordability too, right? But she's doing the same old, same old. And I think their time in office will be limited if prices don't go down and energy prices continue to go up as they're trying to pass all this climate stuff.
[00:26:33] Jim Lakeley: Yeah, Jason. Oh, go ahead, Lidia. I'm sorry.
[00:26:36] Speaker 5: I was just going to say, I, for one, really hope that the Democrats spend the next two years doing impeachment hearings and stuff because that stuff ticks off voters, actually. So I'm looking forward to them wasting all of their time and doing media circus stuff instead of actually attempting to, you know, God forbid, get anything done. So that's all I have to say about that.
[00:26:58] Speaker 4: Anthony? Yeah, they're not likely to do anything substantive because their whole platform has built on hate Trump, hate Trump, hate Trump, Trump is evil. And so they're going to just, you know, have tunnel vision on that and make him and everybody else pay. I think they'll be too busy doing that to do anything substantive with climate because they realize climate as a talking point is also not very popular with voters.
[00:27:22] Jim Lakeley: Yeah, even Politico had a story, you know, basically outlining that they had, you had to read all the way to the end of the story until you finally got to Jay Inslee, the complete climate radical nut job, former governor of Washington state. They had his quote at the end, you know, but basically the, the gist was that Democrats didn't campaign on climate. Climate is not a very popular issue. They have other priorities. It may slip here and there into a certain spending bill, but it's not going to be, it's not going to be like it was in 20, you know, 2012 or something like that.
[00:27:52] Sterling Burnett: Well, we can only hope they do talk about it a lot because it doesn't bode well with voters. That's why all the Democrat consultants were telling people not to talk about it. They were on the campaign trail. Well, you had two of the 14 contested Senate races candidates with only two of the Democrats had it on their websites. That's Abdul Al-Sayed and James Tallarico. The only two that had any reference to climate change. So I do, I hope they come back and talk about it. And I hope AOC and Bernie and them just continue to freak out about it while people realize that it's cost them a ton of money because that'll bode well for elections in two years. And then again, in four years in Texas, so that we can get everything back on the right track and hopefully with new people that don't have these consultant class people dictating what needs to be happening in Texas. Because what needs to be happening in Texas, we need affordable, reliable energy when we need politicians that understand that. And speaking of grist, I'll say we need to quit the grift. We've had way too much of that in Texas over the last couple of decades.
[00:29:00] Jim Lakeley: Yeah. I mean, voters cared about corruption, Jason, but apparently they thought there was not enough corruption. So they voted for more.
[00:29:06] Sterling Burnett: Yeah, they're going to get more and I understand the frustrations. It's like I'm voting against these people because corruption is terrible and they're going to get more of it and it'll, it'll be, it'll hit them hard in the face. I mean, I testified the railroad commission, the Texas energy regulatory authority a few weeks ago against a carbon caption project, a carbon capture project, five and a half billion dollars of taxpayer funded subsidies going into one of the wealthiest companies in the world so that they can store carbon and they're not using it for enhanced oil recovery. This is the green new scam. And you've got the appeasers that are lining up to collect this money while people are struggling to buy homes, pay their utility bills, put food on their shelves. And this is, that's to me is corruption that people are really frustrated with. And all they're going to do is get more of it over the next couple of years.
[00:29:55] Jim Lakeley: Yeah, I mean, uh, as president of the American energy Institute, energy is obviously you're living, you know, so much about it, which is a perfect segue, uh, to one of the sponsors of this here podcast. And that is our friends at the energy bad boys sub stack, which is written by Heartland alum, Isaac or an energy analyst, Mitch rolling. You know, if you're tired of being lied to about the costs of wind and solar, one thing you can do is come to this show, which you do every week. But the energy bad boys also give you all the data you need to destroy all the myths peddled by the left-wing media and climate activists to promote the green new scam, which may or may not be returning. And they also show you why coal, natural gas, and nuclear power are the backbone of an affordable, reliable American energy grid. Isaac and Mitch expose how blue state policies drive up electricity costs for everyone and increase the threat of devastating blackouts. America's best energy modelers give you the facts that the mainstream media will not. And it's really important to have that on hand because we have a lot more blue states today than we did last week. You will love reading energy bad boys because they take bad energy, uh, arguments out to the back of the woodshed. If you enjoy the climate realism show, and I know you do because you're watching this right now, you're going to want to check them out. And then you can subscribe to the energy bad boys sub stack today. Go to energy bad boys dot sub stack dot com and be sure to tell them Heartland sent you. All right, with that out of the way, and maybe the I hopefully the most depressing part of this show out of the way, let's have a little bit of fun. Our second item today, a giant umbrella in space. Uh, maybe, maybe not. Uh, this comes to us from News Nation. The headline is how a giant space sunshade can help solve climate change. A nonprofit research group in Southern California, of course, has published a report saying it may be possible this century to build a massive sunshade in space that could protect Earth, in part from dangers associated with climate change. According to Planetary Sunshade Institute, a space sunshade akin to a giant umbrella protecting our planet from the sun could begin construction as early as in the next 20 to 40 years. The study suggests the sunshade could block about 1% of the sun's radiation from reaching Earth and lower global temperatures by up to one degree Celsius. Just what we need. Yeah, for sure. Of six possible forms the sunshade could take, the study found two most viable. The first would be a constellation of around 5,000 satellites shaped like heliogyros placed between the sun and Earth. According to NASA, a heliogyro is a, quote, high-performance spinning solar sail architecture that uses long, reflective membrane strips to produce thrust from solar radiation pressure. The heliogyros membrane blades spin about a central hub and are stiffened by centrifugal forces only, making the design exceedingly lightweight. A second option would be a shade made of a huge reflective cloud of dust or engineered particles held in place by accompanying spacecraft using a repulsive field. While the dust cloud would require 600 times less material than the heliogyros, the Planetary Sunshade Institute reportedly, I'm sorry, report, ultimately finds this idea more speculative than the heliogyro option. The study suggests that the best place to put either shade would be at a spot 2.36 million kilometers from Earth. This would minimize the gravitational pull on the sunshade from both the Earth and the sun, reducing the amount of material needed to build the project and keep it in place. All right, that's a-
[00:33:37] Speaker 4: Are you serious?
[00:33:41] Jim Lakeley: That's right. They are serious. So, like, but, so here's the thing. How do you get it up there? If you guessed Elon Musk to the rescue, give yourself a pat on the back. The report says the biggest barrier to starting construction on a giant space sunshade is a lack of heavy lift rockets to launch the 70 million tons of material needed into space. According to the publication Nature, that amount, which would be required to build enough satellites to cool the Earth by one degree Celsius, is about 1,500 times the total mass of everything we've ever launched into space so far. So it's surely doable. Elon Musk tweeted, quote, All right, that was a lot of fun to read, kind of fun to envision. But Anthony, I'd like to come to you first when we have to expose Bond villain plots. Why can't we do this? This sounds so doable.
[00:34:43] Speaker 4: This isn't even good science fiction. This isn't even a good Bond theme. I mean, it is one of the most ridiculous papers I've ever seen. First of all, they can't even decide on which one's best. Oh, let's try one of these four. This might be possible. So what? You know, by the time that we get around to 20 to 40 years in the future, you know, we're going to be changing our energy base. Probably you're going to see a shift in the way that El Ninos are happening. Some cooling might happen. And I mean, it's not even, like I said, good science fiction. And 5,000 satellites running at the L2 point? What if they go whack? What's going to happen to things like the Webb Space Telescope and other things that are parked out there? You know, we don't need that kind of clutter at the L2 point. It's just ridiculous. It will never happen. It's garbage science. It's not junk science. It's garbage science, which is an extra level. And it's so speculative that it just, it sounds more like a grift than anything else.
[00:35:48] Speaker 5: That's exactly what it is, Anthony. And it's the same with every single one of these projects that I lose my mind over every time people are like, It's not just that I'm annoyed with these guys for stealing, basically stealing money from investors and stuff, claiming that they're going to do this thing. These guys might actually believe that they're going to do it. When I saw the story come up, I started doing some research. I went to their website, read around on their website. It mostly seemed like it was an AI-generated website that didn't really, it had a lot of platitudes that didn't mean anything, let's say that. And so I do think that this is kind of a scam, even though they have a paper published or whatever, and they claim that they're working on it. They have like little webinars on YouTube where they talk about it very seriously with a group of people on Zoom or whatever. It's very silly stuff. But what also annoys me is how people react to these things as if, you know, them doing these goofy projects represent some kind of legitimate existential threat to life on the planet or something. It doesn't. Don't be scared of these goofballs. They can propose all of the projects where they're sending Godzilla to fight Mothra to cause enough dust to be kicked up into the atmosphere as they want. They're not going to do it. Just the numbers alone, I started laughing as Jim read the thing where it was like it's only 1,500 times more material than we've ever sent into space before. And again, Elon Musk, just because Elon Musk says this is a cool idea and it could theoretically be done this way and this way, does not mean that it's going to be done. Elon Musk is a guy who makes stuff happen, granted, but he's also like an ideas guy that says a lot of things that don't end up coming to fruition. A lot of these tech guys are just kind of a little bit off their rocker.
[00:37:48] Speaker 1: We haven't ever got the underground jet rocket that... That he promised for LA to travel, you know, where you get in a tube and just shoot across the city at rapid speeds. I'm at a loss, you know, that people could even imagine doing this and thinking it's a good idea. I'm also at a loss, you know, talking about the repercussions, the true environmental repercussions of something like this. It's not, will it reduce the Earth's temperature, what else will it do, like block photosynthesis, sunlight from reaching, you know, large swaths of the planet so plants die? Will these fall from the sky eventually? And, you know, thinking about the rockets it would take to do this, how much fossil fuel, how much jet fuel and emissions will be put in the atmosphere to put this stuff up there? What I think is the funniest is they think that the cloud is more speculative than the umbrellas. Clouds of dust have actually blocked the sun in the past. We called it sulfur pollution, but we know it works. If you put it up there, you don't have to put it in the up in space. You can put it in the atmosphere and it blocks the sun and it reduces temperatures. You remove it and temperatures go up. That's what happened with the shipping lanes. A little parasol in space, that's speculative.
[00:39:32] Speaker 5: Sterling, I think one of the funniest things about all of these projects is that the serious climate alarmists hate them.
[00:39:39] Speaker 1: Oh, yeah.
[00:39:39] Speaker 5: I hate these ideas because these ideas would eliminate any argument for leaving oil and gas in the ground, right? Like if you can just geoengineer it from space or whatever and just, you know, tilt your giant space umbrellas by, you know, 0.003 degrees and then it makes up for whatever thousands of coal plants China puts in. Then it gets rid of the real purpose of the climate scam, which is to reduce people's standard of living and make us all turn to like global socialism or whatever. So, yeah, it's funny all around.
[00:40:20] Speaker 1: Oh, hey, you know, it's sad for me to find myself on the side of the radical environmentalist, but on this stupid geoengineering crap, I almost said the bad word, a different word. I'm on their side, not for the reasons they're on that side, but I just think we need to stop wasting money on this type of stuff.
[00:40:42] Speaker 4: Now, it's not going to be, there's no public money in this. I'm going to go out and look for investors and grift these investors for these pie in the sky things. This reminds me of the whole solar road thing from about a decade ago. You know, we're going to make solar panels on the surface of roads. And that was so retarded. I mean, do you think you're going to be able to keep those solar panels clean? Do you think you're going to be able to keep them from being all scuffed up and everything? And they built a small section of this stuff to prove to people, oh, look, it worked, but they're not driving traffic over it. And, of course, the thing failed miserably, but they scammed a whole bunch of people on Kickstarter on this thing.
[00:41:25] Speaker 1: I've suddenly found a virtue of this plan. Maybe we can get Bloomberg and Soros to put all their money in that.
[00:41:35] Speaker 4: Yeah, let's hope.
[00:41:37] Jim Lakeley: Yeah. Well, I'm all in favor of this. As long as every rocket they use to send these up there is shaped like Bob's big boy. I'm all for it. If you know, you know. All right.
[00:41:49] Sterling Burnett: Hey, as the carbon king, this sounds like it might be a good idea. It's going to require a lot of fossil fuels, like Sterling said. I'm like, hmm, I might be able to get behind this. But this is just Democrats and the communists creating problems today so that they can then have solutions in the future. And what they're going to do is they're going to block out the sun. And the campaign in 20 years is going to be sunlight for all or sunlight is a right. And, you know, free sunlight for everyone where they'll have the satellites that do then redirect the sun back down to the surface at certain times of the day. And then you have to pay for it or you get a health care plan or a sun care plan where you're allotted, you know, 30 minutes of sunlight a day. But then the government, this will be, the government will get involved and they can figure out a way to create sun trading credits and markets. And sorry, they're just trying to scam us all. But this is communism.
[00:42:40] Speaker 4: I got the perfect plan. I got the perfect plan. This will appeal to a lot of folks on the left because it'll hit the hot button that they have about carbon sequestration. I propose that we offer, when you die, we'll put you into space at the L2 point and you can be up there and your carbon completely leaves the planet, right? And so you can eventually, when we get enough dead leftist, you know, we'll be able to block out the sun a little bit.
[00:43:13] Jim Lakeley: Well, I mean, that's where the Bond villain angle to this comes. Imagine the power of being able to control to varying degrees how much sunlight, which we need to live on this planet, actually hits the surface. That's crazy.
[00:43:26] Speaker 1: I didn't think the vision could get worse until Anthony said that. Corpse dust as the dust that blocks the sunlight? I'm a little…
[00:43:35] Sterling Burnett: Well, there'll be a lot of that if we ever do the Green New Deal. I joke that, you know, hit net zero by 2050 and actually we won't hit net zero because emissions will be increasing from all the dead and decaying bodies. So maybe, you know, this carbon is life. Maybe that's the life that could put out there to block out the sun. I don't know. Maybe.
[00:43:54] Jim Lakeley: All right, let's move along to a story that actually is a little dark, kind of like that comment, Jason. So this comes, I've titled this a very violent storm. And this comes from Inside Climate News. Hurricane damage to a Florida domestic violence shelter shows climate stress on vulnerable groups. Climate change can fuel the conditions that escalate domestic violence while weakening the system survivors depend on for safety. And this story tells the story of a place called Faber House, which is a shelter for battered women. It says here, Hurricane Isaias made landfall near Destin at 8.30 p.m. on Friday, October 9th as a Category 2 storm with 105-mile-an-hour winds. It killed at least four people, two of them in Florida. On Saturday morning, Faber House's shelter manager went to survey the damage. The buildings were still standing, but a tree fell across a long stretch of the privacy fence and clipped the back corner of the shelter, popping the soffit loose. The generator had quit roughly 18 hours into the outage, leaving spoiled food in four freezers and two refrigerators. For the next 19 days, the shelter remained closed. Faber House's outreach office had been running on internet-based phones. When the power and connection went, so did the hotline. Crisis calls were routed to Florida's statewide domestic violence hotline and answered at Women in Distress of Broward County on the other end of the state. Hudson said, quote, we had just been a week not being able to provide the services that were desperately needed by our community members. What happened in Pensacola illustrates a growing concern among researchers. One Florida has almost no ability to measure. Climate change is simultaneously creating situations that can exacerbate domestic violence and weakening the system survivors turn to for safety. Linnea, I want to start with you here. I mean, obviously, lots of critical infrastructure is damaged when a hurricane makes landfall, including domestic violence shelters. But it seems to me that this is a pretty underhanded attempt by a journalist to foster belief in the notion that humans are causing catastrophic climate change. And we also need to stop doing that by linking it to domestic violence victims. I mean, everything can't be made worse, especially this, by climate change caused by humans. To me, it seems pretty – that's a pretty slimy thing to do.
[00:46:20] Speaker 5: Yeah, it's disgusting. I could not have more contempt for these people. I saw an article today, actually, from a different organization that had literally – I mean, really, the title was almost exactly Climate Change is Destroying the World Women Are Most Effective – Affected, which is just very stupid. Very, very stupid. So the – man, where do we even begin? One, climate change is not making this kind of weather more severe or more common. So if the weather is not becoming more severe – the extreme weather is not becoming more severe or more common, then it's not contributing to an increase in domestic violence. And if that's not the case, then it's also not contributing to the destruction of domestic violence shelters. It's all just stupid. I think that weather hardening is something that you can only achieve with fossil fuel products, with things that come from either byproducts from refining oil and natural gas, and also the kind of support that they would be able to give to those buildings when they're being destroyed or, you know, cut off from power due to bad weather is going to be some kind of like a diesel generator or something. And it's – it's – they are attempting to actually hurt these people, they are attempting to actually make these things worse. They're trying to make – if you get rid of fossil fuels, if you get rid of all the products downstream of fossil fuel production, what you end up getting is isolated communities that are more vulnerable to extreme weather that will continue to happen regardless of climate change. So, yeah, it's just – it's a mess all around. It's just the same thing as when they try to say, like, oh, I think I mentioned this last week. You know, Somalians are – there's so much violence in Somalia, it's because of climate change, because they get droughts and stuff. Well, Somalia has always had droughts, and they have always had violence. And in some cases, you might have situations where people are fighting over water or something, but that's not a climate issue. There's a government corruption issue in places like that. There's a community corruption issue in places like that. So, no, I just – this is one of the most despicable arguments that these people use. And I – yeah, I have no tolerance for it.
[00:49:05] Sterling Burnett: Lenya, you're spot on about the corruption. You look at the World Trade Organization, the World Bank, the World Economic Forum, the UN. And they deny access to funding of capital projects that involved the creation of projects or infrastructure that's based on hydrocarbons to these developing countries, like Ethiopia, like Somalia. These places that are living in abject poverty can't afford to mitigate weather. They can't afford to mitigate droughts. Fortunately, us here in the United States, in the Western world, about a billion people on the face of the earth get to take for granted on a daily basis the ability to get clean water from a tap, something that we're number one in the world in here in the United States. We're world leaders in clean air, something that UNICEF reports that 3.8 million people will die from illnesses attributed to indoor air pollution. I discount the numbers a little bit because they use this thing called statistical lives. It's definitely decreasing life expectancy for people that are cooking with dirty fuels, animal dung, biomass, because they can't get clean cooking fuels like propane, LPG. That's changing. You've got this access to not having access to affordable and reliable energy is the greatest. It puts people in poverty more than anything else. And I would say that climate change policy impacts women around the world more than anything else. And today, UNICEF reports that women will spend 200 million hours walking to collect water because they don't have access to clean water from a tap like we take for granted here. And that's powered by access to affordable and reliable energy. But 200 million hours that women, the average woman or the woman will walk an average of over three miles today to gather water. And I'm sure, Linnea, you're not. I'm sure my wife is not. And women here in the United States are not walking nearly that far to go to the sink or to the refrigerator and get cold water. But over three miles today that women will be spending walking to collect water. It's 200 million hours. It could be spent doing much more productive things. But you've got the globalist elites that deny access to capital for these countries. And you've got countries like Germany that will just bribe South Africa not to expand their coal-fired generation, pay them hundreds of millions of dollars a year so that Germany can then get credit for the carbon reduction for not expanding the South African economy, which is – that's just corruption at the absolute worst.
[00:51:28] Speaker 1: Yeah, the money they get doesn't trickle down to the people. It stays with the guys in the government who cut the deal. And your wife and Linnea and my wife, what they're not doing is lobbying to go back to the days when they had to walk for hours to get water or to wash clothes in rivers. The saddest thing about this story to me, as bad as the domestic violence, is that I thought we would have an entire hurricane season where I wouldn't hear climate change is causing hurricanes. And why did I think that? Because the number of hurricanes this year was one. One hurricane.
[00:52:13] Jim Lakeley: It only takes one, Sterling. All you need is one to get the alarmist stories out there.
[00:52:18] Speaker 1: One hurricane during hurricane season. Named storms. Hurricanes, all well below the already low prediction by NOAA. I didn't hear all summer long. I didn't hear, oh, climate change. Now I hear it. Climate change. I thought we were going to get through the season like that. But like I said, one storm, category two storm, not a powerful storm, not considered a major hurricane, strikes, and it's bad. People died. But let's face it. If anything, this season, I've heard that this is going to be one of the warmest years on record, if not the warmest year. October was the warmest October on record. I see these reports. And yet, where are the hurricanes? We all know that hurricanes are caused by heat. I hear it all the time. So we should be getting more hurricanes. They should be more powerful. This season was a bust for climate alarmists as far as hurricanes. And they have one hit, and the stories come. It's discouraging. Anthony, you want to wrap us up?
[00:53:30] Speaker 4: It's really, you know, Linnea Sterling and I have done hundreds of stories, rebuttals on things just like this, where some reporter gets this idea that climate change caused this because, you know, this weather is worse than usual. You know, and they're always trying to link weather and climate. So here's my proposal. I propose that the Heartland Institute create a campaign where we create these little red buttons like you used to have, you know, from Staples. That was easy. And we send these out to all the journalists out there that have run these idiotic stories. And then when they whack the button, you know, climate alarm, climate alarm, it reads back to them, weather is not climate, dumbass. And that's it.
[00:54:17] Speaker 1: I've got a twist on your idea, Anthony. We send them with shock collars, and that when they hit the climate alarm button, they are shocked. And just by, you know, over time, they wean themselves from this to stop the shocks like you would do, you know, you train dogs sometimes with shock collars to stop doing certain behaviors. Well, let's wean them from it. Let's give them, was it negative reinforcement? Well, we'd have to make the collars look nice. They would have to have glitzy stuff and, you know, rhinestones and maybe some really low-quality diamonds. And they could walk around most of the day showing off their new necklace. But then when they hit that button.
[00:55:06] Jim Lakeley: It's a bold strategy, Cotton.
[00:55:08] Speaker 1: Let's see if it pays off for them.
[00:55:11] Speaker 5: That's very generous of you, Sterling.
[00:55:13] Jim Lakeley: It is very generous. When we let Anthony and Sterling just kind of free associate back and forth with each other, this show goes to some pretty weird places. All right.
[00:55:20] Sterling Burnett: I like the red button, but I also like the parrot idea where they just parrot the talking points. Increase the strength of severity of storms and just find a way to dump it into every single article like they do now. But I was reading this article. I didn't even catch the headline of like what the media outlet it was from, but it was talking about the miracle worker, this Italian farmer who found a bag of seeds up in his attic that were over 100 years old. And he grows this incredible kind of grain of wheat that he calls miracle wheat. And he's got some biblical connotations with this particular wheat. And I'm like, wow, this is really fascinating. And I'm reading this article. And then it just goes into the parrot talking points from the author. And I realize it's from Smithsonian was the article that I was reading. Yes. And it's just talking about this is a more hardy form of wheat to handle the increase in strength and severity of storms. I mean, it just parrots the usual talking points that must be AP style. And they do. They push this climate alarm button on their computer and it inserts this lies about the increase in strength and severity of storms. But they keep parroting the talking point.
[00:56:32] Speaker 1: Maybe they should have to insert the word squawk after every sentence in one of these stories.
[00:56:39] Sterling Burnett: Embrace the strength of severity of storms.
[00:56:42] Jim Lakeley: What? Call it one a cracker. Like I said, this show goes to weird places sometimes. And by the way, Jason, I have some magic beans in a little pouch, but I'm also going to sell you. All right. Let's move on to our last item so we can get to Q&A here. This is a story, again, from Grist. They're having a banner week after the election this past Tuesday. Is climate killing the American dream? Their headline is exclusive. Most voters believe climate change threatens the American dream. So it's a declarative statement according to Grist. In his inaugural address in January 2025, President Donald Trump promised that, quote, the American dream will soon be back and thriving like never before. Apparently, that required undoing policies to tackle climate change. The Trump administration has invoked the American dream as a justification to propose ending mandatory reporting of greenhouse gas emissions, reverse rules to cut emissions from cars, and deregulate coal. Voters, on the other hand, view climate change itself as a problem for their aspirations. Exclusive polling for Grist from the think tank Data for Progress shows that 58 percent of likely U.S. voters believe that the warming climate will hinder their ability to achieve or maintain the American dream over the next 20 years, including 42 percent of Republicans. If you're skeptical, you should be. If you're skeptical, you should be. Quote, we identify a strong concern about climate change as a threat to achieving the American dream, said Grace Adcox, a senior climate strategist at the progressive think tank Data for Progress. It turns out, as you start to read the story, actually, they don't. Cost of living, 55 percent was by far the reason voters are worried about not achieving the American dream. Climate change came in last at 2 percent. If you can put that up on the screen for people who are watching the live stream, Andy, you can see that right there. It's the share of likely voters who named each one of these as the greatest threat today to their ability to achieve or maintain the American dream. Fifty-five percent said the cost of living. Two percent said climate change. So why do so many people think climate change will hurt the American dream? Again, reading from Grist. If it's so close to the bottom of their list of concerns today, one likely reason is that people are making the connection between climate change and the rising cost of living. More than half of voters are very worried about climate change making life more expensive over the next 20 years, according to the Data for Progress poll. That's higher than the share of voters who are worried about warmer temperatures, extreme weather, crop failures, and degraded natural areas. Climate change is already showing up in household bills, says Grist. A study from MIT earlier this year found that families in the U.S. were paying between $400 and $900 more each year because of the effects of global warming, they claim. From higher utility bills to climbing insurance premiums, which cost above $1,000 in the hardest-hit counties. Andy, you can bring up here, before I throw it here to Sterling, you can bring up on the screen. There you go, the last slide here. Voters in every part worry most about climate change, raising the cost of living. So it's trying to parse out, I suppose, that 2%. But this is insane. Sterling, this looks like you're probably better at analyzing this than me, and maybe Anthony is too. You're better at math, Linnea, for that matter. But this looks like absolute polling shenanigans to me. This is completely made-up fake news.
[01:00:14] Speaker 1: Well, no, the poll is what it is. You ask people about something they don't know anything about, you tell them it's bad, and they say, oh, yeah, I'm worried about that. I'm worried about that. Every poll shows that a lot of the public is worried about climate change, and they're worried about it's going to do some bad things. Some of them even say they're worried that it will be a disaster within their lifetimes. But then you say, okay, how much are you willing to pay to fight it? And it's like, oh, I won't pay a dollar a month. It's less than they give to homeless people on the streets. In the end, climate change does not rank very high in their list of concerns. As we showed earlier, affordability was the big thing, not climate change. And rightly so when it comes to the American dream. The American dream is home ownership. Climate change isn't making home ownership unavailable. It's not causing worse weather, more hurricanes, you know, worse wildfires. The data is just not there. They look at a group called First Street, and First Street says it's going to cost a loss of home values of $1.5 trillion. Well, they've said this repeatedly. Every year they come out with a new study saying it's going to cost a loss of home values. And every year the figure it's going to cost is higher, and yet home values continue to go up. There is an affordability crisis. It has nothing to do with climate change. It has to do with more demand than there is supply. Supply chains, inflation, high interest rates, high property taxes, because the property values are going up. You know, if climate change were destroying homes and home values, the values would be going down and people could afford them more, but they're not.
[01:02:08] Sterling Burnett: I would argue that it is related to climate, but you need to replace the word change with policy or agenda because that is actually affecting the cost of living. The climate agenda is making homes more expensive. It's making energy more expensive, which makes everything more expensive. We published a paper with Consumers Research on our website, AmericanEnergyInstitute.com, called The Climate Score Scam. I think, Sterling, you just mentioned First Street. You know, First Street is a private entity. They used to be a nonprofit. They changed to be for-profit. I think they're being acquired by someone now. They're being sued by the Attorney General of Nebraska, who won his re-election. Mike Hilgers, he just won re-election, and also now being sued by Florida Attorney General James Uthmeyer. What they've gone in and they've done is they've assessed these climate scores for homes. Well, what does that matter? Well, FEMA does the same thing. Well, FEMA is actually a government agency, and you have the right to appeal those climate scores through FEMA. Well, First Street has come in and said, you know, we find a high risk for this particular property when FEMA has it rated at the very lowest risk. Well, who uses First Street's scores? Realtor.com, homes.com, Redfin, Zillow, almost every single major website. And you can't do anything to get that score removed. And so we cite specific examples of homes that have had to reduce their value because First Street, a private company, has come in and given them a high risk on a climate score. So I'm glad to see that we've got a couple of our attorneys generals suing this company for their climate agenda that is forcing the increase in cost of homes and the increase in the cost of insurance. We published a website earlier this year, shortly after the U.N. withdrew their climate scenario, the model RCP 8.5. They withdrew that, saying it was implausible. Well, companies and institutions continue to use that implausible model. So we published they-new.com. If it's easier for you to remember the domain, you can go to algornew.com or you can go to, we know Michael Mann, you can go to mannnew.com or blackrocknew.com. We got some better domains that might be a little easier for people to remember, but they knew it was wrong and they used it anyways and they continue to use it. And if you click on that continue misuse button up on the top right, I think the last time I checked, since they've withdrawn this scenario in April, there was over, oh my gosh, I got to see a bigger screen. Last time I checked, it was over 200 instances. Now we're nearing 500 instances where research institutions continue to use that implausible withdrawn scenario. So the scam continues.
[01:05:13] Speaker 4: You got to remember- It is a scam. They're basically trying to prevent their whole business model from collapsing. I mean, you know, it's all about the money. Follow the money. These folks are getting money to study these things, right?
[01:05:27] Sterling Burnett: If all of a sudden the alarm goes away, yeah, if the alarm goes away, then their whole business model collapses.
[01:05:35] Speaker 1: And let's be clear, you should be substituting the word impossible for implausible. There's not enough coal in the ground to have the 8.5 scenario and they knew that from the start. So it's not implausible. It's impossible.
[01:05:51] Sterling Burnett: Yeah.
[01:05:52] Speaker 1: And yet they continued to publish peer review articles citing something that they know to be impossible. The whole, this whole article is just so misguided. There are things that make it hard. You know, you talk about climate policies. It's not just people like First Street. It's local housing boards which impose climate standards for building. You know, in California, what did they do a few years ago? They said every new house must have solar panels. It's the most unaffordable housing market in the nation. And they automatically tax $30,000 to start with on new houses. That suppresses the housing market. That means fewer homes are being built. Now, I guess it's okay for them because they've got so many people who've left. Sadly, I'm wondering if how many of those people left, came to Texas and then just voted blue like they did in California, learning nothing. Regardless, the point is, they, it's, you're right. It's climate policy that has raised your electricity cost. It's climate policy that has restrained fossil fuel development. It's climate policy that has made housing materials more expensive. Not climate change.
[01:07:19] Speaker 5: Yeah. And I want to go back to the polling for just a second. I, I don't think that the poll is mistaken. I don't think that it's like fake numbers or anything like that. I completely believe that that many Republicans think that climate change is an existential crisis or whatever it is that they showed. Um, but what's really interesting is, um, the, it doesn't make Republicans look very smart. If you pull up the poll again, um, they say, yes, I believe, please, where'd it go? Um, they say, they say, yes, I believe that the, this is not the climate poll I'm talking about. It's the other one, the one for the, the killing the American dream. Yeah. Okay. There it is. All right. 42% of Republicans say that they believe that it increases the cost of living. I would like to know how, because they say that they don't think that it's causing more extreme weather. They don't think it's causing crop failure and they don't even think it's causing warmer temperatures. So how exactly is climate change increasing the cost of living?
[01:08:22] Jim Lakeley: I, maybe they mean it, maybe they mean it the way Sterling just said that they're, they're applying climate change policies to that.
[01:08:28] Speaker 5: I, I, I, unfortunately, uh, Jim, that's very nice of you to give them that much credit. I think that people just don't think too deeply about these issues. I think they think, you know, oh, well I read in the New York times or whatever, um, that climate change is causing insurance to get more expensive or, or it's causing housing to be suppressed or whatever it happens to be. Therefore, I think it is increasing the cost of living. Oh, and it's causing crop failures. It's causing all sorts of things. But I don't, but then when they get to the question that says, what about crop failures? They're like, well, I don't really think climate change is causing that many crop failures. So they just, they're, nobody is really thinking through all these things. Look at this. Even Democrats, only 48% of Democrats think that climate change is causing crop failures and their media is full of that stuff. So there is, there's, there's so much misinformation. And, and I think people just aren't thinking when they're asked these questions.
[01:09:23] Speaker 1: It's cognitive dissonance. It's a lack of a basic understanding of logic and cause and effect.
[01:09:31] Speaker 5: Absolutely.
[01:09:32] Speaker 1: If it's not doing X, then it can't be doing Y.
[01:09:34] Speaker 5: Yeah. Yep. Alrighty. That's all I had on that. I just wanted to complain for a second.
[01:09:42] Jim Lakeley: All right. Well, you know, everybody wants to live the American dream. And one of the pillars of the American dream is financial independence and security. So when it comes to your investments, diversification is key. And that includes diversifying with, uh, the sponsor of this program and that's advisor metals. And that's diversifying with precious metals. I remember Shatsky. He's the man who runs advisor metals. He's a big fan of this program. And, uh, we correspond from time to time. And he reminded me that four years ago, about the time we started streaming this program live every Friday, one PM Eastern time on YouTube and rumble. And X back then, precious metals were selling for a fraction of what they are today. But since then, four years ago, gold is up 144%, silver has skyrocketed 210% and platinum has gained nearly 82% of its value. Here's what Ira, uh, tells me don't wait to buy gold, buy gold and wait. Um, by the way, Ira, he's, uh, he doesn't employ those kind of high pressure tactics. They don't do that at advisor metals, but they find that in big gold, but not with advisor metals. He's a straight shooter. Uh, they also don't deal in so-called rare coins. You know, you don't want that. What you want when you buy for advisor metals is quality bullion that is sent directly and discreetly to your home. And did I mention that Ira really likes this program? He gets what we're doing here. He is one of us. And that is why we are so proud to call him a sponsor. So go to climaterealism.show.com/metals. You can leave your information there. And Ira is going to make the whole process very easy for you. If you're interested in adding physical precious metals to your financial portfolio, go to climaterealism.show.com/metals. And please be sure to tell them who sent you because that helps us in this program while you're helping your financial future. All right, thank you for your attention to this matter. And we are ready for everybody's favorite part of the show. And that is Q and A. Take it away, Linnea. Scale of one to ten, Linnea, on one to ten, how was that segway?
[01:11:47] Speaker 5: That was a very good segway. That was a great segway. A very solid seven. Yeah.
[01:11:51] Speaker 1: Solid, I'll take it. Very, very smooth. Very smooth.
[01:11:55] Jim Lakeley: It's over middling.
[01:11:59] Speaker 5: It's over middling. Don't think of it like the way that, don't think of it like the way that we grade papers. Like a seven would be like a 70%. Don't think of it that way. Think of it on our sliding scale.
[01:12:13] Sterling Burnett: After Tuesday, it's like, it keeps getting worse. Yeah, I know, right?
[01:12:17] Speaker 5: Not at all. I think it was good. All right. Scott Clay has a comment for Jason. And that's, hello, Jason. Love the coal pin as a West Virginia guy.
[01:12:26] Sterling Burnett: Oh, yeah. I love it, too. Yep. It's on my hat. I'll be wearing it, too. WorseFest here in the coming ten days. Yep. I love West Virginia coal. I love Wyoming coal, Kentucky coal, Ohio coal. I'm a big fan of living the high carbon lifestyle. I think the rest of the world should, too. And it was Jamie Raskin, when I introduced myself like that in front of Congress, that anointed me the carbon king. I think he thought it was an insult. I embraced it. It's my nickname, but I do embrace the high carbon lifestyle. And it is where you have economic prosperity and environmental leadership. So I'll continue to advocate for the use and utilization of coal, especially here in the United States, because we do it more responsibly than anywhere else on the planet.
[01:13:04] Speaker 5: Absolutely. All righty. Chris Nisbet, our very frequent viewer and commenter. Thank you so much, Chris, says, I am so confused. Weren't we all told that Trump is a dictator or a king or some such nonsense? What sort of dictator allows this to happen? Yeah, that's a good point. You know, the peaceful transition of power is a feature of dictatorships.
[01:13:25] Speaker 1: So I remember fondly the time that Stalin let himself be voted out of power. Oh, wait, that didn't happen.
[01:13:37] Speaker 5: Okay. Data over on Rumble says, I have a question. Has the Institute had the time to investigate the white pines discovered about 600 feet above Timberline in Wyoming around Beartooth Highway above Red Lodge? Uh, I don't know what this is referring to. Is this from a field trip? Like some mountainside.
[01:14:00] Speaker 4: If you guys want to send me there on vacation, I'll go.
[01:14:03] Speaker 5: Yeah. We'll go investigate those pines. Yeah. No, I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about data. Uh, if you can add a little bit more detail in the chat, then maybe we can pull this question up again. I'll, I'll, I'll leave it in the background.
[01:14:15] Sterling Burnett: I'm pulling a map right now to find out where it is and how the skiing is and what's geographically close. Cause it's going to be a great winner in Wyoming.
[01:14:23] Speaker 1: To be clear, the answer to his question is, no, we have not investigated. Yeah.
[01:14:28] Speaker 5: No, we have not. Um, all right. So engineer guy says, what should Trump offer in the coming state of the union address? Should he confront the new crazies installed in Congress? He has nothing to lose anymore. So give it Congress, give it to Congress. What do you think, Jason?
[01:14:46] Sterling Burnett: I think so. I, I, I worry about the halls of the Capitol and the state of Texas and the halls of Congress. They're going to return to having a DEI office. They're going to have an environmental justice office, uh, in the halls of the U S Capitol. So I think they're going to be just crazy. What was the post yesterday? They'll be like the gayest Congress ever that they know about. I mean, come on, give me a break. So yes, Trump should just give it to them and let their heads explode. Uh, make them use the bathroom of their biological sex, uh, in the white house and wherever every other federal building, because they'll just, they're, they're just going to be like children. Um, so yeah, I, I think he should, so that people can see their true colors and let them come out and just screaming, uh, their heads off.
[01:15:33] Speaker 1: And then, and then when he comes in with his speech and goes to hand it to them, he should just rip it up in advance and say, I'm saving you the time and effort.
[01:15:44] Sterling Burnett: Yeah, right. No, we want them to do it because they look terrible. They look like children when they do that. And, and I know the mail pieces on conservative mail pieces here in two years from now, or 18 months from now, uh, they're going to have a keen Jeffries on them and they're going to have, uh, whoever the majority leader is Schumer, uh, in the Senate on them along with whatever Democrat candidate, uh, that someone is running against because they're going to get tied in to, uh, this weaponization of the federal government in this Trump derangement syndrome. People are going to be going after him and his entire family and everybody that's close to him. Uh, and so I think you're going to have the investigations, the impeachment investigations and the impeachment, uh, that follows. But yeah, I, I think he should go hard on the state of the union, um, and talk about how he saved us from Iran having a nuclear weapon and he's getting rid of the endangerment finding that just endangered our lives for decades.
[01:16:43] Speaker 5: All right. Uh, let's see. Oh, I've got a good one for you, Anthony, from a viewer in Belgium. Um, I skipped down to the bottom here cause I want to get to this question cause it's, the wording is a little bit awkward, Anthony. So it might be a little bit difficult to follow, but I rephrase it as I read it out. So, uh, Coca Larry says question for you guys. I live in Belgium and on the site of the government weather station, they measure radioactivity in Belgium for the years, 50, 60, 70, and 80. I found this. What does this have to do with the climate?
[01:17:22] Speaker 4: I don't know. That's all I can say. Um, I have no knowledge of this whatsoever. Um, but I can say this. Yes, there has been radioactivity found throughout the world during those, uh, decades, you know, from nuclear testing and so forth. And so maybe, and not having seen it, and I'm speculating, maybe they were just offering a report of radiation as a sort of, um, you know, here's what happened. I just don't know, but I can tell you this, that kind of radiation, ionizing radiation from nuclear tests and so forth has nothing to do with climate.
[01:17:59] Speaker 1: Well, I think even before the nuclear testing, there was radiation, uh, coming from marble, you know, radon and radiation coming from marble. All the buildings that are built with marble. If you go up to them with a radio, uh, um, Geiger counter, Geiger counter, you'll, you'll get some ticking. Yeah. Yeah.
[01:18:19] Sterling Burnett: But I can tell from AI real quick, it's, it's just basically a safety system to automatically alert, you know, nuclear safety experts, um, in the event of any kind of releases from nuclear incidents in Belgium or abroad.
[01:18:34] Speaker 1: If I say in Belgium.
[01:18:35] Speaker 5: Yeah.
[01:18:36] Sterling Burnett: Yeah. Or abroad.
[01:18:38] Speaker 5: Yeah. Hopefully. Okay. Let's see here. Let me go back up to the top of my list here. All right. Some, so this is from Walter who says, what are the Democrats going to do to address affordability? Raise taxes.
[01:18:53] Sterling Burnett: Yes. Yes. Yeah. They're going to rate, they're going to raise taxes. They're going to make energy more expensive. And they're going to build. They're going to build more wind and solar. Yep. It's like Spanberger solution to affordability is make everything more expensive. And ultimately you get to the point like California and nearly a million people in California, you will have, you will be able to afford your electric bill because it'll get disconnected. Um, and I mean, and that, that's what's happening. So that's, that's their goal of affordability is you don't have electricity and then you can't afford to put the pump in. So you're not having to spend the money. So it just all became affordable. Zero electricity is free. That's right. That's right. And then, then the funeral expenses, I guess you don't have to worry about those either.
[01:19:35] Jim Lakeley: Yeah. Uh, here in the city of Chicago, they passed a 3%, you know, they, they passed, like, if you get a 3% millionaires and billionaires tax to, uh, uh, you know, to use for education spending. Chicago spends more per student than almost anywhere in the country. Yet they have to, what they're going to end up with is, you know, dumber students, which they've had now for going on continually for decades and a lot fewer millionaires are going to live in the city of Chicago. They're going to leave. So that's what you're going to say.
[01:20:00] Sterling Burnett: Yeah. I saw that when there are more billionaires in, in an area, that area is much more prosperous, uh, and you have even the wealthier people. So it's almost like they, they, they lift all boats in the Harbor. So it's, you almost want to have like a millionaires, a billionaires tax cut or a millionaires tax cut to attract millionaires and billionaires to move to your state. Uh, and so that seems to be working well for Florida, Tennessee, Texas. We'll see. There's no way there's going to be an income tax in Texas. It's a con it's in the constitution now. Uh, but surprisingly people that opposed having a ban on an income tax just overwhelmingly got elected to statewide offices.
[01:20:39] Speaker 5: Um, all righty. Oh, uh, Rick Schaefer has a question for me about Halloween. He said, how was the dinosaur Halloween when they, I had a Jurassic park costume this year and I had a cool dinosaur puppet for it. Um, did he bite any trick or treaters? Yeah, he sure did. That animal's out of control. They're lethal at six months, you know, right. Um, let's see. Darren and Loki says, why not just build? This is regarding the, uh, the geo-engineering projects. Why not just build the world's biggest air conditioning unit and set the thermostat to pre-industrial?
[01:21:17] Sterling Burnett: Hey, don't give Oxy any ideas. They might try and then ask for subsidies to do it. I mean, that's essentially what direct air capture for CO2 is. I mean, I, I joke that they need to go into places like Houston and build the world's largest dehumidifier and then turn it into water and then ask for subsidies of $8 a gallon. I mean, uh, it would actually reduce the temperature if you could decrease the humidity in places that have high humidity like Houston and Taiwan and Singapore and New Orleans. Yeah, yeah, but I don't want to give anybody any ideas.
[01:21:49] Jim Lakeley: That is a wonderful AI image generator comment. We're going to have to try to make that happen.
[01:21:54] Speaker ?: Yeah, yeah, yeah.
[01:21:55] Sterling Burnett: Vicky Holla would be like just dancing in Houston, like, yay, we just built the world's largest dehumidifier.
[01:22:04] Speaker 5: Dual purpose dehumidifier, making water to send to California and also a swamp of Houston.
[01:22:13] Sterling Burnett: Yeah, net zero H2O.
[01:22:15] Speaker 5: Yeah, I'm sure the energy demands of that would not be obscene. I'm sure it'd be totally fine. All right, um, above us only sky says regarding the space umbrella. What happens when it turns inside out on a windy thing?
[01:22:33] Sterling Burnett: The solar winds. The water dumps all over your head. That's great.
[01:22:40] Speaker 5: Yeah, yeah. All righty. And another question from Chris, who says, I always wonder if these carbon dioxide storage plants actually bother to pump the carbon dioxide underground and rather just vent it to the atmosphere instead. Does anybody actually check?
[01:23:02] Speaker 1: Well, when it's when it's when it's for carbon capture and use, they we know they pump into the ground because it's used to enhance recovery. If they weren't pumping it under there, the recovery wouldn't be increased. The problem is carbon capture and use. There's no evidence that it stores anything permanently underground. It's not some kind of solid sealed thing. Also, does anyone not realize that carbon dioxide is a gas and gases can escape through solids? You know, it's it's a whole weird thing. It's a scam. It's a scam.
[01:23:41] Sterling Burnett: It's like for 30 years from the dry fork power station in eastern Wyoming coal-fired power plant. I've had the opportunity to tour a couple of times. They've been capturing CO2 from the stream there and piping it to North Dakota for use of enhanced oil recovery to produce more oil. They've been doing it without subsidy for 30 years. Yeah. So there are certain applications where it makes economical sense to do it. But it doesn't make economical sense in most applications. And that's why you've got these actuaries at these large companies saying, oh, it makes sense with subsidies of one hundred eighty dollars a ton. So let's go out there and do it. And then then we've got to have multiple credit stacking where we can get the value up to five to seven hundred dollars per ton. And that's where it starts to make economic sense for the big industrial, you know, the majors. It certainly doesn't make economic sense to the taxpayers.
[01:24:33] Speaker 5: Yeah. And I see someone in the comments on Facebook says that trees are the best carbon dioxide holder. Yeah, that's true. And, you know, growing trees and then using them for building, you know, construction materials is probably about as good of carbon dioxide sequestration as you're going to get.
[01:24:50] Jim Lakeley: Recycling, too.
[01:24:52] Speaker 5: Yeah.
[01:24:52] Sterling Burnett: I love using those trees to smoke a good high carbon brisket. I try to do that this weekend.
[01:24:58] Speaker 5: Exactly. All right.
[01:25:02] Speaker 1: Yours is renewable. That's right. Yeah. You have to plant trees to absorb the carbon that you then burn later. A sustainable smoker. Very good.
[01:25:10] Speaker 5: Yeah. And the same commenter says, you know, if we pressure the carbon dioxide, can we get diamond people instead of carbon ingurgitating kids? Yeah. Some of those carbon capture places make like graphite and stuff with it, which is kind of neat. But it's still I'm sure that the, you know, if they weren't getting subsidized to do it, I'm sure it would not be economically feasible to be making graphite that way. All righty. Chris Martz. Hello, Chris. Wants to know if there was methodology for the poll that we went over. Did they link their sources or documentation? I'm sure that they had tabs linked. Usually everybody publishes their tabs.
[01:25:49] Sterling Burnett: It was the polling company that Hayfield was at the name of the company that did the social experiment in the Michigan race. Yeah. That Ashley Stevens was polling in the single digits and essentially forced her out of the race because their fundraising dried up and they turned out it was completely fake. So there's no way, Chris, that this polling was done as a social experiment.
[01:26:12] Jim Lakeley: Tell you what, Chris, I'm going to drop all the show notes in the description of this video so you'd be able to click through to Grist and find it yourself.
[01:26:21] Speaker 5: Absolutely. Okay. Well, this is an interesting question for Anthony again from our friend abroad here who says, "What if we get another Carrington event, which was the biggest recorded solar storm?"
[01:26:38] Speaker 4: Well, I hope we don't, but it is inevitable. Someday it's going to happen. We've had some close calls since that time, or we've had some massive solar eruptions. For those of you who don't know what the Carrington event is, I'll explain. In 1858, a fellow by the name of Carrington in the UK was observing the sun. He was sketching pictures of sunspot, which is how they did it back then because photography hadn't risen to the level of being able to photograph the sun. Anyway, he noticed all of a sudden a blinding bright emanation from the sun where there was a big cluster of sunspots. And he recorded it, and he reported it to the Royal Observatory and so forth, and it became recorded. But a few, more than a few hours later, something dramatic happened. The atmosphere above Earth, the ionosphere, went nuts, and I mean nuts. And aurora were seen down to the equator. And telegraphs in the United States started clicking on their own and catching fire. And this was because all the electromagnetic energy from that solar storm was inducing current into those long telegraph wires. Now, if that happened today, fortunately, we do have some warning of it. We have satellites parked out at the L2 Lagrange point, which, you know, conveniently might be blocked if they put up those umbrellas. But we will probably get some notice. And there's probably going to be some things we can do to mitigate it in the sense of satellites will get put into safe mode. Electrical utilities may simply just turn off the power and open the breakers because that electrical energy is going to blow out generators and transformers and everything else. And the Internet's going to go down. There's going to be all these things that are going to happen if nothing is done. So let's hope that the establishment for these things has plans in place because, you know, there's that old saying about getting bombed back to the Stone Age. Well, this will put us that way unless we're prepared for it.
[01:28:51] Speaker 5: Yep. And speaking of those Lagrange points, Anthony, Chris had a question about how much energy would be needed to use to keep those millions of tons of umbrella in those points. I gather that L1, 2 and 3 are unstable.
[01:29:06] Speaker 4: Well, they're not completely unstable, but there is some drift associated with them. So we're talking about satellites with thrusters as opposed to, you know, big rocket engine. Getting them there takes a lot of fuel. Keeping them stable at those points is not such a big deal. We have many satellites like the solar observatories that I just mentioned that are out there. So, yeah, that won't be a big deal keeping them stable.
[01:29:30] Jim Lakeley: I'm a huge fan of like reaching for the stars and trying to do the impossible. I mean, I love it. I know Linnea is a big fan of that. And I think Elon Musk is trying to do that now. What I don't like is making all of that effort and reaching for the stars to do something that is not necessary. Why do we have to keep the earth one degree cooler now than it was in pre-industrial times? This is complete nonsense. We don't need that at all. All right. Rant over. Trey Lockerbie: Misallocation of resources. Trey Lockerbie: Yeah. Trey Lockerbie: Yeah, huge misallocation resource.
[01:30:02] Speaker 5: Trey Lockerbie: Would a Carrington event give EV owners a free charge?
[01:30:06] Speaker 1: Trey Lockerbie: It would probably spark a lot of battery fires around them. Trey Lockerbie: Yeah.
[01:30:12] Speaker 5: Trey Lockerbie: Just blow them up left and right. Trey Lockerbie: All right. Trey Lockerbie: Let's see. Trey Lockerbie: We actually don't have any more questions that are not a little bit sarcastic, but I will bring this one up real quick since we are a little bit over time. Trey Lockerbie: But Lake Lady said, well, they do want to reduce the population of the earth. Trey Lockerbie: What better way than crop failures and famine? Trey Lockerbie: This is also having to do with that umbrella plan. Trey Lockerbie: Yeah. Trey Lockerbie: But I will say, I think the people who are doing the space umbrella thing are not the same people who are trying to reduce the population of the earth. Trey Lockerbie: These guys tend to be the guys who are just like tech bro, aspirational kind of people. They're not looking at population control. They're looking at like technological solutions to problems that they're told by their peers are problems. Trey Lockerbie: Yeah, they're science optimists.
[01:30:59] Speaker 1: Trey Lockerbie: They're science optimists.
[01:31:00] Speaker 5: Trey Lockerbie: Yeah. Trey Lockerbie: They're still wrong, but they're not, you know, actually twirling their, their mustache is trying to kill people with this stuff. They're just catastrophically wrong, but all right, I'll hand it back to Jim with that.
[01:31:13] Jim Lakeley: Trey Lockerbie: All right. Yes. We're about ready to wrap up the show. Anthony Watts, you have a pretty big anniversary coming that you might want to announce to the audience.
[01:31:22] Speaker 4: Anthony Watts: Yeah, it's hard to believe, but in just a little over a week, the 20th anniversary of my website, Watts Up With That, will be, Mark that, on the 17th. That was when I made my very first blog post about it. We're going to be doing some special things on Watts Up With That, commemorating that, but I want to point out something. We are not just the most viewed climate website in the world. We're the longest lasting. We've survived a whole bunch of other websites, you know, a whole bunch of other nasty people that said how terrible we were and went to great lengths to block our content, to make us disappear from Google and other things. So to all those people that have, you know, pushed all of that negativity about me and this website over the past 20 years, I just want to say one thing, I win. Anyway, we'll have more.
[01:32:30] Jim Lakeley: Mark Levin: Very good. Very good. So congratulations, Anthony. I know it's, you know, something and you keep it going for 20 years, that's a huge accomplishment in the digital space or any space. And you know what? You can't win if you don't show up. And Anthony Watts has been showing up in a very grief and worse for it over the last 20 years. So congratulations, Anthony. Anthony Watts: Well done. Mark Levin: Go ahead. Yep. All right. Well, that will do it for today's show. I want to thank our very special guest and friend, Jason Isaac, the carbon king. Jason Isaac: Keep living the high carbon lifestyle. Thanks for having me on. Mark Levin: That is right. Even though he is a sustainable smoker, because he uses wood, but that's why you need to use coal, then it's really bad.
[01:33:18] Sterling Burnett: Yeah. I'm trying to find a way to press pellets of wind turbines that I could smoke meat, but I don't think I want to do that. Mark Levin: Yeah. Yeah. And I don't think
[01:33:25] Jim Lakeley: you can smoke, I don't think you can smoke meat with coal. That'd probably be bad.
[01:33:28] Sterling Burnett: Mark Levin: Probably. You could crust.
[01:33:30] Jim Lakeley: Mark Levin: Yes. I also want to thank our sponsors, Mark Levin: Advisor Metals and the Energy Bad Boys Substack and also our streaming partners, Junk Science, CFAC, the CO2 Coalition, Climate Depot. What's up with that? And Heartland UK or UK Europe. Thank you, Sterling Burnett for being with us today. Thank you, Linnea Luke and for being with us today. Thank you as well, Anthony Watts. And thank you to our wonderful audience, especially here in the chat on YouTube. It's always so much more fun when you are engaged. That'll do it for today's episode. I will talk to you again next week. Bye-bye. "Climate change is going to kill us all. Squawk!"
[01:34:27] Speaker ?: "Climate change is going to kill us all. Squawk!" Thank you.