(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 & 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.
(1:56 - 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 - 3:07)
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.
(3:08 - 3:15)
So these are really important topics. And that's why I wrote the book. When I served in the legislature, I always felt the government should work for us.
(3:15 - 3:29)
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. So it was my job to research the issues. And then after I did that, I headed the Hartman Institute as their president.
(3:29 - 3:47)
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. 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.
(3:47 - 4:03)
And also, 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. So I translate that with good sources. Right.
(4:04 - 4:15)
And as you and I have discussed, we're going to do this. 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.
(4:15 - 4:32)
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. 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.
(4:32 - 4:47)
They're complete fabrication. 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.
(4:47 - 5:12)
So if you 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. And climate is just long-term weather patterns. And climate is always changing and it always will.
(5:12 - 5:27)
So when people say, do you believe in climate change? Absolutely. 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.
(5:28 - 5:36)
And in the winters, you could count on below zero weather for a week or two. You just got it. And that's Fahrenheit, not Celsius, folks.
(5:37 - 5:50)
So it's colder than you're zero. And these sort of things have changed and they're going to keep changing. And also, looking back and reflecting, I've seen, we have Halloween, we celebrate that.
(5:51 - 5:54)
So people go out and get candy. We go with our kids. So I've been doing that my whole life.
(5:55 - 6:04)
I've seen it where it's been 70 degrees and beautiful. And I've also seen it when it's snow and freezing. And that's just one random October 31st every year.
(6:04 - 6:18)
But weather is always changing and it always will. 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.
(6:18 - 6:30)
And they also are designed, the other problem with them is they really can't post predict. 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.
(6:31 - 6:44)
And this screen that you're seeing now, this charts all the various different climate models. And then real world satellite data and real world measured data is much lower. So they're intentionally run hot.
(6:44 - 7:18)
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. And clouds are very unpredictable. And also recently, we've had a lot more water vapor ejected into the atmosphere with just a couple of years ago, the Hanga Tonga volcano went off, but it increased the water vapor about 15% in the upper atmosphere.
(7:18 - 7:30)
And I think that's filtering down into the lower atmosphere, making it a bit warmer. But contrary to what you would think, which logic would say is, well, more water vapor, you'll get more clouds. Well, we have a little bit less clouds too.
(7:30 - 7:37)
So very hard to predict. They're always moving. And at any time, more than half of our planet generally is covered by clouds.
(7:37 - 7:54)
And clouds are important because they reflect the sunlight during the day, which makes the planet cooler, offsetting that water vapor in the atmosphere. 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.
(7:54 - 8:08)
And we'll get into that a little bit later because they are changing the temperatures, both historically and going forward. Interestingly, cooling the past and warming the present since about 2008. NOAA and NASA have been caught doing this, but nobody seems to care.
(8:10 - 8:26)
But the weather we have, what I would term right now is we have milder climate. 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.
(8:27 - 8:40)
And we don't have as cold winters as we used to have either. 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.
(8:40 - 8:55)
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. You're right. And one of the ways that they deceive people with these climate models is the very language that is used.
(8:55 - 9:09)
If you watch the weather, the news, notice that if it's unseasonably hot, it's climate. But if it's unseasonably cold, it's weather. And these words are used interchangeably, but they're not the same thing.
(9:10 - 9:30)
As you've already mentioned, weather is, it's short term 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 - 10:16)
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. And he can show that just at the point in time in 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.
(10:17 - 10:25)
In the last 8,000 years, that was the low point. So of course, it's coming up just through natural processes. It's got nothing to do with anything we're doing.
(10:26 - 11:01)
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. Then the temperatures increased gradually up to a maximum point around the medieval warm period, we call it 1,000 years ago.
(11:02 - 11:23)
And then temperatures declined and goes down to a minimum around 1650 AD, comes back up 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.
(11:23 - 11:33)
Well, 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.
(11:33 - 11:56)
And we've been gently warming out of that. And 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. It was definitely cooling as CO2 was going up, a very inconvenient fact that shows that they're not a good relationship there.
(11:57 - 12:06)
And they've tried to take that away by largely erasing it, making it much smaller than it was. And some people remember back in the 70s, there's a coming ice age. They haven't removed it from YouTube.
(12:06 - 12:14)
It hasn't gotten a lot of views on it. People should go and watch the Little Ice Age with Leonard Nimoy. And it's a half an hour special.
(12:14 - 12:21)
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.
(12:22 - 12:31)
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.
(12:32 - 12:50)
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. What other forms of monkeying with the models can you show us, Frank? Let me try to find one of those real quick.
(12:51 - 12:57)
These are the examples. And the raw data is still available. People have taken the raw data, downloaded it.
(12:57 - 13:06)
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.
(13:06 - 13:17)
And this shows the adjustments of what NOAA has been doing to the data. They have cooled the past. And then they've warmed the present.
(13:18 - 13:25)
And it's fraud. It's basic fraud. And they've really started doing it post-2008.
(13:25 - 13:32)
And they continue to re-up it. I've gone in and pulled their records of climate. And they've been just a couple months apart.
(13:32 - 13:38)
And they're slightly different. And if you have a historical record, you add a couple months. It shouldn't change it at all.
(13:39 - 13:48)
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.
(13:49 - 13:56)
And you'd also document when you did that. And there's none of this data from NOAA whatsoever. Right.
(13:56 - 14:15)
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.
(14:15 - 14:26)
That the Arctic would be ice-free in the summer. 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.
(14:27 - 14:39)
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.
(14:40 - 15:00)
And it shows how the ice coverage in the Arctic was lower pre-1975. 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.
(15:00 - 15:06)
That's what you'll always see because they started when it was at a low point. And they also massaged the records. So they changed the records.
(15:06 - 15:19)
And these are both taken from two different IPCC reports. And 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 - 15:29)
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. I've interacted and have slides and other things and information.
(15:29 - 15:46)
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.
(15:47 - 16:26)
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. And several major U.S. banks have already failed.
(16:26 - 16:50)
And the CDIC, the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation, doesn't have nearly enough money to cover depositors. 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.
(16:51 - 17:12)
You can buy precious metals at wholesale prices through New World Precious Metals at premiums substantially below other Canadian brokerages. 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.
(17:12 - 17:30)
They will answer any questions you may have. 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.
(17:31 - 18:07)
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 ironworldreport.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. Right. 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.
(18:07 - 18:14)
Well, that actually is not true. So, tell us the facts. Well, it varies a lot.
(18:14 - 18:24)
For instance, Mount Rainier. Mount Rainier has three glaciers on it. The one on the north side is growing and the two on the bottom are receding.
(18:26 - 18:33)
There's also the Jacobson Glacier in Greenland that is growing. It's growing, growing, growing. It was melting.
(18:33 - 18:46)
It was pulling back and that's something to understand about glaciers and icebergs because they like to, you know, catastrophize both of these. When a glacier shrinks, just like a melting ice cube, it shrinks away from the ocean. No icebergs.
(18:47 - 19:07)
When it grows, it grows because it gets a lot of snow and Greenland gets just tremendous, mind-boggling amounts of snow every year. 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.
(19:07 - 19:20)
That's a natural occurrence that's always happened 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.
(19:20 - 19:39)
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 and that's another one of those misnomers that we've heard is, you know, the Brazilian rainforest, which are doing okay, by the way. Yes, they have some fires.
(19:39 - 19:48)
Yes, people are cutting them down and planting them, but they grow back really fast if you stop maintaining them. They just grow unbelievable. They're not the lungs of the world.
(19:49 - 19:58)
Phytoplankton, the plankton in the oceans, provide 50 to 80% of the oxygen in the world. It depends on your source. That's why I have such a wide spread on that 50 to 80%.
(19:58 - 20:10)
So, those are the real lungs of the earth 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.
(20:11 - 20:27)
So, those are a couple 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 slide if you're really interested, but it's been shrinking since we have records since about 1760.
(20:27 - 20:51)
It's been shrinking and shrinking and it's nothing new and that happened prior to the warming period that started about 1850. Right, and another one that they talk about 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.
(20:52 - 21:20)
Yeah, it is just amazing 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, largely through rivers taking sediments in and growing, but we're gaining more area than we're losing around the oceans. So, this whole narrative of exponential sea level rise just isn't true and that's how these islands are growing. They've been around for a long time.
(21:20 - 22:04)
You can see them on Google Earth, 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 literally hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars now, 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 it's another one of those false narratives that they just keep throwing at us and they're paid propagandists 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.
(22:05 - 22:17)
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. Not true.
(22:18 - 22:27)
That's not true at all. It's actually growing, but yet they tell us just the opposite. So much, virtually all of this is just the opposite or they obscure the facts.
(22:27 - 22:43)
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. If you come out, and there was a recent scientist, Mr. Brown, he wrote a paper studying wildfires in the US and around the world.
(22:44 - 23:05)
And he determined that it wasn't climate change at all, that it was just really man and management. And that's very pertinent with the Los Angeles fires that are going now. 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.
(23:05 - 23:20)
And then they had literally 10 inches extra rainfall, more above their average, which is only 14 inches. 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.
(23:20 - 23:38)
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.
(23:38 - 23:41)
But then it's convenient for them. Blame climate change. It's not on us.
(23:41 - 23:48)
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.
(23:48 - 24:03)
There is an organization in Europe that the International Fire Service Information System, where they show charts for countries around the world. Now, for some reason, about a year ago, they stopped showing Canada. I think they still have the US.
(24:04 - 24:20)
And I think the reason why they stopped showing Canada was, and I reported on this on my news. 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.
(24:21 - 24:30)
In Canada, where, and I'm going to come right out and say it, folks, our government was starting these fires. We had a hockey stick. It was through the roof.
(24:31 - 24:59)
And we're being told by the Canadian government, well, it's global warming that's causing all these forest fires. 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. Social media platforms promote content based upon how many likes, shares and follows they get.
(24:59 - 25:16)
Please help us to spread the truth and take just a few moments to hit those like and follow buttons and then share this video to your own account. Truth is becoming ever harder to come by. But you can help spread the truth and it will cost you nothing except a few moments of your time.
