(0:00 - 0:31) What do you do when you want to sell the public on a narrative that will not stand up to even the most perfunctory scientific questioning? The answer is convince the people that all the questions have already been asked. For years the climate alarmists have been telling us that 97% of scientists agree that man-made global warming is a fact. But of late that narrative has been losing ground as more and more reputable scientists have come forward stating that they do not believe that man-made global warming is an issue. (0:32 - 1:01) And so now the forces behind the climate alarmist agenda are shifting their strategy. Rather than convincing people that the scientists agree, they are now working on a narrative to convince people that the vast majority of other people have not only already accepted man-made causes as a fact, but are willing to give up a substantial portion of their annual income to fight man-made climate change. But of course, as always, they're making it all up. (1:02 - 1:30) Michelle Stirling is the communications manager with the Friends of Science Society, an Alberta-based think tank dedicated to scientific integrity in the climate alarmist narrative. Michelle has extensive experience in marketing, journalism, and advertising and has been following the propaganda efforts of the climate alarmist closely for years. She joins me today to reveal not only how they are working now to advance their false narrative, but where they're headed in the near future. (1:31 - 2:10) And if we do not resist their propaganda, that future will be very bleak for all of us. Michelle, welcome to the show. Thank you so much, Will. Pleased to be here. And as I've said in my introduction, you're with Friends of Science, but you don't focus as much on the science as on the psychosocial aspects of how they're selling this narrative to people. And some of the information you sent to me was, it was shocking even to me, just the degree to which people buy this and how easy it is to get them to buy it. (2:10 - 2:23) I'd like to start by talking about the 89%. Sorry, I'm not really sure what they call the 89% that they say are the people who buy into this. Of course, as always, they're fudging the numbers. (2:24 - 2:50) Give us some information on that, please. Sure. Well, as most people know, in the past, there were several scientific consensus surveys that claimed a 97% of all scientists agree that there's an existential crisis, that human-caused GHG emissions are causing this and we must reduce fossil fuels and climate change is a scary thing. (2:51 - 3:07) Most of those surveys actually don't say that. And they used statisticulation to come up with that 97% number, which means they manipulated the statistics. So now there's a new project, which is going the opposite direction. (3:08 - 3:23) The 97% consensus dealt with the scientific community. This one is dealing with the ordinary citizen, and it's called the 89% project. Now, it's being operated by a group called Covering Climate Now. (3:23 - 3:51) They are an offshoot of the Columbia Journalism Review, and it doesn't really sound like journalism if you're trying to convince people of a certain narrative, and that's what they're trying to do. And they have, just to talk a bit about Covering Climate Now first, they have apparently 500 media organisations signatory to their group. They reach an audience of about 2 billion people. (3:52 - 4:09) So that's an enormous amount of influence in the marketplace. And I first became aware of them some years ago when they started putting out things like this. And notice how nice and orangey red it is. (4:09 - 4:39) And this is their spring 2020 edition of their climate story, the biggest story we have ever known, and we're blowing it. And then inside, they have a helpful interview with the director of Mad Max. And their interview with him was to teach journalists how to make climate fear compelling. (4:41 - 4:48) So, you know, that's also not journalism. I'm just trying to find that page. Well, never mind. (4:48 - 5:10) I can send you a screenshot of it. But it's just shocking to think that that's what they have done as their basis. So now they have come up with this 89% project, and they're advising all of their media signatories to join in a big collaborative effort. (5:10 - 5:27) This time it will be running from, I believe it's like around October 25th into the beginning of November. They want to do a mass media campaign claiming that 89% of the public really want more climate action. And they base it on three surveys that were done. (5:28 - 5:37) So one of them was the People's Climate Vote, which was done by the UN. Another one was by Andre et al. in 2024. (5:38 - 6:00) And a third is the Yale Climate Communications Group. So if I could just refer here to my notes on this, just so that I get it right. So they ran this first for Earth Day this year, but I didn't see a lot of it in Canada. (6:00 - 6:21) It's actually quite interesting. You know, Mark Carney, our new Prime Minister, is Mr. Climate, right? He was the UN Climate Finance Envoy. And he's the guy who put together GFANS and the Net Zero Banking Alliance and a myriad of these kind of big net zero focused climate groups. (6:21 - 6:46) But we've hardly heard a peep from the environmentalists since he's been installed in office. And I think that there was some agreement on that. There was a report in the National Observer back in January when he was first elected as leader of the Liberal Party, that before he was sworn in, he met with leading environmental groups. (6:47 - 6:54) So I suspect that they probably said, you know what, let's not have any green lash. We just won't talk about climate. At least for now. (6:55 - 7:02) At least for now, exactly. So I think that's why it's been so quiet. But now we have this 89% project. (7:03 - 7:39) And I think this is why, in the spring, typical Covering Climate Now signatories in Canada, like the National Observer, Maclean's Magazine, the Tai'i, I think there's a few others, they didn't participate. Anyway, but the 89% project, it's really what's known as a social proof. A social proof is a concept that was created by Robert Cialdini, probably back in maybe the 70s or 80s. (7:39 - 7:47) He's a marketing guy. And so he was looking at how to influence people. In fact, that's the name of his book, Influence. (7:47 - 8:17) And he found that, you know, because people are herd animals, bandwagoning and personal testimonies are very strong motivators for people to join in a cause or to buy, you know, a certain kind of shirt or pair of shoes or fashion for your home or a particular car. So he was using it in a marketing sense. And that's the same application here, but about climate. (8:18 - 8:40) So what they're trying to do is bandwagon the public and tell them, look, everybody wants climate action, and you should lobby your elected members of Parliament for more climate action. And why is that? Because 89% of the world are the silent majority. They all want climate action, and you should too. (8:41 - 8:51) So, you know, so it's a herd mentality. You know, we like to belong. We generally, we like to comply because we like to fit in. (8:51 - 9:05) We don't want to have rough edges and confrontations all the time. You know, it's just our human nature to try and be decent toward each other. Although, of course, in the past few years, that has been kind of ripped apart. (9:06 - 9:17) But, you know, that's kind of a fundamental way of how people are. Also, we don't like to be ostracised. That's what's very interesting about the whole idea of the 97% consensus. (9:18 - 9:37) That 3% who are ostracised, people who are ostracised, they feel that as if it's a physical pain to their body. And this has been shown in research by Kipling D. Williams, who's a psychologist. He calls ostracism the kiss of social death. (9:37 - 9:57) And, you know, people really do feel like they are totally rejected when they are deemed to be deniers instead of compliers. And, you know, we saw that very much so during COVID. But prior to that, it was a fundamental flow within the scientific community. (9:58 - 10:11) So the thing is that these surveys don't rely on facts. They just rely on people's desire to comply. And, you know, there's no rational argument in them. (10:11 - 10:24) So, for instance, the People's Climate Vote, that was in 2024. It was a big UN project. They sampled people in 77 countries, representing 87% of the world's population. (10:24 - 10:42) And they were asked their views on climate change. And Covering Climate Now claims that 89% of the world's population surveyed want their governments to take more climate action. But they never ask questions about the financial factor. (10:42 - 11:05) They never offer evidence about what the benefit would be. So, for instance, this is stepping away from those surveys. But if we look at Canada, if Canada met all of its climate targets, the reduction in warming would be perhaps 0.007 degrees Celsius by 2100. (11:05 - 11:20) That's 0.007 of a degree. And this is according to research by Ross McKitrick in a paper published by the Fraser Institute. So, you know, it's a meaningless, immeasurable amount of reduction in warming. (11:21 - 11:35) Yet we would be spending billions, perhaps trillions of dollars to supposedly achieve that. And yet the public, you know, have been indoctrinated to think that, oh, you know, we're saving the planet. We'll stop global warming. (11:35 - 11:43) We'll stop climate change. We won't have any more of those nasty old storms. And, you know, everything will be perfect. (11:43 - 11:56) But that's not the case. So these kinds of compliance surveys are very powerful in motivating the public. But they're doing so in a very deceiving way. (11:57 - 12:29) So there's another survey by Andre et al., which was published in 2024. And they surveyed 130,000 people in 125 countries. And they say that 69% of the global population expresses a willingness to contribute 1% of their personal income, and 86% endorse pro-climate social norms, 89% demand intensified political action. (12:30 - 12:54) But let's think about that for a minute in the context of Canada. 1% of your annual income, personal income, would be approximately $431 based on an average income in Canada. But in fact, Canadians are spending more like $11,000 on climate action. (12:54 - 13:02) It's just all hidden. You don't see it. But Robert Lyman has done a number of analysis of the various programmes for us. (13:03 - 13:23) And the amounts of money being blown on climate action are staggering for Canadians. And people, you know, people usually equate climate action to the carbon tax, which was burdensome enough. But actually behind the scenes, all these other initiatives are, that's what's destroying our economy and making you poor. (13:24 - 13:52) So anyway, so in that survey, the one of Andre, they never asked about the cost either. And then in the People's Climate Vote, which was the big UN survey that I mentioned first, a lot of the people had never even heard of the term climate change. So you know what they did? They said, for example, 36% of the people in Benin and Haiti had never heard the term. (13:52 - 14:05) So they gave them a one sentence description and the vast majority of them said, oh yes, yes, that's happening here. Yes. And as you pointed out when we were just talking earlier, we don't know what that sentence was. (14:05 - 14:07) Right. Or haven't told us. Right. (14:07 - 14:25) And also, you know, climate change is not measured on short timescales. Like extreme weather events have always been part of our lives and always will be. So climate change is measured on 30, 50, 100 year millennial timescales. (14:25 - 14:37) It's not measured on what's happening today. That's weather. So it has to be statistically significant changes in patterns of weather that make up climate over a long period of time. (14:37 - 14:58) So I want to jump in with a very important observation. I'm sorry to interrupt you, but you've said something very, very important there talking about climate versus weather. And I'm sure if viewers think about this, they will notice that in the last 15 to 20 years, if it's unusually cold, it's weather, but if it's unusually hot, it's climate. (14:59 - 15:13) These are the terms that the media uses. That's right. And you know, these groups like Covering Climate Now are responsible for that because they're writing little dialogues and narratives for the media and the media pick them up and use them. (15:14 - 15:40) So, so anyway, so yeah, none of the People's Climate Votes questions were qualitative. None of them provided a factual context for the question. And there's a survey, or not a survey, there's a report by Michael Cembalest. (15:41 - 16:06) He is an energy analyst with JP Morgan, and he's been doing this for like 30 years or something. And in that report, he said that we've spent $9 trillion globally in the past decade on wind, solar, electric vehicles, energy storage, electrified heat, and the power grids. But the renewable transition is still linear. (16:06 - 16:44) It's flat. Renewable share of final energy consumption is slowly advancing at 0.3 to 0.6% per year, which is nothing. So just imagine if we took that fact of the $9 trillion spent and asked the same people in these surveys, do you think that spending $9 trillion on these renewable things is good investment? Or should it be spent on, you know, creating jobs, bumping up healthcare facilities and services, schools, you know, is it. (16:44 - 17:04) And especially given that, along with that $9 trillion and the linear progression, I believe he also pointed out that it's actually cost jobs. Yes, it does cost jobs. Like there's a report that Robert Lyman did for us a couple of years ago called a green jobs rhetoric or reality. (17:04 - 17:18) And the thing is that they found in Europe for every one green job, 2.2 real jobs, conventional jobs were lost. So that's not a good track record. We don't want that. (17:19 - 17:37) Anyway, and also, you know, there's a good book by Bjorn Lomborg that would put all of these people and their 89% project to rest if they would only read it. Which is called a false alarm. How climate change panic costs us all trillions, hurts the poor and fails to fix the planet. (17:38 - 18:09) And Bjorn Lomborg, just so you know, he's what we would call a warmist. He agrees that humans are causing climate change and global warming, but he thinks we should simply adapt to it and, you know, and try and use our money wisely. Um, we, you know, a lot of people in our side of the discussion would not agree with his views of global warming and climate change as being caused to that extent by human beings. (18:10 - 18:28) But, you know, at least he's a fairly rational person and he backs up all of his books and statements with lots of research, which is something that covering climate now people don't do. Right. Now, in everything you've told us, Michelle, there's a number of things to be unpacked. (18:28 - 18:50) And the one that comes to my mind first is 89%. It's a very convenient figure, isn't it? 89% is it's a large enough number that it sounds like the vast majority of people are on board with this while leaving 11%. So if you encounter someone who doesn't agree, someone like you or I, they'll think, okay, well, they're just one of those people who haven't quite figured it out yet. (18:50 - 19:01) So we know that they're crafting things to come up with this number. But the thing I'm curious about, and I think you can probably comment on this. They tried it with 97% of scientists. (19:01 - 19:18) And I think one of the reasons why they've shifted to this 89% project and social proof, as you said, is because that 97% narrative was, at least from my perspective, crumbling. There was more and more people coming out saying, well, I'm a scientist and I don't agree with it. So now they've shifted gears. (19:19 - 19:56) Do you think that's what's going on? That they're very carefully crafting these numbers? Oh, I'm pretty sure they are. And the reason being also with the 97% consensus, that was one of the first things that we did when I first started working with Friends of Science is I said to my colleagues, you know, what's with this 97% consensus? How can they run four or five different surveys and all come up with the same number? And I think it was Ken Gregory, our research director said, well, they made it happen. I'm like, what do you mean? So then we looked at all the data of these surveys and we found that, in fact, they had made it happen. (19:56 - 20:12) They had contrived it. I think many people will remember Al Gore in his famous movie where he's walking around on stage and saying, you know, 928 scientists agree. You might as well say it's 100%. (20:13 - 20:40) And he was referring to Naomi Oreskes' survey, which was probably the first 97% consensus survey. Well, if you actually go into the figures and break it all down, I think there were maybe 13% that actually agreed and 47% had no point of view whatsoever. But you have to actually read through all the papers to see that. (20:40 - 20:56) And Oreskes had only read the abstract and anything that mentioned climate change. Well, you know, climate change is a natural function. So if you're a geologist, you'll be writing all kinds of papers about climate change, but related to mother nature. (20:56 - 21:14) So you can't count those in the anthropogenic category. And in other regards to ways that they're fudging numbers, and you said this earlier, I'm going to have to ask you to say it again. It was the question that was asked in a certain percentage of countries that were supposed to represent a certain percentage of the population. (21:14 - 21:33) What were the figures on that again, Michelle? Let me just look at that again, because I cannot remember it off the top of my head. Okay. So in the people's climate vote, they sampled people in 77 countries representing 87% of the world's population. (21:33 - 21:40) Right. And that was the UN published people's climate vote. Right. (21:40 - 21:52) So this is another way in which they manipulate numbers so that people who aren't educated in statistics will buy it. So 77 countries representing 80, what was it? 87% of the world's population. 87% of the world's population. (21:53 - 22:06) All they're saying there is that those 77 countries contain 87% of the world's population. They're not telling us which people in those countries they asked. They could have cherry picked the people they asked. (22:06 - 22:23) And so one does not follow from the other at all. Those numbers are a complete fiction to anybody who understands the most basic things about statistics. And yet, once again, because most people don't have an education in that, they hear this and they think, oh, well, just about everybody agrees. (22:23 - 22:30) Therefore I should do. Right. And we have no idea of the people's backgrounds in those countries. (22:30 - 22:47) You know, let's say they asked all the climate activists in those countries. You know, they would obviously be on board. Did they ask sceptical people? Did they give them credence? And again, you can look at the survey and see how they framed everything. (22:47 - 22:59) They have quite a colourful infographic version of it online. So, you know, you can go through and have a look. And again, the thing is, it's just an opinion survey. (22:59 - 23:04) You know, science is about evidence. It's about data. It's not about people's opinions. (23:05 - 23:15) What did, it was Dr. Nir Shaviv in one of our video interviews. He said, science is not a democracy. Science is about evidence. (23:16 - 23:39) You know, so when you, whether you're saying it's 97% of scientists or 89% of the public, it doesn't matter because what's the evidence? Yes. Now I think there's some good news here though, because it was very obvious to me when I was looking at the covering climate now website that they're encountering. I think some substantial resistance to their message. (23:39 - 24:11) There was an excellent article on there, or I thought very revealing article, which talked about news avoidance. And that is this way to say now 40% of people are avoiding the news because it's so depressant because it's so full of fear-mongering. And this almost kind of thing, I think gets back to what you were mentioning earlier from that first red book there, the greatest story we've ever known, where they're interviewing the director of Mad Max in order to find out how to market this in a way that will get people to pay attention. (24:12 - 24:23) So they created their own problem. There's so much fear-mongering that people don't want to hear it anymore. And so now they have to try to overcome that barrier as well. (24:24 - 24:34) And I guess I think where I'm going with this is if they keep doing this, they're going to get to a point where they can throw all the statistics they want out. Nobody's listening. That's right. (24:35 - 24:41) Yeah. I mean, look at this, you know, so this, I did find that page. And so they were always looking for the allegory. (24:41 - 24:57) And this is the dystopian page where in that tiny little quote, they say the director of Mad Max tells Kyle Pope how to make climate fear compelling. Well, that's not reporting. No, it's propaganda. (24:57 - 25:09) It's propaganda. Exactly. And then they go on to say, oh, well, they interviewed him also when there was a lot of bushfires going on in Australia and he's in Australia. (25:10 - 25:37) And apparently the Mad Max dystopian franchise helped transform the climate crisis into Hollywood terror. So he was, in the interview, he's, you know, talking about how climate change is killing people. I mean, the number of times just casually I've heard the word apocalyptic, it really gets to people. (25:38 - 26:07) Well, most of the Australian bushfires, first of all, they're quite cyclical in that part of the world. And also a lot of them are driven by field load, just as they are in North America, where, you know, if you leave trees deadfall to rot in the forest, then you just gave a spark, a big life. And if you clear out that deadwood, then there's nothing to burn. (26:07 - 26:21) So the forest fire will not be very intense and it won't go very far. But in recent years, forest management has fallen by the wayside. And of course, the environmentalists in general, you know, you can't take that tree down. (26:22 - 26:29) I don't care if it's dead. It's natural if it just falls in the forest and goes back to the earth. Well, yeah, it's natural. (26:29 - 26:44) But if you want to have a community near that natural fallen tree and all of its fallen friends, then you're going to have a big bonfire and it'll probably burn your house down. So get out there and clear it out. But, you know, there's so many regulations against it. (26:46 - 27:20) And actually, ironically, on that topic of wildfires, we just did a video that will be going up probably today, you know, about the situation down in Nova Scotia. Part of the reason why they locked out people from the forest is that there's so much deadfall there that if a forest fire took off, nobody could be rescued, you know, because they have all these walking trails, you couldn't get in there and rescue people. But if you look at how much money Nova Scotia, a small little province, is spending on climate change, it's a fortune. (27:20 - 27:40) You're spending like $165 million on wind and clean energy and $50 million on something else, $14 million on something else. They've got a green research fund. And yet, you know what they did? They allotted $3.9 million for wildfire preparedness. (27:40 - 27:57) Yes. I did a very extensive interview with Peter Mac Isaac, who lives in Nova Scotia and who spent many years as a fire investigator and firefighter. And yes, he reveals many things in the Nova Scotia narrative that make no sense whatsoever. (27:58 - 28:19) But, and I want to get back to that in a bit, Michelle, but first I think there's, we've been talking about the 89% project and the, you know, the 95 war, I guess, against the people. But there's another element of this and that's the climate cartel, the people who are making money from this. I think we need to cover that as well, but you're the expert. (28:20 - 28:42) So there's, you know, once again, some very suspicious things going on. Right. Well, the climate cartel, as it's called by the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, the Republican House Judiciary Committee on Antitrust Violations, is, it's an investigation they've been, they've had going on for two or three years now, maybe more. (28:42 - 29:18) They've interviewed thousands of people, and they have like two or three million documents. And they found that what's happened with groups like the Glasgow Alliance for Financial, the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero, GFANS, that was Mark Carney's baby at COP26 in Glasgow. So they put together a big conglomerate of all of the financial bodies that were going to push their investees to reach net zero. (29:18 - 29:45) But not only they, there's also other groups that piled on. There's a group called CERES, which is kind of, it's spelled with a C, it's kind of a shareholder proxy organisation, I believe. There's a number of ENGOs that these groups fund, and they all work collaboratively to pressure companies to reach net zero. (29:45 - 30:04) So the asset managers like BlackRock, let's say they invest in a company, and then they'll say, by the way, we want you to come up with a net zero plan. So the company comes up with a net zero plan. They know it's impossible, but they come up with what they think sounds reasonable to reduce emissions. (30:05 - 30:21) And then a shareholder group will show up and say, well, we don't think your plan is sufficient. And maybe the company will say, well, you know, actually we did the best we could. And, oh, we don't think that it's realistic to ask for more. (30:22 - 30:34) And they'll say, well, you know what, maybe we should replace people on your board of directors who are more compliant. And they actually do that. They did that with ESSO, and they also have, with Exxon, sorry. (30:35 - 31:42) They also have, the House Judiciary Committee also has another report that's specifically about that attack on Exxon. So anyway, these groups are, the climate cartel, in the opinion of the House Judiciary Committee, has actually declared war on the American way of that is actually trying to destroy the things that we love, the freedom to travel by plane, by car, the food that we eat, the farming communities, and everything that we enjoy, all the freedoms we enjoy, they are actively trying to destroy it. And when you read the report, you just shake your head and say, how can it be? So of course, the U.S. House Judiciary Committee is interested in the antitrust violation aspect of this, because in the States, it's against the law for groups to gang up on companies and try and force them, coerce them into doing something that's against the shareholders' interest and against the interest of the public. (31:43 - 32:14) They have a whole section in there on flying, on aviation, and how these groups, and I think we see this in the market right now, but how these groups are telling their invested companies, I mean, this is what's so crazy. They're invested in the aviation group, and yet they come to them and they say, we want you to cancel your reward air miles programmes. We want you to tell people that they can't fly if there's a rail service equivalent for a two-hour or short flight. (32:15 - 32:58) We want you to reduce your jet fuel use back to 2019 levels. We want you to make people buy carbon credits, make the tickets more expensive, make it less desirable to fly. And there's actually this really powerful piece by Rep. Thomas Massie, who's quite an outspoken fellow in the States. Anyway, he's asking one of these asset manager types, I forget who he's interviewing at that time, but he's saying, you know, what is demand management? And then he rattles off the things that I just said. And he said, you know, you can't do that. (32:58 - 33:08) It doesn't matter how noble your cause is, it's against the law. Yes. And the penalties, the penalties for antitrust violations are huge. (33:08 - 33:23) Like they're in the hundreds of millions of dollars and possible jail term. So, you know, people say, oh, the net zero banking alliance fell apart because of Trump. You know, G fans fell apart because of Trump. (33:23 - 33:39) No, no, this all started way before Trump. They fell apart because they realised, hey, we're going to get sued big time. And in fact, Texas is suing BlackRock and State Street and Vanguard for antitrust violations. (33:40 - 33:58) Now that brings me to, I think, an extremely important question, Michelle, because there is something about this whole climate cartel that doesn't make sense. These are, yes, the wealthiest of the wealthiest, yes. As you said, companies like BlackRock and Vanguard, and they're supposedly in business to make money. (33:59 - 34:21) But I myself actually worked for one of the major oil companies in Canada for about a year. And as long as the oil price per barrel is reasonable, the oil and gas industry has always been very profitable. Whereas as we've revealed already, or you've revealed in this interview, the green, um, you know, uh, energy industry is not profitable. (34:21 - 34:34) It loses money like you wouldn't believe. And they get that money from governments and investors who are never going to see that money again. And yet these people, the ones who control companies like BlackRock and Vanguard are the ones who are pushing all of this. (34:35 - 34:54) The ones who are breaking the law to push this, the ones who are engineering these stories that make no sense, which says to me, there has to be another incentive here than money. Well, you know, it's hard to know what that is. Uh, I mean, there, there is the whole theme of the world economic forum, you know, you'll own nothing. (34:54 - 35:09) So that could be part of it. Um, it could be that there are some kind of, uh, super funds out there, hedge funds that are betting on the downside for some of these things. Uh, I don't really understand the stock market. (35:09 - 36:06) I just know that, you know, if you look at the short, uh, on the subprime mortgage, if you watch that movie or read the book, uh, or if you read the book, uh, what's it called? Uh, Liar's Poker by Michael, Michael Lewis, is it? Um, about his days on the trading bench, you realise, wow, you know, the financial markets have all kinds of strange things happen where they buy and sell, uh, in ways that we as ordinary citizens would never dream of. And, uh, I guess kind of an example would be, uh, I think it was in the 1980s, George Soros nearly bankrupted Britain because of this kind of financial market manipulation. Um, I think you should read about it yourself. (36:06 - 36:15) It's, it's out there. You can look it up. But I, and I saw an interview with him once and, and somebody criticised him for that. (36:15 - 36:24) And he said, well, you know, it's legal to do this. So I did it. And he said, if you don't like the fact that I did it, then maybe you should change the law. (36:24 - 36:34) But until you do, people will continue to do this kind of thing. So I suspect that there's stuff like that going on. Um, you know, we don't know. (36:34 - 36:51) I think that's a very good point. And I actually hadn't considered that because I'm not hugely financially knowledgeable myself, but yes, if they were selling short, they would make incredible fortunes off of getting all those trillions of dollars of investments and then having it all crash and burn and go bankrupt. Great. (36:51 - 37:23) I mean, we'll look at the recent episodes with the battery companies, the EV battery companies. And I can't say this with authority. I don't have evidence to back it up, but if we use this particular principle that we just discussed, so the, the government of Canada comes to these, um, companies and says, we're going to invest 40, $50 million in two or three or four of you during a certain time period there, there would certainly be like a bump in stock value. (37:23 - 37:39) Everybody would go, wow, this is great. So, you know, the value would go up. And then as the company starts to go bankrupt, the value would drop to nothing, right? But in that middle period near the top, somebody could make a lot of money. (37:40 - 37:57) Good. So now I want to get back to those wildfires and Nova Scotia, which really is the first place in, uh, at least North America where we have had actual climate lockdowns. You can't go into the forest, 25, $28,000 fines if you do. (37:57 - 38:22) And it's all being fed by this climate alarmist narrative, which Peter Mac Isaac completely destroyed in the interview that I did with him on that. So that's part of the agenda as well, is convincing people of this false story so that they will give up their rights and freedoms willingly. Uh, well, I kind of differ on that subject. (38:22 - 38:48) I did, uh, I have three articles of my own unrelated to the science on my sub stack about that. And really, I think what happened is after the Jasper wildfire, I'm thinking that the tourism insurance industry probably took a second look at, you know, wildfire risk situations and said, we're not going to cover that. You know, if you guys do this, we're not going to cover that. (38:48 - 39:01) So, uh, you know, if you look at Jasper, 25,000 people ran for their lives and they were lucky to get out. Just imagine, God forbid, just imagine that they'd all died. Yes. (39:01 - 39:19) It's, it's quite possible that that could have happened. They could have been trapped. So, um, now if we look at, that's 25,000 in Jasper, one location, and there were many, many people being guided out of the back country. (39:20 - 39:34) They didn't even know there was a fire happening. So people went out and found them and thank God, you know, they had, everybody usually leaves some kind of a plan with the ranger station when they go hiking. So people have an idea of where they would be. (39:35 - 39:55) Anyway, they sent a lot of guides out to get people out. They sent helicopters to airlift people out, and lots of them, but still we're talking 25,000 people. Nova Scotia, I understand this time of year has about 250,000 tourists, and most of them come there to hike those trails. (39:56 - 40:06) But once you're on a trail, you can't be seen, you know, nobody can find you. Nobody knows where you are along that trail. You've got tree canopy on most of them. (40:06 - 40:17) You would have tree canopy over. So, you know, and if a wildfire took off, there's no way that you could rescue those people. They wouldn't even know what was happening. (40:18 - 40:45) The other thing that we, I work with a forestry guy who's got lots of experience in this area, and he said that, you know, the wildfire fighting capacities were stretched to the maximum at that time, and I think they still are. So, you know, they, I think they have three helicopters there in Nova Scotia. One of them crashed a pilot. (40:45 - 41:28) So, you know, all of the wildfire resources were mostly out east, I mean, out west in BC, northern Manitoba, northern Saskatchewan, and then all of the wildfires started taking off in Newfoundland and Labrador. And, you know, we have to remember, it was, I think it was October of 1825 when the great Murimichi wildfire occurred, killed somewhere between 160 to 300 people, which at that time would have been a huge proportion of the population, wiped out several communities. You know, this is that time of year when things are so dry. (41:28 - 42:01) And if you don't have huge wildfire fighting resources and huge search and rescue resources, you know, then probably I'm guessing that the insurance company said to Nova Scotia, don't let anybody in those woods. And I think there might be some credibility to what you're saying, but there's another element to it also has to be understood. And this is something I learned from Peter Mac Isaac, is the reason why their firefighting capabilities are stretched to the limit is because they have very consciously gutted them in recent years. (42:02 - 42:31) In fact, the person in the Nova Scotia government who is now in charge of forest fire management has zero experience in that area, none whatsoever. Just as one example for the viewers right now, they used to have one of those large bell helicopters, which, you know, that you would see used in Vietnam war, where they've got machine gunners and that was their primary firefighting tool where they could bring in rapid response teams, get them on the ground where they could shut down fires before they started to spread. The helicopter itself could also carry a fair amount of water. (42:32 - 42:39) They got rid of it. And the three helicopters they have now aren't capable of doing that. So they no longer have a rapid response team on the ground. (42:40 - 42:54) They also got rid of all of their own, uh, they took, they tore down all of their fire towers, their watchtowers. And said, well, we're going to, we're going to rely on people hiking with their cell phones to tell us if there's a fire. But of course, now those people aren't allowed to go into the woods. (42:54 - 43:18) So there is absolutely no monitoring. So as I say, I think there may be some credence to your idea that the insurance companies might've had a say in this, but the Nova Scotia government has absolutely done everything possible to A, see to it that there will be unchecked fires and B, see to it that they do not have the resources to actually fight those fires. Hmm. (43:19 - 43:50) Well, certainly if they're only applying 3.9 million, they spent 95 million on, on, on, uh, snow clearing. So, you know, that that's basically my argument and, and also my colleague, who's the forestry expert is that we should treat wildfire season like it's winter, you know, in winter people get their coats ready, they get their cars ready, they get the shovels out. They, um, you know, the, the roads can be closed in winter and almost no one will try to evade the police and go around it. (43:50 - 44:12) One or two people will, but most people will say, you know what? Yeah, maybe I'll stay home if it's that bad. Um, but we don't treat wildfire season like it's winter, you know, people don't fire smart their homes and properties, communities don't. I mean, there was recently, I think it was last fall, the urban fire chiefs are now concerned about urban wildfires. (44:13 - 44:40) That's a potential reality. I mean, look at Calgary last year with the water main break, you know, all the trees were dying, grass was dying, you know, people's lawns were all dry. If there's not enough water in an urban community and if people haven't fire smarted their homes, you know, you could have a pretty catastrophic episode that would take out a whole neighbourhood. (44:42 - 44:54) So, um, you know, people just are not preparing for it. People are still planting trees and bushes right up against their house. And as long as they're all green and as long as there's lots of water, it's not maybe a problem. (44:54 - 45:06) But the minute there's a wildfire, it's a problem because there goes your house. So we should treat wildfire season like it's winter. We should be prepared for it. (45:06 - 45:21) And we're not, you know, every year it's kind of like, oh my God, look, there's a big wildfire and it's happening in May. That's so early. Well, no, after the Slave Lake wildfire, which was actually started by arson, that was back in 2011. (45:22 - 45:43) The Alberta government did a very significant review and report called the Flat Top Fire Complex Review. I think a lot of people haven't read it because it's got that name that doesn't sound similar to Slave Lake. But in it, they found out that everyone was preparing for wildfire in the hot season, you know, July and August. (45:44 - 46:15) But actually, wildfire season starts in April. And that's if you look at the historical data, the biggest wildfires, certainly in Alberta, but mostly in Canada, start in May. And most of them right at the end of April, then they take off into May because it's that shoulder season when if we haven't had enough snow in winter and we don't get early rain, then there's this dry period, very dry period. (46:15 - 46:39) And that's when one little spark can just take right off. It's also often when we have, you know, these kind of omega blocks where the jet stream kind of blocks in a weather pattern. So there's hot, dry wind blowing up from the south and there's nothing we can do about it at a time when it's very dry to begin with. (46:40 - 46:47) So those, anyway, blah, blah, blah. You've provided us with excellent information today, Michelle. Thank you. (46:47 - 46:59) I'm going to ask as a final question. I know this is a challenging one, but please do your best with it because you follow all of this very closely and the narrative does evolve over time. Their strategies evolve over time. (46:59 - 47:21) They keep trying different things. What would you think is probably the next move or moves that they're going to make? Well, I'd say there are two moves, actually three, three things that I think are going to happen. One, I think that your idea of the climate lockdowns is quite real. (47:22 - 47:57) In September of 20, 2019, 2021, just before the convoy, actually, in September, there was an article in Journal Metro which was promoting the idea of using COVID-style lockdowns to address the climate emergency. So, you know, restrictions on travel, rationing of goods, all kinds of things like that. And they were promoting it in the Overton window as if this is like a great idea. (47:57 - 48:15) So I think that that's a very real possibility. I did a webinar with Alberta Prosperity Project on that. And on that same link, there's a thing called the Exponential Roadmap. (48:15 - 48:30) They want to cut emissions in half every decade. So to do that, that means that you can't fly, you can't drive your car, you can't have steak for supper, et cetera, et cetera. And they're working on it. (48:30 - 48:44) That's what the climate cartel is doing. And also, I want to jump in with another fact that's very relevant to what you just said. There's quite a number of major airports in Europe that are scheduled to be shut down in the coming years to achieve their climate goals. (48:45 - 48:57) Right, exactly. And in Europe, they already have implemented that rule that if you want to fly someplace that's two hours away, you can't. The airline will not sell you a ticket. (48:57 - 49:09) You have to go by train. So then the other thing is that they want to instal a global price on carbon. And they've been working on this for a long, long time. (49:09 - 49:23) A fellow named Johan Rockström, originally with the Stockholm Resilience Centre, has a whole video on it. I can send you a link so that your viewers can have a look at it. But he thinks there should be a global carbon tax law. (49:24 - 49:53) And that there should be a global price on carbon. And back in the fall of 2023, Prime Minister Trudeau and Minister Guilbeault were both at UN Climate Week, which is coming up next week, actually, this year. And they took with them, who? They took the fire assistant fire chief of Halifax and the fire chief of Kelowna. (49:53 - 50:16) And of course, 2023 was a year we had huge wildfires. So they brought them there as witnesses to the fact that the wildfires were evidence of climate change in Canada, and there should be a $65 global price on carbon. So they were exploiting the wildfires, which had nothing to do with climate change, to try and push this global price on carbon. (50:17 - 50:49) But I just saw another note come up the other day on the Financial Times, where they were saying that a global price on carbon is supposedly going to be part of the mandate at the conference of the party, the COP conference that will take place in Belém, Brazil, in November. Now, in addition to that, the other thing that I think they're trying to do, or I know they're trying to do, is to establish nature-based climate solutions in Canada. There's a whole website devoted to that. (50:50 - 51:11) And as part of it, we would have Indigenous land guardians, fire keepers, air guardians, etc. And basically, the idea is to maintain a pristine area of Canada and sell carbon credits on it. This is already going on in the Great Bear Rainforest Project. (51:11 - 51:28) It's going on with the Nature Conservancy's Darkwoods Project. And I think they want to basically sell all of Canada, including our wetlands and our oceans, our lakes, the tundra, everything. They want to cash in as carbon credits. (51:28 - 51:47) And interestingly enough, guess who's got a sustainability platform for it? Yes, I would. Charles. King Charles has got Terra Carta, where basically Terra Carta makes nature, Mother Nature, have dominance over people. (51:50 - 52:29) So you need the price on carbon to make it worthwhile, right? And you need a scary forecast as well. That's something that we just covered in a letter to the Alberta Securities Commission, that the Network for Greening the Financial System, which is all of the big central banks, they're actually using a wildly exaggerated climate damage model. That, of course, by using this climate damage function model, it would bump up the price of carbon to like about $800 a tonne in the worst case scenario. (52:29 - 52:46) So, you know, you can see all these forces are moving in the back. Like the Network for Greening the Financial System is also part of that climate cartel. Um, so, uh, these things are coming and we have to be alert to them and push back. (52:46 - 53:05) And, and one other thing I want to mention, people probably don't know, but there are what they call nudge units in Canada, big nudge units. An interview very recently with a gentleman named Gary Sidley, who's a psychologist from Great Britain, and it was entirely on nudging. Oh, great. (53:05 - 53:08) I'd love to have that link. That sounds great. I will send it to you. (53:08 - 53:28) Yes. Well, there's a nudge unit out at UBC and it's funded by Canadians for Innovation or something like that, Innovation Fund. And on their Innovation Fund page, they actually listed that they had $1.2 billion doled out for changing climate change behaviour. (53:29 - 54:13) And the Western Standard recently reported that there was a $702 million nudge unit operating for the Privy Council. So there's quite a few of these and, you know, they're just trying to psychoanalyse the public and like the 89% project, going back to our original point, you know, trying to make you comply, trying to find a way to make it convenient for you to comply, to make it rewarding, to make you feel, you know, better, even though they first make you feel guilty. So all these things are all coming together and we have to be aware and fight back. (54:14 - 54:22) Yeah, indeed we do. Michelle, thank you so much for your time today, for the excellent research that you've done, the information you've given us. Folks, you can find out lots more at the Friends of Science website. (54:22 - 54:26) You'll find a link beneath this interview. Thank you, Michelle. Thank you. (54:27 - 54:28) Thanks very much.