(0:00 - 1:26) For decades now, mainstream media and climate alarmists have been telling us that man-made emissions are going to cause a runaway greenhouse effect. They claim that the science is settled, and further that 97% of scientists agree. Tom Harris has a Master's Degree in Mechanical Engineering with specialties in Thermodynamics and Fluid Dynamics. Two of the disciplines most qualified to assess our coming extinction via environmental disaster. For many years, Tom was an advocate for the global warming movement, until another professor showed him some data that made him question. Since then, Tom has been working hard to spread the truth about man-made global warming, and the simple truth is, it's a lie. Tom joins me today with the real data on climate change, and proves that not only is man-made global warming a complete myth, but that the actions which are being taken by governments around the world to save us all from this non-existent threat could in fact result in severe environmental repercussions. Mr. Harris gives us the real data, which shows that a new ice age may not be more than a thousand years away, and shares his concerns that attempts to address the global warming lie could in fact result in that new ice age starting not in a thousand years, but before the end of this century. Indeed, as the global warming alarmists claim, we are running out of time to wake people up. (1:33 - 4:03) Tom, it's a pleasure to have you on the show. Yeah, good to be on. Now, you came to my attention actually several months ago in my Friday News reports. I reported on you after I saw a very short segment where you were interviewed by Fox News, and you came right out, and you called global warming a scam. Now, in another interview that Tom and I will do, we're going to talk about how he got duped into believing all of this, how he finally came to understand that it was a lie, and how he's been fighting ever since to spread the truth on that. What we want to do in this interview is reveal exactly how it is a scam from the basis of the science, and as I've already told you, Tom is an engineer with expertise in hydrodynamics, fluid dynamics, so this is stuff that he understands. So Tom, please take us on a journey. Well, I think the main thing to look at is the actual empirical data as to what's happening in the real world. You know, the climate scare is not based on real world data. It's based on computer forecasts of the future. We know that because since 1880, the so-called global average temperature, which is really just a statistic, it's not really a temperature, but that statistic has shown only a one degree rise since 1880. Now, that small a temperature change is so small that if you didn't have climatologists and meteorologists telling you about it, you would never notice it in your entire lifetime. Yet, the government of Canada has declared a climate emergency. They say, oh, you know, extreme weather is increasing, all that sort of thing. But you know, the best database in the world for extreme weather is put out by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. It's part of the U.S. government, and what they do is they keep track on a statewide basis of the highest temperature, the lowest temperature, the most rain, the most snow, the highest wind, the biggest hailstone, all that kind of information. It's interesting because in 1936, there were 27 records set on a statewide basis, highest temperature, et cetera. Those records still stand. They still stand today in 2023. You have to say, well, how many records were set in 2022? Because the media are always going on about all these terrible events that are caused by climate change. The answer is, drum roll, zero. There was not a single extreme weather record set on a statewide basis. Now, it's true that you see extreme weather records set for very small areas, like for a city or something like that. San Diego just had a blizzard for the first time, I think, ever in their records. (4:04 - 5:31) Of course, their records don't go back that far. It's only to the late 1800s. I think the most important thing to understand how we know the climate scare is a scam is to actually do two things. One is to look at the data, and the other is to have a proper perspective. They talk about temperature soaring. I'm going to share some slides with you that give you a little bit of perspective. I'm going to start out with a slide, first of all, which shows the kind of thing that we're told regularly by the media, that carbon dioxide is going through the roof. I'll just share this slide. You can see that carbon dioxide levels have apparently shot up. This is considered catastrophic. This is considered unusual. You see, they don't have perspective. If you look at the next slide, what you see here is that we're at one of the lowest levels of carbon dioxide in Earth's history. Now, we have had a 50% rise since 1880. The green line here at the bottom, this is about what it is now, about 420 parts per million. You can see that CO2 is being up as high as 8,000 parts per million. That's almost 20 times what it is today. I'll show you a graph in a minute that shows the correlation or the lack thereof between temperature and carbon dioxide. It turns out, well, Al Gore showed us, well, here's the general history. Here's some facts and figures. Scientists note that geologically speaking, the Earth is currently in a CO2 famine. (5:32 - 6:54) Geologic record reveals ice ages and ice houses. Now, ice house, what's an ice house? An ice age is any time where you have permanent ice cover on the Earth. In fact, right now, we're in an ice age because we have Antarctic and we have Greenland that have permanent ice cover. Now, within an ice age, we have glacial periods and interglacials. A glacial period will last perhaps 90 or 100,000 years. The interglacials, and we're in one right now, typically last about 20,000, 25,000. Sometimes, they're as short as 15,000 years. We're actually probably near the end of the current interglacial. That's a really big problem for Canada because during the last glacial period, 25,000 years ago, we had two kilometers of ice over our head here in Ottawa. Nothing could live essentially in Canada except for a small part of the Yukon where there were no glaciers because it was so dry. It was very cold, but there was not enough precipitation. When Greenpeace came to my door the other day, and they were collecting money to stop climate change, I said, oh, will you please stop the next glacial? They looked at me just stunned. I said, well, you realize we're near the end of the interglacial. Geologically speaking, there's been many of them in the current ice age. That's going to be darn serious, two kilometers of ice over our head. (6:55 - 7:59) When you say near the end of the interglacial period, what kind of a time span are we looking at before we have to worry about glaciers again here? Oh, at least 1,000 years. Right. Okay. Geologically speaking, that's like tomorrow. Yes. It's funny. I have a cartoon that I show in some of the slides, and it has a turtle walking along the ground. He says to his other turtle friend, he says, run for your life, the ice age is coming. It's very gradual. There were times when glaciers were advancing quite quickly, like during the Little Ice Age. At that point, we would see as much as a mile advance every year. You might see a glacier might be five miles from your house, but five years from now, you better be gone because it'll just crunch right over top of you. They can move quite quickly, but we're not really talking about anything in the next century, let's say. The Little Ice Age was back in the 1600s. Yeah, that was the Little Ice Age. That wasn't the glacial. The glacial was when you go back 15,000 to 25,000 years ago. The Little Ice Age, that is something we have to be concerned about. (7:59 - 9:30) I'll get back to the CO2 stuff in a second. In the Little Ice Age, which was a time when the sun was actually quite weak, conditions were so bad that we saw storms on the shore of England that would actually wipe away complete towns. We saw famine. We saw wars and all sorts of things. It's during the cold periods when we have to be most concerned. It's interesting because in the city of Ottawa, for example, they have a climate change master plan. They want to spend $57.4 billion to stop climate change. They actually have a certain element to it called adaptation and resiliency. All they're doing is talking about possible dangerous warming. I pointed out to them in a report that we wrote on their silly plan that in fact, climate cooling is infinitely more dangerous for a city like Ottawa, because indeed, 20 times more people die from the cold than from the heat across the world. Ottawa is one of the coldest capitals in the world. The Little Ice Age was a bad period. I'll get back to that in a second because we may be going into that even sooner. It may happen as soon as 2060. We'll talk about that in a second. Geologic record reveals that ice ages and ice houses, ice houses were much longer than ice ages. Ice houses, and we'll see it in a second, could actually last as long as 100 million years. Some scientists say that in some ice houses, it got so cold that the whole earth, including the oceans, were covered with ice. (9:31 - 11:05) At other times, during what are called hot house periods, we could have tens of millions of years where there was no ice anywhere on the planet, not even on the high mountains. That is climate change. That's a real climate change, really deadly climate change. As we say here, temperatures have been similar to the present day on earth when carbon dioxide was up to 20 times higher than today's level. You have to remember a couple of things. First of all, carbon dioxide is a very good thing. There's actually a report I want to hold up here. It's called Climate Change Reconsidered. You can see it right here. It's 1,000 pages. It talks about the biological impacts of increasing carbon dioxide. They are very, very good. Carbon dioxide is actually at a very low level now. Plants evolved at a time when CO2 was much higher. Even the plants in our current environment would love it if CO2 was higher. That's why they pump CO2 into greenhouses because they grow faster, and they need less water. In fact, NASA shows that across the world, there's been an incredible greening. We're talking about something like a 15% rise in vegetation across the world because we're burning fossil fuels. NASA doesn't pull their punches on that. It's quite contrary to their climate change narrative. Here's the interesting result. Worldwide food harvests are up more than 30% in the last 30 years, largely thanks to increasing carbon dioxide, bigger harvests on less land. It's much more efficient. Now, Al Gore showed us this film. (11:05 - 12:41) This is what, of course, in his movie, Inconvenient Truth, he got all excited about this high CO2 levels. What he didn't show you is perspective. This looks like it's hugely high in comparison with the past. Well, he only went back about a half a million years. The Earth's been around a lot longer than that. Here's what we look at. When you go back as far as we can go in the record, which is just over a half a billion years, you can go back about a half a billion years because what they do is they gather fossilized seashells. They grind them up. They test the oxygen isotopes and the different ratios allow them to actually get ideas of temperature in the past. They have other proxies for temperature, or sorry, for CO2. As you can see here, the high point of Al Gore's graph is in fact very low. This is a temperature. Now, I'm going to show you something really interesting. The next graph is an animation which plots CO2 over time, and it actually moves. You can see where it moves. It also plots temperature over time. Now, watch and see if there's a correlation. Remember, according to global warming people, as CO2 rises, temperature should rise shortly afterwards. That's the theory. Now, let's look at what really happens in the geologic record. CO2 went up, temperature didn't do anything. Oh, look at that, CO2. Look at 440 million years ago. That was the middle of a cold house period. That was the coldest in the last half billion years. You can see that CO2 was more than 10 times higher than today. This is the real geologic record. (12:42 - 13:06) There's a huge error bar on this, but the line shows the midpoint. What you can see is sometimes CO2 and temperature were both high, sometimes they were both low, but most of the time, there's no correlation at all. You have to say, well, are we going to base policy on what really happened or what computer models say? Yes, it has warmed, no question about it, in the last 300 years. (13:06 - 13:52) We can see that here. That's been a good thing because we've been coming out of the little ice age. There are properties in nature which are not measures of quantity like weight or height or length or things like that, but they're measures of a quality. A quality would be something like viscosity or density or temperature. You can't actually average those qualities and end up with anything significant. This is not really a temperature at all. People talk about global average temperature, but it doesn't exist. You can get a statistic, and the statistic might be reflective of something meaningful, but it depends how you average the statistic. There are complete scientific papers that are written showing that there's no such thing as a global temperature. (13:52 - 15:18) What we're seeing here is a temperature anomaly. In other words, a change from the 1951 to 1980 average. They show this skyrocketing to the right, but what they don't tell you is that the actual measure are tiny. We're talking about a half a degree, and that's half of this graph. When you have temperature measurements to a hundredth of a degree, it really is insignificant. I'll show you how insignificant it is. Here is how the average annual global temperature over a scale of zero to 110 degrees, which is a typical range, let's say, for the United States. You cannot see the change unless you look very, very closely. If you actually plot it in comparison with the extreme high and the extreme low averages throughout the years, you do see a very, very slight change. To keep it in perspective, we're talking about one degree Celsius over, let's see, 142 years. It's practically nothing. The data is simply not supporting the idea that there's a climate scare. We can see we're actually cooler than the average right now, or at least in January, that was the most recent one I have. This is really interesting. There's been now a pause in global average temperature. As I say, it's not really an average, but it's not really a temperature, but it's actually been eight and a half years. They were saying previously, seven and a half. There's been no global warming since 2014. (15:19 - 15:42) Now, the interesting thing about this is that in that timeframe, in the last eight and a half years, there's been 450 billion tons of carbon dioxide emitted, almost a half trillion tons. There's been no change in this so-called global average temperature statistic. In fact, you'll notice the trend, it's trivial, but you notice the trend is actually down. (15:43 - 19:57) The data just does not support the idea that we're in a temperature crisis. It's just not there. The basis is the computer models. Here we see 102 models, all those squiggly lines, they're different models as to what the temperature should be according to the models. Colored lines below are what we measure. The actual measurement of what's really happened since 1975 shows much less warming than reality. If you plot all of the models, every one of these bars is a model, and you see an average of plus 0.44 degrees Celsius per decade. That's considered the scientific consensus as to what the models would say. The observations, what the real data shows is about a third of that. You've got computer models that they're using to base trillion-dollar policies on, which simply are out by, as you can see, it's 200% exaggerated. It makes no sense at all. I'm not sure if I have any other slides. Oh, yeah, these ones are worth looking at. This shows what I was saying earlier, and we were talking just before the conversation, that there were zero records set in 2020 on a statewide basis. The actual far right of this graph at the bottom, if you went to 2022, it goes down to zero. You can see that most of the extreme records were set considerably further in the past, and especially in the 1930s. As it says here, the reality destroys the climate change claim. After 100 years of climate change, climate-related deaths are now approaching zero. It's dropped by over 99% since 1920. There's two reasons for that. First of all, there is less extreme weather, despite what the climate activists say. People will say, oh, yes, but what about that tornado in Oklahoma? You say, yeah, well, if a tornado hit in Oklahoma in 1930, there's a good chance nobody saw it. Whereas today, they have cell phones all over the state, and they're recording it. It's observational bias. It is nice to see also that if you look at all global deaths from natural disasters, it's way, way, way down. We're doing really well. It's not just because there is less extreme weather, it's also because we have better early warning, we've hardened our infrastructure, things like that. Now, some people will say, well, what about Hurricane Ian? It was the third most damaging hurricane in American history. That's really true. The reason it was the third most damaging is because there's a lot more stuff to knock down. Across the world, there's been a 13-fold increase in infrastructure. If you look at the coast of Florida, where there was one hotel 100 years ago, there's now 13. The insurance claims that they're now using as evidence for extreme weather, well, 100 years ago, people weren't building massive houses and hotels right on the coast. Bottom line is we're doing very well. It's largely because we have hardened infrastructure, etc. I'll just look at this one quickly. You can see on the far right, that's where we are now. When you look at the United States, there's no increase in drought. This is what it shows here as well. I'd like to skip to this one. This is interesting, major hurricane frequency across the globe. You can see major hurricanes is the lower part of this graph, and all hurricanes is the upper. We're actually going down slightly. Now, this is what you'd expect to happen as the Earth warms, because the forecast is that if the Earth warms due to human-induced CO2, what would happen is it would warm mostly at night in the winter in high latitude. That's a good thing, because I don't think there's very many life forms that would really care if it was minus 45 instead of minus 50 at night in the Yukon. The whole idea that extreme weather will increase with increasing temperature, which is one of the main touchstones of the whole global warming movement, is actually backwards. The models say that most of the warming would be occurring in the high latitudes like in the Arctic or the very low Antarctic. What that would mean is that the temperature difference across latitudes, which is what drives weather, temperature difference, let's say, between the Yukon and British Columbia would actually reduce. (19:57 - 22:46) If the temperature difference is less, then you have less extreme weather. That's what we see in the record. We see that during the Little Ice Age, there were lots of storms. The Chinese found that when they analyzed the sediments in the bottom of the Pacific Ocean, there were more and more violent typhoons during the Little Ice Age than there were during warming periods. From that point of view, warming is a good thing. There is no climate emergency. This document has literally thousands of peer-reviewed studies. It's different to the one I held up previously, which was looking at the biological impact of CO2. This one looks at the causes of climate change. What it shows is that humans are almost certainly not causing very significant climate change. We know that because even if all of the climate change since 1880 was human-caused, it's only one degree. When people get all excited and they say, oh, most of the warming in the last century is caused by human activities, I say, oh, so what? It's almost none. This is interesting. If people go to climatechangereconsidered.org, what they will see is the thousands of peer-reviewed scientific research that's being done all over the world, which does not support the climate scare that the media conveniently ignore. They were interviewing people. I presume they were interviewing all the alarmist climate groups, the young people who are going crazy about terrible climate change. One of our supporters went to the CBC reporter and the cameraman and said, hey, you should interview Tom Harris because he has a different perspective. Across the world, there are many scientists. I'll give you just one example. These scientists show that there is no climate emergency and there will not be one either, even if we double or massively increase CO2. Dr. William Happer is a professor emeritus from Princeton University. He was working with a scientist from York University in Toronto. They did a very sophisticated infrared analysis looking at the absorption spectrum in the atmosphere and how much would CO2 potentially rise the temperature if, in fact, it doubled. It was very, very small. We could have literally a doubling of the three main greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, N2O. They showed in their analysis very clearly that you could literally double all of those three greenhouse gases and the temperature change would be very, very minor. Overall, I think when you look at the perspective, you look at the real data, it's pretty obvious that there is no climate emergency now. The environmentalists don't want you to know that. I went to a hearing actually, it was put on by Ecology Ottawa, which I understand gets our government funding, which is nice for them. It was a presentation called The End of Snow in Canada. (22:47 - 24:24) Before I went to the presentation, I checked on the National Snow and Ice Data Center, what was snow doing in North America. It turns out it's gradually increasing over decades. I got in touch with Ecology Ottawa in advance and I said, are you going to bring in a scientist who can talk about what's really happening? They were up on stage, they had skiers, Olympic skiers and others moaning about the lack of snow. It's coming, it's coming, it's coming. I went to the audience and said, are you really concerned if the snow went away? What do you think about the fact that Ecology Ottawa did not bring in a scientist who would tell you that snow cover has been gradually rising for decades? The audience were furious. One woman in the front row, she jumped up and she shook her fist at me. She said, go home. I said, but I didn't make it up. It's the National Snow and Ice Data Center, look it up yourself. It's bad if snow goes away if you're a skier, but it's not happening. That is my main message when it comes to the science, is all these models, yeah, it's fun. It's a computer game in a way to see what the models are going to forecast, but the models don't work. They don't even come close to reality and the data clearly shows there's no climate emergency. The science is just not there. It simply is not there. I think you've done a fantastic job of showing that with your data. Point, folks, what Tom just said, it's rare to remember, is all this doom and gloom that they're predicting is all based upon computerized models. Those models in no way correlate to the actual data. (24:24 - 24:43) I want to bring up the chart. It didn't take me very long to come across Tony Heller, who I'm sure you're familiar with. Heller showed was this chart right here. To me, this is the nail in the scientific coffin. What this chart does is it shows you the incoming energy from the sun. It shows you what's going back out again, which is over here. (24:44 - 26:45) Then it shows you what's absorbing that heat. As Tom already pointed out, water vapor is by far the most effective greenhouse gas by a long way. The important thing to observe is if you look at places like right here, and yet you're seeing a little bit of carbon dioxide absorption, but you're also seeing water vapor absorption in that same space. Most importantly, what you're seeing here is that the carbon dioxide, this cap right here, that's not artificial. That's the point at which it simply can't absorb any more heat. It's already absorbing 100% of the heat that it can in that wavelength. If you increase the carbon dioxide, and as you've made reference to already quite accurately, we've had times in history when it was 30 times higher than it is today, it doesn't make any difference. It makes no difference at all. The only thing we could possibly do as humans, maybe, I don't even know how we would do it, that would actually cause a warming effect would be to increase the water vapor, but as you already made reference to, we don't get positive feedbacks, we get negative. Here's what I'm assuming would happen is if the water vapor did increase, well, all that's going to happen is you're going to get more rain, which is once again good for the plants because you already talked about the fact that there's been periods in the past when there was no permanent ice cover anywhere, and the earth was green and lush, and we had year-long growing periods, and high CO2 levels were good for the plants, and presumably an awful lot of rain that was good for the plants. The alarmists are talking about, we've got the Paris Accords, we're talking about we need to keep it to a maximum of 1.5 degrees by the end of this century, or oh God, we're all going to die. As you've already shown, that 1.5 degree increase would be nothing. We probably would barely even notice it. Well, and also, it would be an increase from pre-industrial levels, and we're already over a degree into that. We're really only talking about something less than half a degree. (26:46 - 30:52) That's going to cause catastrophe. It is interesting, the whole issue of clouds, it just indicates how little we understand the environment and how little we understand the atmosphere, because clouds overall, generally speaking, cause about 10 times more climate change than all human activity combined. If we don't understand clouds very well, and we don't, then how can we tease out of the data the impact of humans? It would be like having a radio signal come into us where we had so much static, there was actually a signal in there somewhere, but we couldn't hear it because there's so much static. That's what's happening right now. I'll just point out one other quick thing. There's a new evolving field called cosmoclimatology. It's based on understanding not just the impact of the sun, but the impact of our position in the galaxy. Believe it or not, that is a driver of climate change. I'll explain how and how it's relevant to today. This is an amazing field. Roger, you're bringing this up, because my next question was going to be Milankovitch cycles, which I assume play into this. No, actually, they don't. Milankovitch cycles are something different. Of course, that has to do with the orientation of the Earth. Yes, and the distance from the sun and our tilt and all of that. I've always understood that that was really what was causing the ice ages, but if I am wrong, please correct me. No, you're completely right. The glacial periods, like the last one 25,000 years ago, which lasted for about 90,000 years, that is largely a function of the Milankovitch cycle, the changing in the ellipse of the Earth's orbit, the changing of our orientation, our axis, things like that. Those are the Milankovitch cycles. This is a totally different thing. It actually operates on much larger timescales, and also much shorter timescales. I'll explain why. Milankovitch cycles, of course, operate over tens of thousands of years. Now, in 2003, a paper was put out called a Phanerozoic Driver of Climate Change. I was given the job at the company I was working for. I was working for a communications company, and we were putting out science communications. My job was to understand this paper well enough to translate it into layman's language. It was written by Dr. Jan Weiser from the University of Ottawa. He's an earth scientist. He's a geologist. He had made a really amazing discovery. He found that over that period of about a half a billion years, the temperature varied in a sinusoidal curve, which massive long periods, periods that would last for tens of millions of years. He wondered, what is it that drives temperature in a sinusoidal curve? Every tens of millions of years, we'd see a new period, a new cycle. He had no idea what it was, but a scientist by the name of Nir Shaviv in Israel was looking at the cosmic ray flux. He was looking at iron isotopes, I understand, and he was seeing actually the same curve. It was showing a cosmic ray flux. Now, cosmic rays are interesting. They're not rays, first of all. They were named at a time when people didn't realize they were actually particles, but if you have a supernova blow up, it throws out lots of stuff into space. Now, it turns out the galactic cosmic rays, when they come into our atmosphere, interact with air molecules and they ionize them and they cause clouds to form. What happens is this, at a conference, and they put their curves on top of each other. Nir Shaviv's curve of galactic cosmic rays and visors curve of temperature, and they match perfectly. What they found was that when galactic cosmic rays were high, we were in very cold periods on the Earth, and this would last for millions of years. These were called cold houses. The arms of our galaxy are what are called density waves. They're not a fixed structure. They're as if you were in a helicopter looking down at a traffic jam in the highway. When we go through the galactic arms, there's a lot more stuff that's close to us. (30:52 - 31:04) It's like we're in a traffic jam. We're closer to nearby supernovas. When we go through the arms of our galaxy, we're actually increasing our galactic cosmic rays. (31:04 - 35:36) That was the curve that Nir Shaviv found. As we went through the arms of the galaxy, it would increase more and more cosmic rays, and then it would be less when we're between the arms of the galaxy. Visor found that when we went through the arms of the galaxy, our temperature was lower, which is exactly what you'd expect, because more galactic cosmic rays, there's more clouds, it would be colder. They realized that there was an actual, not just off-world or off-solar system, there was a galactic driver of climate change on a scale of tens of millions of years. People said, what the heck does that have to do with today's climate change? It's interesting scientifically. Well, it actually has a lot to do with it, because what it showed is that galactic cosmic rays very much affect the Earth's temperature. When the sun is more active, it puts out a stronger magnetic field, and that tends to block off galactic cosmic rays. Two things happen. When the sun is more active, you get more incident radiation, which is called insulation. You get more incoming energy from the sun when the sun is more active. You also get less galactic cosmic rays, because the sun's magnetic field is stronger, the solar wind is stronger, and it tends to block a lot of the galactic cosmic rays coming into our solar system. You actually have less clouds being formed. That magnifies the temperature change that would ordinarily happen only directly because of the sun. Some scientists are saying that most of the warming in the last century could be a function or could be caused simply by the solar effect. Two-thirds of the warming could easily be caused by that. That would only leave about one-third of the warming for all the other factors, including human CO2. They tested in CERN in the laboratory there, in their big accelerators, to see if, in fact, galactic cosmic rays are simulated. They said, yes, it does. It causes clouds. It's not just the long-term ice house, cold house period, the galactic cosmic rays are affecting the Earth and temperature. It's also on the short term, because as the sun is more active, you have less galactic cosmic rays that can hit our atmosphere, you have less clouds, it amplifies the warming. Similarly, when the sun is less active, of course, the Earth would be a little cooler just directly from that, but also you have more galactic cosmic rays that can come in, hit our atmosphere, and form clouds, which magnifies the cooling. So it turns out this is a field called cosmoclimatology, and it can account for most of the warming in the last century. That's a new field, and it is interesting that when the sun was actually quite weak, skies were very cloudy. Now, a lot of people thought that was just artistic license, but the current thinking is that it really was more cloudy in the Little Ice Age, because the sun was less active, and we had more galactic cosmic rays forming clouds. So it's a bit of historical evidence that, yeah, the sun is a major driver of climate. So I want to finish with these really two questions. One, based upon your extensive knowledge of this, and you've studied this in great depth, would there be any temperature change that could happen, even naturally, that would present a real problem for us on any kind of short-term time scale? And two, is there anything that humans could be doing that would cause that? Yes, and the answer is global cooling. It is a very serious threat. The Russians are forecasting out of Pulkovo Observatory near St. Petersburg, they study the sun, and they say the sun is entering into a grand solar minimum around 2060. And any warming that we're causing will be beneficial, because left to its own devices, nature will make us as cold as the Little Ice Age. And it's interesting, because in the 1600s, the Thames River in London, for example, froze a meter thick. They had frost fairs on the Thames River, and in fact, they had oxen on the ice, and it doesn't ever freeze now, even in the winter. The Russians are saying that we're headed for a grand solar minimum when all these different cycles, the 11-year sunspot cycle, you know, longer cycles, iceberg cycles, cycles that last for centuries, they all hit rock bottom around 2060. And they're saying that that will be the predominant effect, the cooling effect. And that, of course, is much more serious for humanity. We look back, as I said, to the Little Ice Age, and that was a bad, bad time to be around. Now, here's where humans might muck it up, and even bring that on sooner. Believe it or not, in the United States, there is free enterprise. (35:36 - 38:16) You know, people are making money at it. You pay a certain amount of money, and they will actually put a certain amount of particles into a balloon that they launch into the atmosphere, and they intentionally then insert it into our upper atmosphere to supposedly stop global warming. And that's a real concern, because if we're naturally heading into a cooling period, if we do too much of that, that could trip us literally into the next glacial, not just the Little Ice Age, but in the next glacial. Now, you have to remember, we're near the end of the natural period of interglacial warm, and so we want that to continue. To me, it's very much like if you took the back off your computer, and you gave a five-year-old a tool set, and you left the power on, and you asked them to fix your computer, I think, you know, you'd probably electrocute the child. Very unlikely they would do your computer any good. We're kind of doing that, okay, with these insertion of particulate matter into the atmosphere to supposedly cool the planet. That is very dangerous, and that is the main concern I have. We have to stop that, and we don't know how much of that is actually happening without our knowledge. I mean, we do know that there's at least one company in the United States where you can actually pay them money, and they will dump particles into the atmosphere. It's probably very trivial, the effect that they're doing at this point, but I mean, you know, the elites around the world, they seriously talk about geo-engineering the planet, actually injecting huge quantities over many years to supposedly stop this climate crisis, and yeah, they could cause very, very big negative effects, and that's what really concerns me. I don't think we have anything to worry about concerning carbon dioxide or global warming, but what we do have to worry about is that the World Economic Forum and other groups may be already injecting stuff into the atmosphere to cool the planet. I mean, people talk about chemtrails, for example, so that is the real concern to me, is that we could trip our climate into the next glacial if we let these people continue. So we have to fight against the whole global warming narrative because it's wrong, and the natural outcome of the global warming narrative would be geo-engineering the planet to cool it down. We don't want to do that. Tom, thank you so much for speaking out, for taking all this time for this interview, and for the evidence you've provided. Please share this interview. This whole global warming narrative, you all understand this is a globalist plot to get greater control. That's what it's all about. It's got nothing to do with science, and the more people we can show the truth to, the more people we arm to just refuse all that bunk and know that they're being lied to. Tom, thank you so much. Okay, thank you.