(0:00 - 1:49) 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. 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. 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 exposing the false climate narrative. 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, part two of this two-part interview, Frank exposes the real reason for the false man-made global warming narrative and what those behind the narrative have to gain from it. Spoiler alert, it has absolutely nothing to do with the climate. Frank, welcome back to the show. Hey, thanks for having me on. Great to talk about this. This is important, important topics for all of us folks, because we generally in the West take energy for granted. We have plenty of it. We could still afford it. And there are some forces that are really working against us, and they are using the climate change mantra to go after our energy and our food supply and ultimately control all of us. And that's what we're going to talk about today. (1:49 - 6:32) I think it's really important sometimes, just a reintroduction of myself a little bit. I served in the Wisconsin legislature as a senator and representative before that, and in Governor Scott Walker's administration. I'm a father and a grandfather. And why do I do this is because in order for us to have prosperity, and we should get back to trying to make the world a better place for our kids and our grandkids so that they can enjoy more prosperity, better lives than we have now, and energy, food supply, all of these things, freedom, are all tied up together. And I'm doing this because I want to spread the word so people understand the dangers we're in and to turn back the tide. There are some really evil people who are at the center of this. And there are a whole lot of people, as the communists used to say, who are useful idiots. They've signed up. It gives their lives meaning. They're misinformed. And we've been propagandized. And we talked a lot about that in the other presentation that we did. So you can go back and take a look at that if you haven't seen it already. But we're going to talk a little bit, just as a primer again, about urban heat island effects and about how they're lying to us about actually the temperature, the very central part of this, and about CO2. And then we'll get into who and why they are doing this. Yeah. And I completely agree with you, Frank, that we have to turn this narrative around. You and I are around about the same age. The statistics say that it was our parents' generation that was the last one that had a reasonable expectation of having a better life than their parents did. Our children, our grandchildren are not looking at having a better life. My daughter is 23 trying to find a job in a horrible market, even though she's a highly qualified architectural technician. We have to fix this. And you're right. This attack upon our energy and our food supply is a big part of it. So I want to once again thank you for taking the time. The viewers don't need to know exactly what you've been struggling with, some health problems. And so I really appreciate you making time today to do this interview and to get this second part in, which is so important to understand who's behind it. However, as you just made reference to, we realized after we turned the cameras off on the last interview that we missed an important thing in debunking the science. And I think we should start with that. Let's talk about those urban heat sinks. Yeah, the urban heat island effect, UHI, well-known, undisputed, all sides of this issue, whether you're a climate alarmist or climate realist, you agree that there's an urban heat island effect. And really it's hard to deny because all of us have experienced it. And if you don't believe me, you can on any warm day, even in the winter. If you're out in the country, it's cooler than in a city. And it makes sense. You think about it. It's the buildings, the HVAC systems, the air conditioning in the summer, all of the urban heat, the cars, the people, the concrete, the blacktop, the lack of trees, all those things make the temperature as much as 10 degrees Fahrenheit or about three to five degrees Celsius warmer than the surrounding countryside. And you say, well, why is that important, Frank? How does this figure into the climate change thing? Why do we even talk about this sort of thing? One is, yes, when you ask scientists, are humans causing warming on earth? Well, we've built huge mega cities that have grown and grown and grown. Of course, they're contributing to the heat, but that's not CO2 contributing to heat. That's human activity, making buildings, making our lives better that have contributed to heat. So any honest scientist, if you ask them, are humans making the world a bit warmer? Yeah, sure we are. And I agree with that. And it is warmer. We've been warming out of the little ice age. Also, as the climate scamsters want to tell us, pre-industrial times, hard to market. We're a few degrees warmer than the little ice age, rather a few degrees warmer than the pre-industrial times. Sounds a lot more scary. All right. Here's an example of Melbourne, Australia. And this is a worldwide effect and what they're doing everywhere throughout the world. So I could just as easily use right here in my neighborhood in Wisconsin, the Milwaukee or Racine or New York or anywhere else in the world or Canada, Toronto is they have long-term temperature stations in various different places. And at one time they were rural and now they're urban. When they're urban, that urban heat island effect has raised the temperatures by several degrees on average. And yet they don't adjust down for that. They don't take these temperature stations out, move it to another rural location and say, we need to have good, you know, good, solid data. No, they just mix it in the data and tell us that the data is just honest. Right. So thank you for pointing that out. And I've reported on this myself and you're right, it is a worldwide effect. I found some of the most egregious examples were in Great Britain. (6:33 - 11:08) In one case, I think it was recording something like eight degrees higher than the ambient temperature outside of that area because they put the thermometer up against a building in an area surrounded by other buildings where the sun was coming in from the south all day long and just baking that area. And of course that gets added to the data. And the thing is though, and you know this and I know this, they're doing that on purpose. They know the data is bad, but they're allowing that in because it supports their narrative. That's exactly right. They are in on the scam. And the reason is, is that if they would go against the scam, they lose their jobs, lose promotions, and they lose money. If NOAA and NASA and in Britain or any other place, those agencies that are involved with this are serving their political masters who are taking our money from us in taxes, or in the case of the U.S., borrowing the money and adding to our $36 trillion national debt. They are taking this money, paying people who are then scamming us with false, fake, lying data and pretending that it's all okay and that it's not made up. This slide really shows the difference on the left side is a pristine. And these two locations are only about 50 miles from each other. One is in Orland, California on the left side. It's a pristine temperature station that's been out there in the countryside. You can see there's no changes around it. And it's actually, temperatures have actually gone down. They've gone down in the real world. Now on the right side, you see one that as you were talking about earlier, surrounded by buildings, by asphalt, by a cell tower, by cars. And notice how the temperature has climbed over time where this one is. At one time, all of the things that you see built here, the man-made structures that all cause warmth and the air conditioning exhaust fans, all cause warmth. They weren't there back when it had temperatures similar to the one on the left side. So this is the type of scam that we have. They could easily correct this, but they choose not to. Right. Now, there was a quote in your book and I want to read it because it really highlights the scam and the fact that they know they're pulling a scam. And this is from Dr. John Christie. And here's what he said. I'm going to read the quote. I was at the table with three Europeans and we were having lunch. And they were talking about their role as lead authors. And they were talking about how they were trying to make the report so dramatic that the United States would just have to sign that Kyoto Protocol. There's an admission right there that they're cooking the data. At least that's the way I read it. Absolutely. And not only are they cooking the data, but then they're trying to put a alarmist face on it to drive political power. Why? So they can get more money and more prestige and more media coverage because they're all in on this climate alarmist scam. Not only are they scamming us with the temperatures that we just showed you, they're also making up the data. They literally make up one third of the data for our NOAA, our National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. They control and look over all of these in conjunction with NASA, our space agency that does satellite temperature data from around the world, which kind of faded away. It's kind of interesting. You don't see much about the satellite data anymore. But they literally are making up one third of the data set. If I made up one third of the data set, I could give you just about any number that you wanted. And it's factually, it's there. They put E's next to everything that they make up. It's an estimate. But rather than close the stations down or replace them, they aren't even very expensive, they just close down ones. Mainly they're closing down the pristine ones in the country and leaving the ones at airports and in cities existing. And a great example of that is the Miami airport. The Miami airport is far busier and far hotter. And what do jets do when they land and take off? They spew a lot of heat with those jet engines. Far more hot today than it was 70 years ago. But yet with a straight face, they say that's good data. Right. And folks, for anybody who's questioning what Frank is saying, he's got links to the proof in his book, and you'll find a link to his book beneath this interview. So now, Frank, that we've made up that little error of omission on our part from the first interview, let's talk about who's behind this and what they have to gain from it. Well, the real thing, let's get right here. This is a gentleman who worked with the IPCC, that's the UN body that's out to prove CO2, man-made CO2 is causing all global warming. (11:08 - 11:47) And his statement is one, I think, really straightforward. He says right here, and this is quoted, and this is right out of a publication. He said it. It's not made up. One has to free oneself from the illusion that the international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world's wealth. So they're right there are telling us what they want to do is they want to get control because how do you redistribute wealth? Someone has to control it. Someone has to decide taking it from these people to give it to those people. They want to get control over everything. (11:48 - 12:51) 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. 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. 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. And you can even transfer savings in your RRSP tax-free. (12:53 - 16:20) To get more information, use the link below this video to contact New World Precious Metals. 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. 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 ironwiredaily.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. And I think everything that we're about to discuss has to be done within that framework because you're right, this has got nothing to do with saving the planet. It's got everything to do with making you and me and everybody else poorer and the people at the top richer. And if you see everything through that lens, it all starts to make sense. Well, and I just saw a really great clip with Elon Musk. And it's really interesting because Elon Musk is talking to a large audience and he's saying, you know, and they were bringing up, they're talking about, you know, tell us about Bill Gates. And he's like, well, I disagree with him on many things. And he was really kind of quiet and nice, but you can tell that. But he said, the major difference is I'm an expansionist and Bill Gates is not. And this is kind of essential to the heart of all of this of why the control, not only is it personal power, turning us all back into literally back into serfs, like in the middle ages where the king and queen ruled everyone and you just served at the leisure of the king and queen, as Klaus Schwab has said, who's the head of the World Economic Forum, is you'll own nothing and you'll like it and you'll be happy. I mean, literally, that's what he said. And the idea is, is it will just rent everything. Well, if you rent everything, what happens if you, if your landlord doesn't like you anymore, or you say something or do something that they disagree with, they just don't allow you to lease anymore. So that's the type of control they're looking to do. They want to have big companies control virtually everything. So Bill Gates believes we have too many people on earth. We have 8 billion people. He stated it. He said it. It's out there that we have too many people on earth, but yet he's pushing vaccines and various other things that in theory should keep people alive. It should make you a bit suspicious. But there are people who believe that we should really downsize the world's population from 8 billion people down to maybe 500 million people, or maybe 1 billion people at the most, because they make the claim, falsely, that the earth doesn't have enough resources to support all of us well. And there's plenty of evidence that this is completely false. This is the Malthusian idea that there are just too many humans and we're going to use up all the resources. Then there was Paul Ehrlich, and I believe I cover him in my book. I've done so many different presentations, but I believe I cover it in the book, is Paul Ehrlich, who wrote the Population Bomb back in the 1970s, who said the world by now, in 2020, even 20 years ago, by 2000, was going to completely overpopulate. We're going to have worldwide starvation. We're going to use up everything. And the world naturally, because of the starvation and the terribleness, was going to downsize population. (16:22 - 16:29) Yeah. And I wanted to add something to your comments there, and it's very, very important. There was a book published by two Canadian researchers in 2019 called Empty Planet. (16:30 - 18:17) And what they looked at was those claims of continually escalating population, which are coming from the WHO, from the UN, and they completely debunked them. And the way they did it was because, see, what they explained was the WHO and the UN, they do those projections just by taking past curves and just continuing them. And what these researchers did, which was very intelligent of them, was they actually looked at the birth rates in countries around the world, because estimates range between needing 2.1 and 2.3 babies per woman just to maintain your population. And they found almost nowhere that still had a minimum of 2.1 babies per woman being born. And so what they predicted from that was that the world population would peak around about 9 billion at 2050, and then it would start to go down. And they said there's really good reasons for this. The biggest one is education and prosperity. Once you give women an education and the chance to have a career just like men do, they amazingly decide to stop being baby factories. And so it's a self-correcting problem. And this is the thing I want to get across to the viewers. It's very, very important to understand this. The earth will never be overpopulated because just to reach 8 billion people requires the kind of technological infrastructure that we have. You have to have logistics. You have to be able to ship large amounts of food and resources in order to support that population. And to do that, you need to have computers and advanced technology. And as soon as you get that, now you have removed mostly the physical strength factor from labor. And now it's all about what's up here. And a woman can do that as well as a man can. And so suddenly women get equality, and they're able to get these jobs and these educations, and the population will naturally go down. You can't overpopulate the planet. It's just not possible to do it. (18:18 - 22:28) Well, and adding on to what you said, the other parts of this is, as we get welfare systems, social welfare, social security, old age in a lot of poor countries in the world, you have to have six, seven, eight, nine, 10 kids because you might lose two or three or four of them as they're youngsters for diseases and other things. And even in their middle ages, things like I have, some nasty kidney stones, would kill people in poorer parts of the world. So you need it. And who's going to take care of you when you're old? At least one of your kids has to do that, or you're destitute. So you need to have children, and you need to have enough of them. And they also, in farming communities, they're helpful because you can put young kids to work weeding plants, planting things, harvesting, and working, going out and collecting wood to burn for fire or dung to burn for fire to cook your meals. So they become valuable. And as people become wealthy and well off, and there's a good chance that your children are all going to survive to old age, and you're going to have a social network, and you can build capital and have money put away for yourself, and you have social security and pensions, you don't need to have six, seven, eight, nine kids. And in fact, they become liabilities. They cost more. So you're paying to raise kids, which Elon Musk and I agree with him 100%. My wife and I together, we're a blended family. We each brought three daughters to our marriage, and we have a son together. So between the two of us, we have seven children. Elon Musk, I think, has even more kids than that. And he makes the point that I'd even suggest that even if we end up with 12 billion, 20 billion people, the earth has plenty of room to support it. Right now, we're using the same amount of land that we used 50 years ago to grow literally three to four times more crops than we used to, and we have larger harvests. It's incredible how much productivity we're getting out of the land. CO2 is plant food, as we covered in the previous issue. And we have worldwide crop harvests in virtually every crop in every country in the world, unless they screw things up, like following World Economic Forum's ideas and Sri Lanka did. Unless they screw things up, we're going to continue to see that grow because CO2 is mega plant food. It's going to take 200 years for us to double CO2 in the atmosphere, and most plants grow far better at three to five times more CO2 than we have now. And we have a 35% greener world than we used to. And this is according to NASA, and it's in my book, and you can Google it up yourself. Google hasn't hidden it yet. They're in on the scam, folks. They want to hide data from you. But if you Google 2016 CO2 fertilizer effect, you'll see the NASA study that says the world is 35% greener in just 40 years. I mean, if you think about it, it's astounding. The areas, and you can Google this up as well, forests the size of France have regrown naturally. They've regrown naturally, without man doing much to them at all. So the world is greening up. That means more food for people, animals, more harvest, and it takes the pressure off because when people have enough food, and they're able to harvest it, and they switch to fossil fuels, natural gas, coal, and oil, and they don't have to cut down forests and gather dung to cook over, which is really dirty and harmful and hard on women, then part of that progress you talked about, then they don't have to spend those hours a day getting all those things and cooking over a fire. It changes their lives, and they have prosperity. That prosperity builds upon it. And the point that Elon Musk makes is that more people are more brainpower, more discoveries, more moving forward, better things can happen to us. And I really look forward to, and I'm hopeful that at some point, and before I pass away, I can travel to Mars. Because I think moving to Mars is just a fantastic idea, and we need a big picture human directed goal versus this climate change negative degrowth, worse, less, bad for all of us, bad for our children and grandchildren. We should be optimists, and I think even if we had double the population, 16 billion people, I think the world can support it very well. (22:28 - 22:48) And I agree completely, and the studies support that statement as well. The ones that I've read say that this world could comfortably support 17 billion people without us really even noticing the impact. So now that we have thoroughly debunked the overpopulation narrative, now I'm going to ask you to talk about what's the real reason why they want to depopulate the world. (22:55 - 23:18) Social media platforms promote content based upon how many likes, shares, and follows they get. 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.