(0:00 - 0:14) The climate alarmist narrative is being used to destroy our economy and frighten people into giving up their freedoms. But the entire narrative is false. Which is a diplomatic way of saying it's a pack of lies. (0:15 - 0:39) A collection of falsified, misrepresented and cherry-picked data to convince people that man-made CO2 emissions are going to cause a runaway greenhouse gas effect that will kill us all. And sadly, it's working. Largely because dissenting voices, those who cite the real scientific facts that completely debunk the narrative, are censored and silenced. (0:40 - 0:54) But the truth, as they say, is out there. There have been many books written by scientists debunking the global warming lie. But one of the best recent books comes not from a scientist, but a politician. (0:55 - 1:36) Frank Lasee, a former Wisconsin representative and senator, and now the president of Truth and Energy and Climate, has written the most well-rounded book I have yet read on real climate science. Frank's book, Climate and Energy Lies: Expensive, Dangerous and Destructive, thoroughly destroys the climate alarmist pseudo-scientific narrative, while also addressing the politics of climate change. Who's behind it? And what do they stand to gain? In this two-part interview, Frank, in this, part one, will show you the real science that utterly destroys the false man-made global warming lie. (1:37 - 1:55) In part two, coming next week, Frank discloses the various parties behind this narrative, and what they stand to gain from it. Frank, welcome to the show. Thanks for having me on. (1:55 - 2:23) It was a real pleasure reading your book. And I know that I'm going to have viewers who are going to wonder, well, why do I have a former politician, a senator, and a representative talking about climate change? And your book was, and I have interviewed scientists in the past who are debunking the climate narrative. First of all, I have to say that your book was by far the most well-rounded argument against that I have yet had the pleasure to read. (2:24 - 2:47) And secondly, because your background is as a politician, your degree is in history, not in any of the supposed climate sciences, you've demonstrated with the research you've done in this book that you've written, that anybody can understand the science of this to the point where they can be completely convinced that everything they're being told is a false narrative. You don't have to be a scientist. You just have to do your homework. (2:48 - 2:57) So once again, Frank, thanks so much for your time today and for this excellent book you've written. Oh, thanks for having me on. This is such an important topic because energy, well, energy is all. (2:57 - 3:10) I mean, without energy, we don't have a modern society at all. And people take it for granted, although less so now because it keeps getting more expensive and more unreliable, the electricity does anyway. So these are really important topics. (3:10 - 3:24) And that's why I wrote the book. When I served in the legislature, I always felt the government should work for us. And I really believe in the kind of the Republican form of government where they elected me and then I would make decisions for my district on if they knew what I knew. (3:24 - 3:39) So it was my job to research the issues. And then after I did that, I headed the Hartman Institute as their president. And a good part of what they do, they're a free market think tank that largely focuses on marketing ideas, free market ideas to state legislators across the country and national. (3:40 - 4:00) And then I headed up the Truth in Energy and Climate. And people, you can get my weekly Energy and Climate newsletter by signing up online. And also we try, what I attempt to do and our organization does is to make this purposely complicated or, you know, there's a consensus, don't even talk about it, sort of topic into something that regular people can understand. (4:00 - 4:05) So I translate that with good sources. Right. And as you and I have discussed, we're going to do this. (4:05 - 4:22) It's a two part interview today. What we're going to do is we're going to debunk the supposed climate science and show people just the whole house of cards that it's all built on. And then in part two, we're going to discuss the agenda behind it, the politics, the organizations that are pushing this agenda and why they're doing that. (4:23 - 4:33) So let's get into the science. And where I'd like to start is with these climate models that are, well, quite frankly, there's no blunter way of putting it. They're complete fabrication. (4:35 - 5:06) So please inform us about these climate models that they're using to tell us, well, we're all going to die when the earth gets too hot from too much CO2. Well, first of all, there's many out there and they take a lot of data input. So if you've got junk data going in, you get junk data coming out, or you have incomplete data going in would be more accurate because the weather system, and my book covers it, is very complicated with a lot, literally hundreds, if not thousands, of interacting parts that make the weather of our earth. (5:06 - 5:15) And climate is just long term weather patterns. And climate is always changing and it always will. So when people say, do you believe in climate change? Absolutely. (5:16 - 5:32) And I can tell you in my own life that when I was younger, we had in Wisconsin, we had colder winters and hotter summers. You could count on July and August getting a week or two of 90 degree plus weather, sometimes 100 degrees. And in the winters, you could count on below zero weather for a week or two. (5:33 - 5:38) You just got it. And that's Fahrenheit, not Celsius, folks. So it's colder than you're zero. (5:38 - 5:52) And these sort of things have changed and they're going to keep changing. And I'm also looking back and reflecting, I've seen, we have Halloween, we celebrate that. So people go out and get candy. (5:52 - 5:57) We go with our kids. So I've been doing that my whole life. I've seen it where it's been 70 degrees and beautiful. (5:57 - 6:07) And I've also seen it when it's snow and freezing. And that's just one random October 31st every year. But weather is always changing and it always will. (6:07 - 6:23) So they feed a lot of data into these climate models. And I think they're intentionally designed to predict hotter future weather than in the past, or future weather. And they also are designed, the other problem with them is they really can't post predict. (6:23 - 6:36) So any good model should be able to take historical data we already have and match it from the model. And they don't do that either. And this screen that you're seeing now, this charts all the various different climate models. (6:36 - 7:04) And then real world satellite data and real world measured data is much lower. So they're intentionally run hot. And the reason, one reason is you really can't use computers to predict it, is that Professor Will Happer, Dr. Will Happer, a physicist who studied climate in depth, he says that weather or the clouds and water vapor, water vapor and clouds provide 95% of the greenhouse effect. (7:04 - 7:22) And clouds are very unpredictable. And also recently, we've had a lot more water vapor ejected into the atmosphere with just a couple years ago, the Hanga Tonga volcano went off, but it increased the water vapor about 15% in the upper atmosphere. And I think that's filtering down into the lower atmosphere, making it a bit warmer. (7:22 - 7:32) But contrary to what you would think, what logic would say is, well, more water vapor, you'll get more clouds. Well, we have a little bit less clouds too. So very hard to predict. (7:32 - 7:44) They're always moving. And at any time, more than half of our planet generally is covered by clouds. And clouds are important because they reflect the sunlight during the day, which makes the planet cooler, offsetting that water vapor in the atmosphere. (7:45 - 7:59) And then at night, they tend to hold the heat in and make our days warmer. And I've studied the data temperatures, the non-cooked data temperatures and the cooked data temperatures. And we'll get into that a little bit later, because they are changing the temperatures both historically and going forward. (8:01 - 8:16) Interestingly, cooling the past and warming the present since about 2008. NOAA and NASA have been caught doing this, but nobody seems to care. But the weather we have, what I would term right now is we have milder climate. (8:16 - 8:29) And I think most people who are older think about it. My experience from being a kid, we don't have as hot of summers as the 1930s or the 1950s or the 1970s. And we don't have as cold winters as we used to have either. (8:29 - 8:48) So we have a milder climate. So if it's not as hot during the day and not as cold during the night, you average that temperature, because that's what they do, average the high and low, you're going to get a slightly warmer temperature. And they're creating a lot of alarm out of something that I would suggest that milder weathers, particularly in the northern climates, are a good thing. (8:49 - 9:01) You're right. And one of the ways that they deceive people with these climate models is the very language that is used. If you watch the weather, the news, notice that if it's unseasonably hot, it's climate. (9:01 - 9:14) But if it's unseasonably cold, it's weather. And these words are used interchangeably, but they're not the same thing. As you've already mentioned, weather is short term. (9:14 - 9:30) And it's so complex that even with the computers that we have today, you can't find a weather forecast that's more than 14 days out. And even that one's a real coin toss as to what's actually going to happen over that time period. So the complexity of it is unreal. (9:31 - 9:42) So equating weather with climate is already creating a deception in people's minds because they are not the same thing. Climate is things that happens over very, very long periods of time. And you've been talking about cooking the data. (9:43 - 10:04) And I'm going to throw out just one example that I happen to know of, and I know you're aware of this as well, the work of Norwegian scientist, Dr. Jørgen Peder Steffensen, who has done ice cores from Greenland. And he's got charts showing from those ice cores, they can tell what the global temperatures are. Rather, let's be more accurate, the Greenland temperatures were going back about 8,000 years. (10:04 - 10:23) And he can show that just at the point in time, the late 1800s, when they started tracking, quote unquote, global temperatures, and we can talk about the myth of that too, that was where the low point was. In the last 8,000 years, that was the low point. So of course it's coming up just through natural processes. (10:23 - 10:52) It's got nothing to do with anything we're doing. Go back from now, about 4,000 years ago, we would have temperatures up here for about 4,000 years that were two and a half degrees warmer on average than today. Now, as we go approach our time, we can see that in the period between 4,000 years ago and back to the period 2,000 years ago, which is actually the Roman age, the temperatures have been decreasing in Greenland by two and a half degrees. (10:53 - 11:47) Then the temperatures increased gradually up to a maximum point around the medieval warm period, we call it 1,000 years ago, and then temperatures declined and goes down to a minimum around 1650 AD, comes back up a little in the 18th century, and then around 1875, we have the lowest point in the last 8,000 years, right here, and that matches exactly the time when meteorological observations started. We've started warming out of what's called the Little Ice Age, nobody disputes the Little Ice Age, it got colder around the world from about 1300 to 1850, and we've been gently warming out of that. There's another inconvenient fact that NOAA and NASA, and we'll get to that, I think, have largely erased the cooling period from roughly 1940 to 1979. (11:48 - 12:39) It was definitely cooling as CO2 was going up, a very inconvenient fact, that shows that they're not a good relationship there, and they've tried to take that away by largely erasing it, making it much smaller than it was, and some people will remember back in the 70s, there's a coming ice age, they haven't removed it from YouTube, it hasn't gotten a lot of views on it, but people should go and watch the Little Ice Age with Leonard Nimoy, and it's a half an hour special, and I remember being frightened, or being told to be frightened, more accurately, I wasn't frightened about a coming ice age, I didn't buy it or think about it much, but they created hype around that, and then they flipped on a dime in the 1980s, when it started getting warmer, and blaming it all on CO2, which is just false. Right. And so now you've shown us this chart from the NASA projections, and how they're not actually following what's really happening, they're just projecting. (12:40 - 13:11) What other forms of monkeying with the models can you show us, Frank? Let me try to find one of those real quick. These are the examples, and the raw data is still available. People have taken the raw data, downloaded it, it hasn't been hidden, people recorded this data outside of NOAA, pre-2000, so we have reliable, accurate records of what the raw data says, and this shows the adjustments of what NOAA has been doing to the data. (13:12 - 13:27) They have cooled the past, and then they've warmed the present. And this is fraud. It's basic fraud, and they've really started doing it post-2008, and they continue to re-up it. (13:27 - 13:55) I've gone in and pulled their records of climate, and they've been just a couple months apart, and they're slightly different. And if you have a historical record, you add a couple months, it shouldn't change it at all, but yet it's different. And they're doing this regularly with no explanation, and if you were a real scientist, you'd be documenting the reasons why you made these adjustments, and you'd also document when you did that, and there's none of this data from NOAA whatsoever. (13:56 - 14:18) Right, and they keep pushing the deadline for when global warming is going to kill us all forward. You and I were talking off-screen earlier about an article that came out just last week about the Arctic ice caps. There was an article, I think from the BBC, I think it was, back in 2007, that said by now, in the summer, the Arctic ice cap was going to be gone, that the Arctic would be ice-free in the summer. (14:18 - 14:45) And instead, an article came out last week showing that it's in fact grown by 25%, but they'll just respond to that by once again pushing the deadline off. Well, and since you brought up ice, this is a slide that talks about, and look at it, is the sea ice extent, the changes in it, and this is from the IPCC. One of their first reports is on the top, and it shows how the ice coverage in the Arctic was lower pre-1975. (14:45 - 15:05) It peaked about 1979, which historically is, factually, the coldest North American winter ever was in 1979. And then you'll see that they start the data in 1980. That's what you'll always see, because they started when it was at a low point, and they also massaged the records. (15:05 - 15:19) So they changed the records, and these are both taken from two different IPCC reports. That's the International Panel on Climate Change, which charge is to prove CO2-driven man-made climate change. That's what they're all about. (15:19 - 16:01) So they don't want to look at any other data that doesn't fit their agenda, and they get a whole bunch of scientists on them, and I've interacted and have slides and other things and information, and it's in my book, from scientists who have participated in those IPCC processes and have said, you know, our science doesn't say what they're saying. Because then what they'll do is take a 1,000-page report, they'll issue a political statement at the beginning, a summary, and then several months later, they'll literally issue the 1,000-page report that you can then go read through. But the political summary is written from the science and then massaged into a political document that's then parroted by the leftist media. (16:03 - 16:17) Now, another area of data that I know you've shown in your book and that is often manipulated is the glaciers and the constant narrative that, oh, they're retreating. Well, that actually is not true. So tell us the facts. (16:17 - 16:25) Well, it varies a lot. For instance, Mount Rainier. Mount Rainier has three glaciers on it. (16:26 - 16:38) The one on the north side is growing, and the two on the bottom are receding. And there's also the Jacobson Glacier in Greenland that is growing. It's growing, growing, growing. (16:38 - 16:45) It was melting. It was pulling back. And that's something to understand about glaciers and icebergs, because they like to catastrophize both of these. (16:45 - 16:59) When a glacier shrinks, just like a melting ice cube, it shrinks away from the ocean. No icebergs. When it grows, it grows because it gets a lot of snow, and Greenland gets just tremendous, mind-boggling amounts of snow every year. (17:00 - 17:15) So their glaciers get a lot of fuel for a glacier, and then it compresses, and it spreads out like pancake batter. As that glacier grows over the ocean, the icebergs break off. That's a natural occurrence that's always happened. (17:15 - 17:26) And if they were shrinking, they wouldn't be breaking off, and icebergs wouldn't be formed. And icebergs, by the way, are floating fertilizer tablets for the ocean. Much of the ocean is a desert of life. (17:26 - 17:36) There's nothing there. And the limiting factor is minerals. And those icebergs contain a lot of minerals, and as they float around, they create phytoplankton. (17:37 - 17:51) And that's another one of those misnomers that we've heard is the Brazilian rainforests, which are doing okay, by the way. Yes, they have some fires. Yes, people are cutting them down and planting them, but they grow back really fast if you stop maintaining them. (17:51 - 18:00) They just grow unbelievable. They're not the lungs of the world. Phytoplankton, the plankton in the oceans, provide 50% to 80% of the oxygen in the world. (18:00 - 18:06) It depends on your source. That's why I have such a widespread on that, 50% to 80%. So those are the real lungs of the earth. (18:07 - 18:16) And by fueling the phytoplankton growth, we get more oxygen. We also get a lot more life. It's the primary food of all the fish and all the life in the ocean are phytoplankton. (18:17 - 18:33) So those are a couple of things. They like to catastrophize things that are just natural, have always been occurring and always will occur. Glacier Bay in Alaska, and I could find the side of the slide if you're really interested, but it's been shrinking since we have records since about 1760. (18:33 - 18:41) It's been shrinking and shrinking and it's nothing new. And that's happened prior to the warming period that started about 1850. Right. (18:41 - 19:00) And another one that they talk about it in relation to the oceans is this narrative of shrinking islands, which once again is completely untrue. In fact, you have the statistic in your book that of the islands that they talk about, 89% of them are either stable inside or are growing. Yeah, it's just, it is just amazing. (19:00 - 19:22) And they keep harping on that. And also interestingly, it's covered in the book in full, is that the earth is actually adding more landmass through accretion through largely through rivers, taking sediments in and growing, but we're gaining more area than we're losing around the ocean. So this whole narrative of exponential sea level rise just isn't true. (19:22 - 19:27) And that's how these islands are growing. They've been around for a long time. You can see them on Google earth. (19:27 - 20:00) They, you know, so it's easily studied. And over the last 25 years, as you mentioned in the book covers with the sources and pictures that they're actually growing and they're investing, you know, literally hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars now of making them tourist destinations, putting in airports. Now, would you put in an airport and a tourist destination if you really believed it was going to be underwater in a short period of time? And, you know, it's another one of those false narratives that they just keep throwing at us and they're paid propagandists. (20:00 - 20:10) And I think we'll cover that in your second show, but they're paid propagandists. Yeah. Well, I guess we could have amphibious planes to visit those islands after they go underwater. (20:10 - 20:21) I think we should mention one specific island, Tuvalu, which is the darling of the climate alarmist narrative. We're constantly being told, oh, this island is shrinking. It's disappearing because of global warming. (20:22 - 20:28) Not true. That's not true at all. It's actually growing, but yet they tell us just the opposite. (20:28 - 20:39) So much, virtually all of this is just the opposite or they obscure the facts. So they're telling us things that aren't true on purpose for, they get more money. I mean, that's why you're a scientist. (20:40 - 20:58) If you come out, and there was a recent scientist, Mr. Brown, he wrote a paper studying wildfires in the U.S. and around the world. And he determined that it wasn't climate change at all, that it was just really man and a management. And that's very pertinent with the Los Angeles fires that are going now. (20:58 - 21:17) Big government fail by California and Los Angeles because there's a lot more fuel because they had two rainy years. And just three, four years ago, they were telling us permanent droughts because of climate change in the Southwest and California. And then they had literally 10 inches extra rainfall, more above their average, which is only 14 inches. (21:17 - 21:25) So it's very small amount of rain. And everything was green and lush. Then it got dry in March of last year, and it's been real dry. (21:26 - 21:43) That's in that's normal weather patterns and everything dries out. And they didn't do prescribed burns, which is the gold standard for managing forests. If you don't want out of control wildfires, then you need to burn smaller areas or go in and manually take out the brush and the fallen trees and all those things that are fuel for major fires. (21:44 - 21:47) But then it's convenient for them. Blame climate change. It's not on us. (21:47 - 22:03) It's climate change, but it's completely on the government, in this case, in Los Angeles. Yeah, and we have the same problem here in Canada. There is an organization in Europe that the International Fire Service Information System, where they show charts for countries around the world. (22:03 - 22:14) Now, for some reason, about a year ago, they stopped showing Canada. I think they still have the US. And I think the reason why they stopped showing Canada was, and I reported on this on my news. (22:14 - 22:32) If you looked at the US, if you looked at Europe, what you saw was in 2023, less fires than normal. That was true for the US as well. In Canada, where, and I'm going to come right out and say it, folks, our government was starting these fires. (22:32 - 22:42) We had a hockey stick. It was through the roof. And we're being told by the Canadian government, well, it's global warming that's causing all these forest fires. (22:43 - 23:06) And my response to that is, well, isn't that interesting that your global warming is only happening in Canada? Because when you look at the charts for the US and Europe, they're getting less fires than normal. NASA tells us that, and of course they try to obscure these websites. So I understand how difficult it is for those who want to really study this issue because Google's in on it. (23:06 - 23:19) And they're going to feed you sources that are bad. And the government sources are going back and massaging the data or truncating it and taking out the paths that had a lot more forest fires, for instance, in the United States. And that's covered in the book. (23:20 - 23:30) But NASA says that worldwide wildfires are down by about 20%. And the trend is down. And it would make some sense because CO2 is plant food and plants are growing so much better. (23:31 - 23:46) But again, it's also management. And there are people in parts of the world that are still, there's a couple billion people in the world that are still primarily using wood and dung for fuel. They go out and cut down trees and use it for fuel. (23:46 - 24:04) That's bad for the environment and they could be a lot better. And I cover an example in my book about how the Dominican Republic, next to Haiti, Haiti is poor and they've literally cut all the forests, literally all the forests. And DR is building a wall, by the way, to keep them from coming and cutting in theirs. (24:05 - 24:29) And DR still has 43% of their forests in primal jungles. Why? Because they subsidize propane for people to use, for poor people to use, for cooking and heating fuel rather than cutting down the forests. So they're using a fossil fuel that is supposed to be so evil to better their people's lives, give them cleaner fuel and preserve the forest. (24:29 - 24:44) So, so many of these policies that they have in my book and I talk about it, I like to say it, but we should fear climate policies, not climate change. Well said. And Mo, before we move on to talking about the real science of CO2, I wanted to back up just a little bit because I took a note from your book. (24:44 - 25:02) You've got a wonderful quote in there from George Kasser, I'm not sure how to pronounce his last name, but this was a person who was heavily involved with the IPCC. And this is going back to the receding glaciers that we were talking about earlier. And I love this quote because it puts it in perspective for people. (25:03 - 25:25) And George said, this number of receding glaciers reported by the IPCC is not just a little bit wrong, but far out of any order of magnitude. It is so wrong, it is not even worth discussing. And yet we have this narrative that 97% of scientists have agreed that man-made global warming is causing a severe problem. (25:25 - 25:46) And yet we have this guy who was with the IPCC who's turned around and said, well, in actual fact, the data that they're basing all this on is wildly false. And it's absolutely true. And my book has dozens of quotes, since you read it, dozens of quotes from scientists who have participated in the IPCC reports. (25:46 - 25:57) And these are considered the gold standard of climate change. Many of the same things that they say are a professor, a physicist from Japan calls, and we talked about the climate models. He said they're Mickey Mouse. (25:57 - 26:06) The climate models are just Mickey Mouse and the world's too complex to model on a computer at this time. Maybe when we get quantum computing, they'll figure it out. But at this time they can't. (26:07 - 26:21) It is amazing how they've misinformed us on virtually everything. Recently we've had some hurricanes that may not have made the news so much in Canada, but we had a couple of them. And my daughter and future son-in-law were caught in one in Asheville, North Carolina. (26:21 - 26:35) So they were in the center of all that rain. First off, they've had similar rains from hurricanes in that area in the 1960s and in the first decade of 1900. So this isn't unprecedented as they tell us. (26:36 - 26:44) It's happened before. It'll happen again. But the reality with land-falling hurricanes in the United States is that we actually are having less of them. (26:44 - 26:58) And we recently had an 11-year period where we didn't have any category three or four or five. Those are the most powerful types to land for 11 years. Highly unusual, but yet they tell us whenever one comes that it's unprecedented, they're getting more powerful. (26:59 - 27:06) They're not. They're just not. And the most active land-falling hurricane decade in the United States was the 1940s. (27:06 - 27:20) And they had 24 land-falling category three or more hurricanes and 10 category five hurricanes. It's far more active than we've seen in the last several decades. And again, it just refutes their narrative. (27:20 - 27:34) And the most active, most deadly hurricanes season was in the 1780s when the United States was fighting the Revolutionary War. We got some help against the greatest military power in the world. Some very severe hurricanes happened then. (27:35 - 27:56) And the record-keeping back then is pretty spotty. If somebody didn't see it, record it and send it to someone who could keep it, historically, we wouldn't see it or know it. But they estimate at least 22,000 people died in that hurricane because it was so powerful and just wiped out the Bahamas and the East Coast of the U.S. And another way that they support this hurricane narrative is with insurance data. (27:56 - 28:12) And they point to that and they say, well, the claims are going up. Therefore, the storms are getting worse. But in actual fact, what's happening is we've got more and more people who are building homes, expensive homes, right on the coast, which people used to have the common sense not to do because they understood that was a very vulnerable place to put your house. (28:13 - 28:28) And so, the real data- And I cover that in the, you're absolutely correct. I cover that in my book. You know, I think 27 million people choose and want to live in Florida and they're paying for it through their insurance rates because each one of these hurricanes is expensive to rebuild and you have to pay insurance to do that. (28:30 - 28:45) And we have, and I have a picture in my book that shows, you know, Miami in 1927 was largely fields and only a few buildings. And now it's a great big megalopolis. And if that gets hit by a hurricane or anywhere else, and all of Florida has grown like that. (28:45 - 29:02) That's one part of it. So, when you tease the data and look at it in terms of economic growth and the property available to lose in a hurricane, there, and any of the natural disasters that we hear about, there's just so much more to lose now. Things are more expensive now. (29:02 - 29:11) And that's what they point to. More billion-dollar losses. Well, that's because there's more homes in Los Angeles to burn now than there were 50 or 100 years ago. (29:12 - 29:25) Right. And the other data that people need to know is that, and they never talk about this, is that the deaths from hurricanes have been declining steadily over the decades due to, one, better warning systems. So people now know when there's a hurricane coming. (29:26 - 29:32) And two, better construction techniques. So we've got homes and buildings that can withstand the winds. But they never talk about that. (29:33 - 29:41) Absolutely. I mean, that is another fact that very few people lose their lives anymore. And they're able to get out and get in their gas-fueled cars and drive away. (29:41 - 30:04) Thank goodness we've changed that now in the U.S. Because can you imagine millions of people trying to charge their electric car and then getting on a road and then trying to recharge someplace else? That's not going to work very well. And in fact, also, when they get salt, particularly saltwater, electric cars are very likely to just self-combust. They have had several dozen after each hurricane when they get flooded. (30:05 - 30:14) So it's another kind of aspect of these climate policies not being well thought out. And they're for a different agenda. Who makes the batteries for cars? China. (30:14 - 30:21) Who makes wind towers? And we'll cover this in our next episode. But China. China makes the solar panels. (30:21 - 30:29) 80% of the world's supply of those things comes from China. They benefit the most from this. And they're using more fossil fuels than ever. (30:29 - 30:43) I just read the statistics this morning that 25 years ago, they got 92% of their energy from fossil fuels, coal, oil, and natural gas. And now they get 87%. And their economy has grown tremendously. (30:44 - 30:52) They use more than half the coal in the world. So they're telling us a lot of false things to drive an agenda. And we can talk about that in the next episode. (30:53 - 31:03) And we will. We'll get into the Kyoto Accord and some interesting things there. So let's move on to the actual science of CO2 because of course, this is what they tell us is driving everything. (31:03 - 31:13) And they do this in a very nefarious way. And it's something that media, mainstream media at least, is guilty of doing all the time. They start by telling you something that everybody knows is true. (31:14 - 31:24) And then from that, they draw a conclusion that sounds like it should be true, but in fact is not. So with CO2, they start by saying, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Well, yes, it is. (31:24 - 31:31) We all learned that in school. It is indeed a greenhouse gas. And then they draw this conclusion, which is not true, but sounds like it should be. (31:32 - 31:48) Therefore, if we increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, we're going to cause a runaway greenhouse gas effect that's going to kill us all. So I'm going to let you debunk that. I'm trying to find a slide here real quick on the CO2, and I'm not. (31:50 - 31:55) All right. CO2. CO2 is a minor gas in the atmosphere. (31:56 - 32:14) It's not the most important or most abundant greenhouse gas, which is water vapor, which is 50 times more abundant than CO2. Right now, we're exhaling about 40,000 parts per million of CO2, and there's 420 in the atmosphere. It's super plant food, and it's the circle of life. (32:14 - 32:25) Most children learn that if they aren't propagandized completely on it, that photosynthesis is the circle. Moving animals exhale CO2. Plants love it. (32:25 - 32:30) They take it in. They grow from it. That's why the world is 35% greener, according to NASA. (32:30 - 32:40) You can still find that on the web if you want. Just type in NASA Fertilizing Effect CO2 2016, and you'll get their reports. Hard to find otherwise if you don't use just the right language. (32:41 - 32:52) But it's 35% greener than it was 40 years ago. It's super, and it's growing in the right places around deserts. China and other places are reclaiming desert lands. (32:52 - 32:57) In Africa, they're doing the same thing. So CO2 is a trace gas. Yes, it is a greenhouse gas. (32:57 - 33:23) It does have some warming, but it's dwarfed by 50 times more water vapor, and there's even more water vapor where it's hot around the oceans, the tropics, where it's hot almost all the time because of all the evaporation that creates clouds and it creates the weather of the whole world. CO2 is not a problem, and it'll take 200 years to double. Plants grow best at 4 to 5 times the amount of CO2 we have in our atmosphere today. (33:24 - 33:40) Greenhouses pay to add it to the greenhouses so the plants grow a lot better because they get bigger fruits faster or flowers faster. So they're paying money because it benefits them financially to add CO2. So it tells you how much of a great thing it is. (33:40 - 34:10) Also, we have evidence and studies from our sailors in the nuclear submarines and other submarines that go under the water for months at a time, and they can breathe up to 4 or 5,000 parts per million of CO2. NASA says 10,000 parts, or not NASA, OSHA, for workers, that up to 10,000 parts per million for a whole 10-hour shift is not a problem whatsoever. When you get up to 20,000, 40,000 parts per million, it can become a little bit of a problem. (34:10 - 34:22) We depend on the oxygen that plants make. The other thing that they do for plants is that when there's a lot more CO2, they have less breathing holes called stomata. Because they have less breathing holes, they lose less moisture. (34:22 - 34:40) So they tolerate both heat and drought or lack of moisture lots better. That's also why CO2 is added to greenhouses. And we should segue a little bit into methane that they want to regulate now and are attacking cows and telling us to eat bugs instead of meat. (34:40 - 34:52) And the Canadian government, by the way, just lost $7 million on a program to get bugs into our diet. People don't really want to eat them. By the way, you can still find it if you do your research. (34:52 - 35:04) They're not good for us because their exoskeletons have chitins in them, which are irritants. You can tolerate them on a small basis once in a while, like they do in Asia. They eat bugs there. (35:05 - 35:16) But if you're fed them all the time, you're not going to be healthy. It's going to impair your digestion. Now there's studies coming out that say eating bugs regularly is good for your health and will cause you to lose weight. (35:16 - 35:28) Well, yeah, it will because you won't digest your food as well. So it's crazy how it's infiltrated itself into all this supposed science that is biased because they want to get paid. Right. (35:28 - 35:43) Now, something else I want to discuss about CO2, and I can't recall whether or not you had this chart in your book or not, but I'm certain you're aware of it. The charts that show the greenhouse gas absorption, and you can look this up on Google, it gives greenhouse gas absorption chart. There's plenty of them out there. (35:43 - 35:50) I see you scrolling through your presentation. So I am looking for that chart in the book. I just couldn't remember if you did or not. (35:50 - 36:04) Yes, I certainly do. I cover CO2 as a greenhouse gas in depth in the book, and it is an important thing. If you want to take a break, I could find that because I have it on a different slide stack. (36:05 - 36:40) Yeah, please find it because it's very important, Frank. To me, that chart is the ultimate nail in the CO2 coffin because you can show the narrow bandwidths in which it absorbs heat, and you can show that in those bandwidths, we already have twice as much CO2 as we need to absorb 100% of the heat. Yeah, the CO2 absorbed, or the greenhouse gas absorption charts show where they're absorbing the atmospheric sun, and actually it isn't the sun. (36:40 - 37:05) The way that works is the sun hits the earth, and then the earth, depending on the color, like ice and snow, reflect less light up, so it reflects less heat. They call it IR infrared. Infrared light goes up, and then it hits the molecules, and it bounces around, kind of like if you've ever seen one of those things with a bunch of mousetraps with ping pong balls, and they throw it, and they all pop everywhere, and then bounces around. (37:06 - 37:26) It slows down the escape into the atmosphere, into the very, very cold space. That is the greenhouse gas effect, slowing down the reflected heat coming off of the earth. And CO2 in each of the different molecules absorbs it in a different wavelength. (37:27 - 37:54) And CO2, to a large part, overlaps water vapor. What that means is that they function as an additional water vapor molecule, which is 50 times more abundant than CO2. And methane and nitrous oxide that they're trying to regulate in the name of climate as well are itsy-bitsy tiny parts of the atmosphere, and they occupy pretty much the same absorption bands as water and CO2, so water vapor and CO2. (37:54 - 38:27) So they're very meaningless, but yet they're working on those for climate purposes, so it isn't about climate at all. So that is the other part of this, is that CO2 has a limited warming effect, and we're saturated already, which means that each additional CO2 molecule, and IPC science doesn't dispute this, they just sweep it under the rug and hide it, is that each additional CO2 molecule provides almost no warming whatsoever. Right, and the analogy that I've heard, and this is, I think, a good way of putting it, and you can add your own thoughts to this. (38:27 - 38:54) In our house, my wife has taken the time to make blackout curtains for the bedrooms, and they work very, very well. If you close those curtains, there is no light coming through that curtain. Now, if you look at the absorption chart, and you see the narrow bandwidth in which CO2 absorbs greenhouse gas and absorbs that heat, if you look at the chart, you can see that they're already absorbing 100% of what it can absorb in that wavelength. (38:55 - 39:22) And so the analogy would be, well, if we put up a second set of blackout curtains, are we going to block any more light? Well, of course not, because we're already blocking 100% of the light. So if you add any more CO2 by the same logic, are you going to absorb any more heat? Well, of course not, because we already have twice as much CO2 in the atmosphere as we need to absorb almost 100% of the heat that CO2 can absorb. And that right there is, that is the whole climate alarmist lie in one little nutshell. (39:23 - 39:36) And Dr. Will Happer of Princeton, and it's covered in the book, has a different analogy, but very similar with painting your barn red. You put on the first coat, and you get a lot of red effect. You put on a second coat, you get almost none. (39:37 - 39:47) And if you put on a third coat of red paint, you get zero. And that's very similar, or you might be slightly, slightly red. It's the same analogy for adding more CO2. (39:48 - 40:04) It really is meaningless or very almost, I can't say meaningless, it's almost meaningless to increasing heat. There is a major stock market crash coming that will rival the crash of 1929. But there is a way to not only protect your wealth, but profit in the coming crash. (40:05 - 40:25) The stock market chart today looks exactly like the charts prior to October, 1929. Banks are disastrously over leveraged, and several major US banks have already failed. And the CDIC, the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation, doesn't have nearly enough money to cover depositors. (40:26 - 40:51) If you have money in the stock market, it is time to get out. Governments and corporations around the world are buying up precious metals in record amounts because they know the coming crash will make their other assets nearly worthless. You can buy precious metals at wholesale prices through New World Precious Metals at premiums substantially below other Canadian brokerages. (40:52 - 41:06) And you can even transfer savings in your RRSP tax-free. To get more information, use the link below this video to contact New World Precious Metals. They will answer any questions you may have. (41:07 - 41:47) You may also wish to contact Adrian Spitters, a personal financial consultant who successfully predicted the stock market crashes of 2000 and 2008. You will find Adrian's contact information below as well. Finally, if you want more information on the coming crash and what you can do to protect yourself, your family and your assets, see my most recent quarterly update with my team of financial experts at ironworereport.com. By clicking the link below to contact New World Precious Metals, you will also be helping to support our efforts to bring Canadians to truth as we are an approved affiliate partner. (41:48 - 42:14) So now that we've debunked this false logic of what would happen if we increased the CO2 levels, I'd like you to talk about the benefits that would happen if we increased CO2 levels because it would actually be good if that happened. Absolutely, it would. And I just want to interject one more part because part of the other climate alarmists, if you talk to them about the CO2, and they say, well, more CO2 will make a warmer Earth. (42:15 - 42:33) And if they're knowledgeable enough, their answer, and it took me a little while, it took me actually a year or two, and then it popped in my head why their argument was false, is that CO2 drives the warming. So when the Earth gets warmer, we'll have more water vapor because warm air can hold more water vapor than cold air. That's what causes rain. (42:33 - 42:44) When warm, wet air hits colder air, it rains or it snows depending on the temperatures. And that argument sounds, well, it's on the surface, it sounds okay. And then you go, well, wait a minute, wait a minute. (42:44 - 43:02) And again, this is covered in the book as well, is that, wait a minute, what about the deserts of the world? It's hot and dry. Just because a warmer world could hold more water vapor does not mean that it will hold more water vapor. That's another one of those fallacious things they use as a talking point to kind of skate by. (43:03 - 43:16) And it's filled with this sort of stuff. The benefits of CO2 are just amazing. And you've already said it, and we've talked about it a little bit, I mentioned it earlier, but CO2 is airborne miracle grow. (43:16 - 43:32) It makes plants grow so, so much better. And my grandmother used to tell me, and she was a wonderful plant lady, talk to your plants. Well, if you get close and talk to your plants, not only you might give them good energy, but you're spreading 40,000 parts per million of CO2 at them. (43:33 - 43:45) They love it. That helps them grow better because we're exhaling it all the time. Almost about 700, 800, 900 pounds of CO2 per human is exhaled into the atmosphere all the time. (43:46 - 43:54) Plants just grow so much better. That's another one of those lies they're spreading to us. We're saying, oh, well, you know, if we get more CO2, plants are going to start dying off everywhere in the world. (43:54 - 44:15) The fact is, is we are setting records year after year after year in almost every crop in almost every country in the world because of added CO2. Yes, we have better fertilizers, a better understanding of plant genetics. And going back to that 2016 NASA study, they attribute 70% of the greening of the earth to additional CO2. (44:15 - 44:27) That's how powerful it is. And plant harvest, both harvest and yields, yields is how much you get from a hectare or an acre, is our growing. We're getting more production from the same amount of land. (44:27 - 44:44) And the land in agriculture for human production has hardly increased at all over the last 40 years. But our production in virtually every crop in the world, particularly corn in the United States, just continues to grow and grow and grow. That's important because we're feeding more people with the same amount of land. (44:44 - 45:00) And food really isn't a problem in the world anymore like it was 50 years ago, with people literally starving to death around the world. Now it's more of a political problem if there's famines or droughts in particular areas, and they're always going to happen, folks. That's why they switched it to climate change because they're always going to be there. (45:01 - 45:27) We have enough food to send to them if we wanted to, or the politicians or whoever's in control would let that happen. So it's major plant food. Plants are adapted and it seems that multi-generational, and there's some really great books on this, but if people study it in depth, that each successive generation of the plant adapts better to more CO2, their roots grow deeper, and they all search for a second, just see if I had that. (45:29 - 46:03) CO2, because the plants grow better, the roots grow deeper and spread out more, searching for nutrients because they're growing bigger and faster, also retains more moisture in the earth, which increases the ability for plants to grow. Way back when there were dinosaurs and ferns were the size of a house and trees were several hundred feet or even thousands of feet tall, we're starting to find, we're thinking it is from the fossil records and others, CO2 was 2,000 to 6,000 parts per million. So it was a lot more than we have now. (46:03 - 46:10) So it's super growth plant food. Let's see the other one. Here's a great, great one. (46:11 - 46:23) This is how rice grows so much better. Today we are about 420 parts per million of CO2 and you can see the arrow under today. And if you doubled it, you can see how much bigger the plants grow. (46:24 - 46:37) And this is with all the same conditions, just more CO2 or less CO2. This is another example, and it's in my book, but it shows adding more CO2. AMB means ambient, the amount that's in the atmosphere. (46:37 - 46:54) Now, when this was taken, it was a few years ago, so I think it was about 375 parts per million. But you can see if you add 150, 300 or 450 parts per million, how much more and bigger the trees are. And this is under the same conditions, same water, just with different levels of CO2. (46:55 - 47:14) But the fact is that the whole plants just grow wonderfully better. That's a huge benefit of CO2 and there's really no drawbacks at all. So the benefits of more CO2 far away, the supposed, and most of those as we've been debunking, drawbacks of having more CO2. (47:14 - 47:23) And a warmer world is actually a better world, and it's been warmer in the past, folks. That's the other part of this. It's been warmer in the past when there was less CO2 in the atmosphere. (47:24 - 47:36) And those ice records from Greenland that you had talked about earlier actually show a lag in CO2 for temperature about 600 to 800 years. And the Antarctic also shows the same lag. So they conflate that. (47:37 - 47:49) So how could something that lags temperature lead temperature? So this is built on a whole bunch of lies. That's why I named my book, Climate and Energy Lies, because we need to expose them and people need to understand the facts. Right. (47:49 - 48:07) And one more fact I really think we should address while we're on the topic of CO2. You've done a very good job, especially in your book and just now, of debunking what would happen if we increased the CO2. But something that nobody is talking about or almost no one, is the fact that we are actually right now at dangerously low levels of CO2. (48:08 - 48:37) And if this climate alarmist agenda actually somehow succeeded in lowering CO2 levels to about half of what they are now, it would be an ecological disaster. Actually, all life on Earth could die from that, or at least all of what you think of as life, maybe some bacteria will survive some places. But if they estimate, scientists, nobody disputes this, that if we hit about 180 parts per million, all plants on Earth would die. (48:37 - 48:49) And as we would be approaching that, as we go down to 300 parts per million, 250 parts per million, plants would grow less and less and less. Harvest would decline. It would get worse for everyone. (48:49 - 48:56) And when plants grow better, there's more food for animals, more food for people. That's a good thing. It's absolutely a good thing. (48:57 - 49:03) Now, Frank, you're the real expert. I've hit you with my questions, the ones that I really wanted to cover. We've got a few minutes left. (49:04 - 49:39) Is there anything left in the science that you feel is a very convincing piece of evidence that people need to share? Well, I think the long-term records of lack of, and this is, let's see if I can find it. This shows over the last 600 million years, and this shows the relationship, red temperatures are, the red is temperature, the green is CO2. And you can see that CO2 is not driving, they're driving the temperature at all. (49:40 - 49:47) They're linked to some extent, and that's because when it's warmer, more plants can grow. More plants mean more animals. That means more CO2. (49:47 - 49:56) It also means off-gassing of CO2 from the oceans. Just like your can of soda or beer or champagne, as it warms up, off-gasses all the CO2. It's another part of it. (49:57 - 50:14) Really clever marketing by these people. Calling CO2 carbon is like calling water hydrogen. They simply are not the same thing at all, but hard to make us afraid of CO2 that makes our beer fizzy when it's not dangerous at all. (50:14 - 50:25) But carbon sounds bad, and I think of charcoal and soot and black things. But that's what they've done in the marketing of all of this. So long-term, we've had temperature changes. (50:25 - 50:34) We know it was warmer. And one of the arguments of the alarmists is that, oh, it was only a regional event. That's why the Vikings could live in Greenland. (50:34 - 50:38) They could grow barley. Good evidence of that. They can grow barley. (50:38 - 50:47) Trees were growing in Greenland, and they were raising milk cows there. And now we're finding Viking remains in the permafrost. They didn't dig in the permafrost. (50:48 - 50:58) So it was warmer then. And they claim, oh, it was just local. No, there's evidence from around the world, from various studies with different proxies, because it's all we have from a thousand years ago, unless people wrote it down. (50:58 - 51:10) And we know from a lot of writing, it was warmer during the medieval warm period. For instance, they could grow wine grapes. The Romans grew wine grapes and others, both during the Roman warm period and afterwards. (51:10 - 51:30) And we have records of it, because the French were complaining about the English muscling in on their champagne business, because they could grow the wine that makes champagne. When the Romans, which was even warmer during the Roman warm period, the Romans were up in Norway, and there was even evidence that they were growing wine grapes in Norway. And the seasons are too short now. (51:30 - 51:41) It's too cold to grow barley and have cows in Greenland. I've studied it in depth. Trees don't grow very well there except scrub trees, just because it's so cold. (51:41 - 51:47) And most of it's covered by glaciers. So we know it was warmer in the past. There weren't disasters back then. (51:47 - 52:01) And in fact, you can still find it on Britannica, but I think they changed the name of the Roman climate optimum to the Roman warm period. And we think that was about from 400 BC to 400 AD. And then we had the dark ages. (52:01 - 52:13) It was dark and cold. That's bad for people, bad for plants, a lot of crop failures, and people starve. So there's just all kinds of benefits to more CO2, and there's no drawbacks. (52:13 - 52:36) Well, there's a lot of drawbacks to less CO2, but there's no drawbacks from having more of it. The other thing we should cover a little bit on the science side of things is that after these climate alarmists and the government minions and the media are spreading absolute lies about methane and nitrous oxide, also greenhouse gases. So I talked a little bit, they're tiny, tiny parts of the atmosphere. (52:37 - 52:50) For instance, water vapor is about 20,000 parts per million. CO2 is about 420 parts per million. And methane is about 1.8 parts per million. (52:51 - 53:03) So CO2 is 200 times more abundant than methane. And water vapor is 11,000 times more abundant than methane. And methane and nitrous oxide will take 270 years to double. (53:04 - 53:32) And they'll still be minuscule parts of the atmosphere and cause very little, if any, warming whatsoever. Then you've got nitrous oxide, which is from fertilizers. If we stop making fertilizers out of thin air, taking the nitrogen out of the air with natural gas, that one of those darn fossil fuels, which creates and releases CO2 when you make fertilizers, half the world, 8, 4 billion people would starve to death. (53:32 - 53:49) It's so important for increased harvest, as well as the additional CO2. Nitrous oxide is 0.3 parts per million in the atmosphere. 0.3. And 270 years when it doubles, it'll be 0.6 parts per million. (53:49 - 54:17) And water vapor is 60,000 times more abundant than nitrous oxide. But yet, in the name of climate, they're doing crazy things like in Denmark, where they're going to convert 10% of their agricultural land into forests now for the climate. In Ireland, they're killing off 200,000 cows because of methane for the climate, which just means milk and cheese and butter prices in Ireland are going to climb. (54:17 - 54:38) Or those of us who on occasion buy Irish butter, which is really good, by the way, because of the ocean coming in and being grass fed, and the lushness that they have there, they're doing crazy climate policies that have no relationship whatsoever to science. So we know it's not about that at all. In the next episode, we're going to talk about that. (54:39 - 54:52) Indeed we are. So folks, the book is Climate and Energy Lies, Expensive, Dangerous and Destructive. You will find a link beneath this interview to Frank's book on both amazon.ca and amazon.com if you're watching us in the US. (54:53 - 55:12) And as Frank says, we're going to be back in a week. Today, what we've talked about is what they're doing, how they're fudging the data, how they're lying about the science. Next week, Frank, who, as I said early on the interview, who's got a long experience in politics, we're going to talk about why they're doing this and what the whole agenda is for. (55:13 - 55:18) So Frank, thank you very much for your time. Hey, you're very welcome. And thanks for tuning in, folks.