Climate scientists have absolutely no idea what's going on

Viscally responsible, financial geniuses, monetary magicians.

These are things people say about drivers who switch their car insurance to progressive

and save hundreds.

Because progressive offers discounts for paying in full, owning a home, and more, plus

you can count on their great customer service to help when you need it so your dollar goes

a long way.

Visit progressive.com to see if you could save on car insurance.

If casualty insurance company and affiliates, potential savings will vary, not available

in all states or situations.

This episode comes from my archives for the most current episodes.

Please go to germolfi.com.

My name is Jerm, this is Jermolfi, the battle of ideas.

Tonyella, thank you for joining me in the trenches.

Yeah, good to be here.

How is the information worth treating you?

Well, for me, it's great.

I used to spend many years working as an engineer designing microprocessors, doing software.

And that gets kind of boring doing the same thing over and over again.

About 14 years ago, I started, my undergraduate degree was in science and geology, so I've

always been kind of more interested in science than engineering anyway.

So as a distraction about 14 years ago, I started looking into the whole climate story

and realized that was actually pretty ridiculous.

I was actually first introduced to the global warming idea when I was working as a geologist

at Los Alamos Laboratories in 1980.

And it sounded pretty believable then.

So I was kind of a true believer for a long time, but maybe about 15 or 16 years ago,

I started looking into it and started realizing that things weren't somewhat of a mess.

And so I got really interested in it, and originally it was just a distraction from my boring

repetitive engineering work.

But then I got deeper and deeper into it.

So it's been tremendous fun for me over the last 14 years digging into this and just

seeing how ridiculous the whole thing is and exposing it.

When I first started, I had a lot of conflicts with other well-known climate skeptics who

wanted to believe that this was some sort of scientific debate.

To me, it was obvious.

It wasn't.

It was obvious.

It was a scam.

So I've been calling it a scam all along, and this offended a lot of skeptics who believed

that they could win this debate scientifically by just laying out scientific arguments.

I realized that wasn't the case because I realized that the people who were pushing this

whole thing had no interest in science.

They were just fabricating data, making up fake stories.

And it wasn't a misunderstanding, it was quite intentional, frog.

I'm talking to you right now from the bottom tip of the African continent, and I think

the global warming memo hasn't arrived because it's pretty cold, yeah.

But now the thing is they call it climate change, and now it's because the climate is changing

now.

So cold and warm now counts.

Well, yeah, when the global warming thing wasn't working out too well, I think they realized

that the extreme weather thing would always work.

Earth has always had a lot of extreme weather, terrible hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, floods.

It has been going on forever, and these are the earliest biblical stories about tremendous

floods and pestilence and locust plagues and all these horrible things.

But most people aren't really familiar with history.

So every time now there's a hurricane or there's a drought or there's a forest fire, CNN

just shows it over and over again, and they repeated on the hour every hour or more often

than that.

And so they tell people, then they get some academic kind of say, it's never been like

this before.

This is the worst hurricane we've ever had.

We've never had forest fires like this before.

What's really funny for me is, I'm from New Mexico, I come from Los Alamos, New Mexico,

which is the most educated city in the world, one-third of the population is PhDs, and you

think these people would be scientifically literate, New Mexico has been having a lot

of recurring droughts over the last 20 years.

You think these people would be scientifically literate enough to understand that this

is the climate of New Mexico.

There's a reason why the Anasazi went extinct eight hundred years ago.

It's because they had decades of drought.

And I know someone who works at Bandal Air National Monument near Los Alamos, which is Indian

run.

It was occupied until about seven or eight hundred years ago, and eventually the people

had to leave because of decades-long drought.

The creek dried up, they couldn't grow food there, they had to leave.

You think you would make the connection between that and the fact that New Mexico gets really

bad droughts.

So no, this drought is caused by fossil fuels, and no matter how much evidence I provide

these people, they refuse to believe it.

So it's very entertaining for me to see how the propaganda's mind can be convinced that

what we're seeing is unprecedented.

We've never had bad weather before.

Even though the historical record is dominated by bad weather, the droughts of 1878 killed

20 million people in India and 10 million people in China, similar thing in 1896.

But now if we have a drought or a heat wave in India or China, it kills a few hundred

people.

It's climate change.

It's something new.

It's never happened before.

It's because you're burning fossil fuels.

The whole thing is just a, it's a farce, but it's tremendously entertaining for me to

see how ridiculous human beings can be though.

Well, I mean, as I said to you a few minutes ago, it was you who pretty much read pulled

me on the whole thing a few years ago, and when I watch some of your videos, I get the

feeling that you have just, you've had it, because the amount of snorke and sarcasm.

Well, you know, these people are just making a mockery of themselves.

So I just have to basically go and finish what they're saying, show how ridiculous it

is.

And then sometimes I send my videos after them to show them how absurd they are and

hopefully instill some sense of guilt, although I don't know if that's actually possible

with these people.

Tony, when we talk about climate change though, in all seriousness, what are we talking

about?

Well, the story that's been told is that the burning of fossil fuels has increased the

amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.

So by increasing the amount of greenhouse gases, we're making the plant at hotter and this

is going to cause the Arctic to melt and the Antarctic is going to melt.

Greenland is going to melt and everybody's near the coast is going to drown and the

weather is going to become unbearably hot and we're going to have terrible droughts and

everything on Earth is going to die as a result of the extinction rebellion now.

So it's a great story, except if you actually look at the scientific basis for it, it doesn't

withstand any scrutiny.

For one thing, almost the entire effect of carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas is in the

first 50 or 60 parts per million, we're currently at 400 parts per million and increasing carbon

dioxide levels have very little effect on an Earth's radiate of transfer balance.

It's almost all of the effect is already present and additional effects are minimal and if

we go back in the historical record, you know, 540 million years ago, the amount of carbon

dioxide in the atmosphere was about 15 times higher than it is now and that's when the

greatest expansion of life occurred.

That's when corals evolved, that's when shellfish evolved.

So there was tremendous expansion of life with carbon dioxide levels much higher than they

are now in temperatures much higher than they are now.

So the basis of this extinction rebellion has no basis, it's just based on fake computer

models and hysteria superstition, but the geologic record shows very clearly that life does

very well at higher levels of carbon dioxide.

In fact, operators of commercial greenhouses greatly pump up the amount of carbon dioxide

inside the greenhouse because it makes the plants grow faster and it makes them more drought-resistant.

So higher levels of carbon dioxide are actually extremely good for life, but they're being

promoted as being very bad for life by people who want to control the energy splice.

They've made this fake story about fossil fuels are going to wipe out all life on earth

when the reality is that they're more likely to do the exact opposite.

Yeah, I'm trying to figure out where one starts with this whole climate change narrative.

I mean, there are so many places and I suppose the obvious starting point is that the climate

has always changed its cyclical and even the last 200 years or so of the industrial revolution

have made pretty much no difference to earth climate.

I think it's pretty clear that in the United States, the climate of the United States

has gotten better over the last century.

We have far fewer heatwaves, hurricanes or nannes, veertornados or nanns, drought is down.

In the 1930s, we had terrible problems with the climate, with the dust bowl, millions

of people from the Midwest had to leave their farms and move out to California.

And this caused tremendous demographic changes in the United States, flooding on Mississippi

River during 1927, that was when the worst floods in US history occurred, forced millions

of descendants of slaves who had homesteaded along the Mississippi River to abandon their

homes.

The Mississippi River was flooded for more than six months.

They couldn't farm there and they ended up moving to northern cities.

So this caused the heat's population shift where the black population of the United States

largely shifted from the south, from rural south up to northern industrial cities like Detroit

and Chicago because the bad weather in the south made it impossible for them to remain there.

So bad weather in the 20s and 30s had a huge effect on the demographics of the United

States, which I've tried to educate the public about, to realize that weather has actually

been pretty good recently, but during the 1920s and 1930s, particularly, we had very severe

climate issues which did impact people very severely.

And then just a few decades later, suddenly there was this mass hysteria about global cooling.

Yeah, there was, so there was a lot of warm in the United States and a lot of other places

like the Eastern Arctic, Iceland and Greenland were extremely warm around 1940.

There was a huge amount of warming from say 1890 up to 1940 and then temperatures started

plummeting from 1940s until the mid 1970s.

Got much colder.

There was a large expansion of Arctic ice, ports in Iceland became blocked with ice for the

first time in 150 years.

So it was causing a lot of problems.

And so this was very, it was widely discussed in the press and the scientific community.

And a lot of people we believed were headed into a new ice age.

And then after we're starting around 1976 or 1977, then things started warming back up

again and current temperatures, or maybe 20 years ago, were probably comparable to what

they were around 1940.

But distortion of the temperature occurred by people in NASA know has caused this belief

that it's much warmer now than it was back then.

But I think there's pretty strong evidence that we're no warmer now than we were 80 years

ago.

But Tony, there's a 97% consensus.

Yes, that's one of my favorite numbers, right?

So, you know, Barack Obama was a very clever guy and I think he realized that they were

never going to be able to convince the public of this of this scam.

So he came up with this idea around 2013 that we don't need to convince people the science.

We just need to convince people that scientists believe this.

So we started tweeting out stuff like 97% of scientists believe that global warming is

real.

It's manmade and it's dangerous.

So these were completely fabricating numbers.

You know, you got John Cook from Australia to make up some very contrived statistics based

on very limited sample size and misinterpreting the data, which he used in this claim.

But then the story became that it doesn't matter what the actual science says.

That's what we politicians in the press say scientists believe.

And then anyone who disagreed with that is disagreed with 97% of the world's sciences.

So that was a tremendously brilliant effort, which Obama was largely the purveyor of.

So I'm the kudos to him for such a fantastic effort and mass brainwashing.

But I mean, you're right.

It's quite clever because if you say, well, no, it's not, that's not correct.

Then the responses, are you saying that 97% of scientists are wrong?

Yes, that's what I'm saying.

Yeah, who are you to disagree with 97% of the world's science?

But that's an interesting dilemma though, because science actually is not about consensus,

Tony.

Yeah, well, first of all, it's not true.

And as you point, I've never met a serious geologist who actually believes any of this nonsense.

But even if it were true, it wouldn't make any difference.

Galileo said, in questions of science, the authority of a thousand isn't worth a humble reasoning

of a single individual.

In the 1930s, a paper was put out by 100 German scientists titled 100 German scientists

against Einstein.

And they were discreet with Einstein because he was a Jew basically, right?

But he was Germany's top scientist and they were trying to target his scientific theories.

And Einstein said, it says, okay, so if I'm wrong, all they need is one scientist to explain

that rather than 100 scientists claiming that I'm wrong.

You know, why do they need 100?

But then, all right, so what happened next, I mean, then the IPCC was formed in what, 1990,

there are bots.

Yeah.

Yeah, originally that IPCC actually was sort of a legitimate organization.

I use a lot of the material from their 1990 report, but around year 2000, they just gave

up on doing any actual science because the science wasn't working out for them.

And then they just started altering the data.

And if you compare their Arctic CIS graph from the 1990 report and the 1995 report with one

from their 2001 report, they completely changed the data because the data was what they wanted

to do.

Same thing with satellite temperature data.

It wasn't cooperating with them so they just started making up fake data.

And eventually the IPCC got completely taken over by politicians.

Chris Lanzi of the National Hurricane Center resigned in 1990.

He was head of the National Hurricane Center.

He resigned in 2007.

He said because they were just ignoring his work and they had people like Kevin Trenbirth,

just writing fake stories about hurricanes, even though they had no actual experience with hurricanes.

So what the actual science was no longer made any difference.

It was just the whole thing had been taken over by politicians.

But then something big happened and that was the hockey stick.

Yeah, so around 1995, David Demen, he was a geologist in the University of Oklahoma,

told the Senate Committee a while back that in 1995 he was contacted by a major researcher and climate

and told we have to get rid of the medieval war period because the medieval war period wrecked their whole story.

So in 1997, Michael Mann came up with this hockey stick.

He just combined a bunch of really bad.

He took a bunch of proxy data from the past.

Corrupted it.

And he combined it with really bad manipulated temperature data from NASA.

And then he threw out proxy data after the 1970, which didn't show what he wanted.

It's show, which became known as Mike's nature track or hiding the decline.

So he combined that he made this hot box of completely worthless data, combined it together and created this whole fake hockey stick

where suddenly after the year 1900 earth started heating out of control.

And the story was it was because of the burden of fossil fuels.

And it was completely counter to the work from the 1990 report.

I used their temperature data from the 1990 report IPCC.

Temperature data from 1990 report all the time because it was fairly legitimate.

But after 1997 beginning in the 2001 report, their temperature graphs just became fake data from Michael Mann.

And they created this fake story and they've been sticking with it ever since.

I remember I can't remember actually when it was, but you shared some photo comparisons over, you know,

the last hundred years of sea level locations from different parts of the world.

And I decided to see if I can dig up some photos of my own city Cape Town, the bottom of the Africa.

And I happened to find some, some photos from 100 years ago, pretty much taken from the same spot.

And the exact opposite to what she, to what the alarmism claims, the city actually moved into the ocean.

There is no, there's no evidence at all of sea level rise.

Right. And that's over 100 years.

Now, apparently we're all going to drown in the next seven years.

Right, right.

You know, I was visiting Pevency Castle in the southeast coast of England a few years ago.

And the castle is about a mile away from the ocean.

And I was talking to the curator and he showed me a picture, a photograph,

a picture of what the castle looked like when it was originally built by the Romans,

and then later used by the Normans.

So the Romans occupied it around, you know, the year 300 AD.

And at that time, the castle was a moat.

The ocean was a moat, so I was hitting the castle.

And now the castle is a mile away from the ocean.

And I said, I was just like stunned.

It's like, so 2000 years ago, sea level was all the way up to the edge of the castle.

And now the sea is a mile away.

And so that became a favorite of mine.

And then I'd looked into, and this is actually the case all over Europe,

that these places, these castles which were built using the ocean as a natural motor,

now very far away from the ocean.

This is a common thing.

So we know that sea level is much lower now than it was 2000 years ago.

But of course, that's not the story that's told to the public.

But it doesn't make sense either because if sea level rises, as I claim,

it should also rise everywhere in the same type of way.

I mean, you're not going to find India having much higher sea level to say than Brazil.

Well, you can get minor changes in differences in sea level caused by short-term wind patterns,

you know, the wind can blow waves on shore.

And you can also get differences in trends because what I gauge is that

don't actually measure rise in sea level.

They measure the difference between the land and the ocean.

So places where the land is rising, sea level will occur to be falling.

And places where the land is sinking, you'll see the opposite.

So that can be misleading like the Northeastern United States, the land is sinking.

And so it makes it look like sea level is rising there.

And Sweden, the land is rising very quickly, so it makes it look like sea level is falling,

which means Greta has to walk further to the beach, right, because sea level is falling.

How dare you, Tony.

Well, my favorite, though, is in Sydney Harbor for Dennis.

I've always got global warming protesters there.

And Bondi Beach, north of Sydney.

And if you look at historical pictures there, sea level has not changed over the last 140 years.

And I made an animation of the beach at La Jolla California at the Cove,

one of my favorite beaches from Greta picture from 18s, high tide picture from 1870,

and a high tide picture of from recent years.

And I made it so I'm more of 10 and you can see that the waves are exactly the same level as they were in 1871.

So you can do this just about anywhere.

But I mean, in all seriousness, all right, let's just pretend for a second that sea level is rising.

It would be rising at such a slow rate that you've got more than enough time to build walls.

And just raise the landslides.

I mean, it's so slow, even if it were true.

Yeah, Holland's been below sea level for their entire existence.

And they've managed to cope with it just fine.

If it actually happened, I think we could probably learn from what they were doing in Holland a thousand years ago.

People were clever enough to take care of it.

Then I think that assuming that we're as intelligent as we were a thousand years ago,

should be able to figure out a way to manage.

But they all know it anyway.

I mean, Obama bought that massive property on the coastline.

Two of them.

He's got a $20 million mansion in Massachusetts on the coast.

And now he's got another one, a $10 million mansion in Hawaii, which is also right above sea level.

So obviously, he's got $30 million invested in properties which, according to his own propaganda,

should be gone 20 years from now.

So obviously, he doesn't actually believe any of the nonsense he says.

So I've got a very important question for you, right?

Who's more accurate?

Climate change modelers?

Or Java's witnesses?

Probably the Java's witnesses.

I've never seen it.

Climate models are completely worthless.

People have this idea that, well, I came from a computer.

There must be writers and things.

I'm a computer guy.

You know, the vast majority of software out there is complete garbage.

It's pretty, a lot of really bad programmers out there.

You get a bad programmer, give them a agenda, give them lots of money to write a bad model.

You get them to say anything you want them to say.

Well, let's talk about that for a second.

Why do they keep modeling and why do people keep believing it?

Every single prediction seems to be wrong.

I mean, what?

Like we're talking 50 hundred predictions.

Well, people have very short-term memories, right?

Most people do.

So no matter how many times they've been misled, misinformed, scammed, they just come back with the same thing.

Academics say scientists say the press voices, experts say academics say.

And so that's supposed to take the little people out of the equation.

And you can't question this because this person's a PhD from Harvard.

And you're just some, you know, you're just some peasants who do you lack the credentials to question them.

So no matter how many times you hear the same nonsense and it turns out what they're saying turns out to not be true.

You're still not allowed to question them because you're a peasant.

And these are the intellectual elite.

So the dirt judgment always wins out.

Even if they've been wrong with everything they've said for the last 30 years doesn't make any difference.

You mentioned fossil fuels earlier.

You're not opposed to green energy.

No, I have wind and solar on my house.

I think they're wonderful.

It's a wonderful way to keep you off the grid.

I don't trust the government to keep the electricity on.

I don't trust them to keep my house warm.

So I've got a wood burning stove, a huge supply of wood.

I've got solar and I've got wind.

That when things do go down and I'm sure they will, then I can be able to freeze me to death.

I'll be able to keep the house nice and warm with the wood burning stove and I'll have electricity most of the time from the wind and solar.

This is what heat waves.

I keep seeing this in the media.

Hottest, hottest on record.

This town, hottest ever.

Yeah, that's come.

That's just fake.

Those are just fake statistics people are making up.

It's based on a lack of knowledge of history or manipulated statistics.

If you look in the United States, heat waves are way down from the 1930s.

We used to have various severe heat waves in the United States from the 1910s to the 1950s.

Over the last 60 years, heat waves have been much less frequent.

Currently, we're in a record low.

There's absolutely no truth to that in the United States.

Australia, what they've done is really interesting.

They had terrible heat waves during the 19th century up through like 1906,

the record heat in Victoria, Curtin 1906 in Mildura.

It's what the Australian Bureau of Meteorology has done.

It's just erased all of the temperature records before 1910.

It was very hot.

In the United States, they haven't erased them with the ideas.

They just manipulate the data to make the heat of the past disappear.

But now, these stories about heat waves are absurd.

And recently, there's been a lot of propaganda about heat waves in India,

which is, I love those stories.

India is always hot, right?

It's been terribly hot there, and particularly during the spring

before the summer monsoon start.

The worst heat in India is typically in April, May and early June

for the monsoon start.

And Mark Twain had a great quote about that.

It says, when you live in a place where the normal temperature is 138 degrees in the shade,

like India, talking about cold waves doesn't really have such meaning.

Then he goes out.

It says, it's a difference between the brass star not melting.

And not melting is what they call a cold wave.

Roger Kipling was lived in India.

And he had lots of great stories about the heat in India as well.

So the heat in India is nothing new.

And like I mentioned, heat waves and drought are there in India in 1878 and 1896,

killed tens of millions of people.

So this is not something new, but you tell your stories in the past.

It's hot.

It was really hot in India.

It was record heat in, and 50 people died as a result.

But this is nothing new.

It's just a lack of historical information, which allows them to propagate this.

But let's assume that Earth over the next century warms up by,

what is that number one degree, right?

Yeah.

What actually is the worst case scenario?

It doesn't sound very much to me.

Well, first of all, I don't think there's any reasonably little happen.

But secondly, most of the warming, which has been claimed for Earth,

has been Arctic winter temperatures.

The vast majority of the warming, which we showed in their figures,

is that Arctic winter temperatures have warmed up substantially.

Over the last 30 or 40 years.

And that's associated with the Atlantic multi decade, multi decade oscillation.

The Arctic was also extremely warm around 1940.

And the ice was melting very quickly, and the glaciers were disappearing in Greenland.

Glaciers in the United States and Europe largely disappeared during the first half of the 20th century,

during a similar warming period.

It doesn't actually have anything to do with carbon dioxide.

It just has to do with ocean circulation patterns.

But over since the 1970s, there's just been a lot of warming during the Arctic winter.

And nobody's burning up in the Arctic because the temperature is minus 20 degrees instead of minus 30 degrees.

So the actual warming that's been occurring doesn't really have much to do with increased heat waves

or getting hotter in most of the Earth.

It's just the Arctic winters haven't been quite as cold as they were previously.

Yes, but I mean, you keep seeing the sensational headlines.

No ice.

No Arctic ice by 2015.

And every time there's a number, and those headlines don't age very well.

Yeah, well, that's really interesting because the amount of there's been no change.

You know, Al Gore gave his got the Nobel Prize in 2007.

And he made this very solemn silver speech.

I like some of my favorite videos.

Talking about the Arctic's can be ice-free in seven years.

And all these very serious looking people there in Oslo.

Wow, this sounds really bad.

And of course, this and many other indications that our world is spinning out of kilter.

Well, there's more Arctic ice now than there was when he made that speech 15 years ago.

Ties isn't disappearing.

Greenland has actually seen substantial increases in the amount of ice.

Over the last few years, there was a period when Greenland was melting about 20 years ago.

But those are over.

So they're just recycling the same stories from 20 years ago when the Arctic actually was melting.

But it looks like the Arctic is headed into a cooling brain now.

In fact, the North Pole is probably having its coldest summer since 1958 right now.

And last and last winter was the coldest winter on rocker in the Antarctica.

So there's evidence that the poles are cooling down right now.

The thing about the ice, though, it seems to dominate the narrative.

Why is it so important?

Well, the story is, of course, that if the glaciers melt in Greenland and Antarctica,

that will raise sea level and then all these wonderful liberal havens like New York and Los Angeles will drown.

You know, they keep promising this will happen, but they never deliver on it.

Yeah, it would be nice to see them drowning.

Yeah, if you look at the like county by county election map of the United States,

you realize there'd be tremendously beneficial in the country of sea level wood rock.

Because almost all the democratic votes come from these coastal cities,

which would hopefully drown if it actually happened.

But like I said, they're not actually delivering just on that just quickly for a moment.

How active is Joe Biden on climate?

Because I know Obama was very obsessed with it.

Yeah, Biden, I mean, Biden's taken a lot more action than Obama did.

I'm Biden actually first in office.

He shut down the Keystone XL pipeline.

Shortly after that, he banned all new oil and gas leases.

So right after the election, immediately after the 2020 election,

gasoline prices in the United States started going up and they got up on, you know, 250% since the election.

So people took him seriously about his promises to shut down fossil fuels.

And so he he's created this huge increase in energy prices,

which the United Nations now saying is going to lead to mass starvation.

And they always say they're doing this to help the poor people,

but they're actually doing is the exact opposite what they're doing is they're leading the world into mass poverty and mass starvation

with these climate actions, which they say are designed to help poor people.

Yes, and of course, he doesn't like Russia all that much.

So he's now also trying to strangle the gas imports.

Right.

And what he seems to do actually is making Russia very wealthy,

because what Russia is doing now,

by increasing the price of gas,

this helps out Russia tremendously,

because that's their number one export, right?

So now Russia's getting a lot more money for the gas.

They saw and they and Russia's made huge new contracts with India.

There's only a lot more gas in India now.

There's only a lot more gas to China.

So what Biden's done is he's actually provided a lot of new income for Putin and Russia by doing these actions.

How how dangerous in your opinion, Tony, is climate change in all seriousness?

Well, then there's certainly been times in the past when dramatic climate change has been very devastating,

like when we get hit by a meteor and it cools the earth down,

and this can cause mass extinctions.

During the 1930s, we had terrible climate issues in the United States,

which caused huge amounts of poverty, mass migrations,

with the climate's better now than we expected.

So climate change, there was these droughts in 1870s,

in 1890s, which caused mass starvation in Asia.

There was a terrible drought in 19th,

heatwave in drought in 1921 around the world,

which threatened millions of people with starvation in Eastern Europe, Russia,

Asia, and other parts of the world.

So the history shows that heatwaves and droughts can be devastating to human race,

and history also shows that these have nothing to do with the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

It's controlled by other things.

There was a terrible heatwave in drought in the year 1540 around the world,

which caused massive problems around the world,

and that obviously was not caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

That was probably the hot, the summer of 1540 was probably the hottest summer on record in Europe.

Now, historically, do people do better in warmer weather than in colder weather,

or is it vice versa?

Definitely warmer weather. If you look at warm periods, like around the year 1200,

we had the Renaissance.

Humans did extremely well.

The Vikings colonized Greenland.

It was a period of exploration and expansion,

and economies did very well.

The England's wine industry was competitive with France during that time,

but then the weather started turning colder.

The Vikings got frozen out.

Every single Viking, every single Norseman in Greenland died off,

they just speared off the face of the earth.

Europe, with that, started having terrible problems.

It's got colder with famine, disease,

a large portion of the population of Europe was wiped out.

We started entering the dark age during the 16th century.

Traditionally, warm periods have done much, much better than cold periods.

If global warming is a thing,

the politically incorrect position would be to welcome it.

Absolutely.

If you look at our literature from around the 1970s

during that cold period of the 1970s,

Noah Magazine, the National Oceanic,

and atmospheric administration,

had a very wonderful article explaining how beneficial

the warmth of the 1940s had been to humanity,

and they explained how it had greatly reduced droughts

and famine in India.

The discussion in the scientific community

was that this cold period we were in now

was a huge threat to people in Saharan Africa,

in India and Pakistan,

and there was a terrible drought in the Sahal region

of Sub-Saharan Africa,

which was killing millions of people.

The National scientists,

the National Science Foundation,

were talking quite openly about wanting

to relocate millions of people from the Sahal region of Africa

to other climates because global cooling was killing them.

Yeah, I see where you're going with this.

But Tony, you mentioned the science community.

Shouldn't we trust the science?

Well, we should trust the science,

but there's very few actual scientists involved

in the discussion.

They always say 97% of scientists believe such and such.

But for some reason, the press always talks

to the same half-dozen or so.

Academics like Michael Mann and Katherine Hayer,

they very rarely talk to any other academics

because they're not going to tell them the story

which they want to hear.

What they've done is the whole 97% of scientists' story

has been taken over by politicians like Obama,

the press, the press controls the narrative now

and politicians do,

but there's very few actual scientists

involved in the discussion,

and they're essentially locked out.

And they tend to keep their mouths closed

because if they open their mouths,

they'll lose their funding and they'll be attacked

and their careers will be ruined

and then their family's going to starve

so they tend to just tone the line

and keep their mouths closed

because they want to keep their grandma going.

How reliable is peer-review?

It's like they're all feeding from the same trough, right?

They know that if they know if they tell the line

and if they agree and pat each other on the back,

they'll get another grant.

A good friend of mine was Dr. Bill Gray

at Colorado State University.

He was considered the world's leading tropical meteorologist.

He's the guy who invented modern hurricane forecasting.

He never gave in,

and he passed away six years ago,

but he never gave in.

And so in 1993 when Al Gore became vice president,

he invited Dr. Gray to a global warming meeting he was having.

And Bill was very outspoken.

He just flat out told Gore on the phone.

He said, look, he says,

I'm happy to come to your meeting,

but I'm not a big fan of your theories.

So Bill had gotten funding from the government every year

since the 1960s.

Never got another penny out of the government.

So the way it worked was,

he went and went up against Gore's agenda,

got their funding cut off.

Everyone knew about this.

So they kept their mouths closed and just towed the line.

And so what you typically see in these studies is,

even if there's legitimate science in the studies,

there's always the first few paragraphs,

have some gratuitous nonsense about global warming.

And that's the price that academics

have to pay in order to get it published

because they understand that very few people ever read past

the abstract, right?

So the abstract contains nonsense about global warming.

So a typical way this article is structured.

Climate change in the 16th century killed tens of millions of people, right?

And which would,

so with the promise being that climate change has always occurred,

it's not caused by fossil fuels.

But in the abstract, they say global warming

could make this worse, right?

And then it can get through peer review

because they've thrown in the global warming is bad,

global warming is going to kill people nonsense.

They don't have to provide any evidence that global warming

will make it worse.

They just have to say global warming could make it worse.

And then it's good to go,

then it can get through peer review,

and it doesn't threaten anybody's funding.

How does the layman navigate this fog of propaganda war?

Yeah, it's tough, right?

In 1841 Charles McKay wrote this wonderful book

about the madness of crowds,

mass delusions of the madness of crowds.

And he said,

his history shows that humans are driven mad and hurts

and they only regain their senses slowly and one by one.

So hopefully people like you educating the world

helps people to regain their senses slowly and one by one.

But I don't think there's any way to do it on mass

because of this Mark Twain pointed out,

it's much easier to fool people than to convince them

they've been fooled.

Once they've been sucked into this,

what are you going to tell them?

Oh, you've been wrong for the past 30 years

about this.

You've been lying to him.

Very few people are honest enough for themselves

to actually never accept something like that.

For decades, we've been told by modellers

that Antarctica is going to heat up.

All the ice is going to melt and everybody's going to drown.

But the reality is that Antarctica has been quite cold recently.

Last winter was the coldest on record in Antarctica.

This year they're having very cold weather in Antarctica as well.

And so the reason you get cold weather in Cape Town

is because of Antarctic air masses coming up.

Australia is experiencing the same thing.

Southeast Australia had their coldest start

to winter on record.

Queensland is having record cold right now.

The ski areas in Australia have been having, you know,

phenomenal early season on precedent.

So you get all this.

You're getting this cold air can't be enough of Antarctica.

And the same people have been telling us that Antarctica is warming up

and it's going to melt down and roll going to drown

are now trying to claim that the cold in Antarctica

is caused by a global warming and we predicted it all along.

They're just scamsters, right?

It's not there's no intellectual honesty going on.

And paradoxically, I've seen headlines in recent years saying,

I think coming out of the BBC actually saying,

you know, this is the end of slow fall in the UK.

All right.

Yeah, that was the big one from 2000.

Yeah, that was good.

So say good bye to ski results.

Right.

So I lived in England in the late 60s and early 70s.

And I was traveling a lot, doing a lot of business in England

during the 1990s.

And there was no question that during the 1990s,

England was much warmer than it was in the 1960s and 1960s.

1970s.

I remember flying into Heathrow in February, around 1998.

I looked down as everything was green and people were water skiing.

So yeah, England had warmed up quite a bit since the 1970s.

So there was this belief around that time, 1990s and early 2000s

that it was never going to snow again in England.

Snow was a thing of the past, right?

But I was, and I believed that I was totally bought off on the whole thing.

So I was in England on a business trip in Robbie Burns night in 2003,

which is late January, early February.

And I was in London getting ready to take a train out to Cambridge.

And it started snowing in London.

It was the first time I had done that in many years.

And I got on the train and we started going up towards Cambridge.

And eventually our train got, wasn't able to make it into the train station in Cambridge

because there was too much snow at the end.

So I walked to the pub and we knew the train station and spent the night at the pub.

And people were having a pretty good time.

But I started thinking about it.

It's like, I'd been a troll, global warming, true believe, I started believing.

If all this warps of the 1990s was caused by an increase in carbon dioxide,

why are we getting this cold weather here now?

And that's when I really started questioning it.

And I started seeing other trans and other places.

Similarly that the warps of the 1990s was going away.

And so I realized this couldn't possibly be due to carbon dioxide.

There must be something else controlling the climate.

So probably, I was a similar mindset about England in the year 2000.

But then it changed.

They started getting a lot of snow.

And actually that night was a very famous night in England

because the government of England had stopped purchasing grit for the motorways

because they've been told by academics that they didn't need it anymore.

It's never going to snore again.

So what happened was the M11 outside of Cambridge just diced over.

It's something like 11,000 cars got stuck on the motorway overnight

because the government was unable to cope with the snowfall.

And what you're saying is true, why is the entire establishment still pushing the false narrative?

What is the reason?

Well, people, this is about energy, right?

It's not about science, not about climate.

There's obviously people who want to control the energy supply for some reason.

And there's all different theories about this, some of which are extremely sinister

and actually I actually tend to go along with those bad belief.

But it's about controlling the energy supply.

By demonizing carbon dioxide, they've created this link that

learning a fossil fuels is killing poor children in Africa.

I just made a video about this few minutes ago, in fact.

And so they're creating this huge amount of guilt that Western white liberals,

they say, your use of fossil fuels is causing carbon dioxide.

It's killing poor children in Africa.

You're a horrible person.

You need to give up your fossil fuels.

And they've been extremely effective about this.

It's like Pavlov's dogs.

They've created this link.

Bad weather, children dying.

It's your use of fossil fuels that are causing it.

There's been this mass conditioning camp.

I mean, there's no scientific basis behind it.

But they've conditioned people to correlate to completely unrelated things.

And by doing this, they've been able to get people to make way for people like Obama

to do things like shutdown, the keystone pipeline, which has caused energy prices to increase,

which is actually killing poor children in Africa, right?

The actual actions that they're doing.

So what they're doing is causing the exact opposite of what they claim their goals are.

Do you see a turnaround?

Well, at some point, yeah, people...

You see in Holland, right?

Farmers are angry and they're blocking the highways.

They've been hit by this agenda.

The Dutch government is shutting down farms, which have been operated for hundreds of years based on all these fake environmental stories.

So people are getting very angry about it.

I think people are starting to get angry about high fuel prices everywhere.

When they can't get food, you know, this leads to uprising.

There's some belief that the French Revolution was the result of a decade of drought, which led to a shortage of food.

So when people are hungry, eventually they rise up and then the leaders end up like Marie Antoinette, hopefully.

Let them eat cake.

Yeah, so is your outlook of your prognosis slightly more optimistic or slightly more pessimistic?

Well, we're certainly headed into a very difficult period now.

You know, they've been successful at driving energy prices up.

This is, as the United Nations says, this is going to cause a huge food disaster.

You know, wealthy, wealthy, wide liberals will not be affected by this.

They're the ones who are in control of the press and the government will ignore it just like they always do.

So it's when does it start hitting them?

What is the people in charge of social media, the people in charge of the press?

When do they start becoming personally affected?

And that's when I think the narrative starts to change.

I suppose an extension of my question is how do we buffer against that?

I mean, are you going to buy an electric car?

Well, no, I ride my bicycle everywhere.

I hate personally hate cars.

I would never get in them if I didn't have to.

I much prefer to ride my bicycle.

But I'm like, so I got a wood burning stove.

I got solar and winds for the roof.

So what I'm doing is just insulating myself from the energy disaster,

which our governments seem to be intentionally creating.

Just quickly, Tony, as we come in for landing.

How have you coped in the last two and a half years or so?

It's been a very strange time.

Well, for me, you know, it's been very entertaining.

When the Colorado governor announced that he was going to lock the state down.

He said, screw this.

He said, it was going to like it down next morning.

Just grab the dogs, grab the car, drove off to Nebraska.

I spent a few weeks filming sandhill cranes in Nebraska.

Then I drove back and stopped in Cheyenne, Wyoming,

ran out of house here.

And I've been here ever since.

So I was lucky that I was in a locale where there was Republican states nearby.

And I could escape from it.

So I've largely been insulated from it.

Then I went down to Arizona for a few weeks to film the wildflowers blooming down there.

And on my way back, I started realizing this was a tremendous opportunity to document mass insanity.

So I started doing that.

I remember I was driving through, first of all, the roads were deserted,

which was wonderful.

I was able to drive on the interstate highway as with no traffic whatsoever.

So it was great for that.

But then on my way back from Arizona, I started realizing,

I was seeing an incredible psychological phenomenon.

I go into the, into the truck stops.

And the people working there were just terrified.

You could see the terror on their faces.

They were sure they'd been given a death sentence because they had to serve big backs.

You know, in the middle of this pandemic, I was just going to say, kill that.

So for me, it's like, I've, for me, I've just been documenting this whole thing.

Well, being in a position where I was able to be relatively insulated from it.

So, so documenting the insanity of man has been, has been quite a venture for me.

There's been times it's very irritating because I've had to travel to Colorado frequently

and during the peak of the madness, it was horrible.

And, and, and visit family down in New Mexico has been, was horrible.

I go to New Mexico was, was she was like, they, they went completely over the tickets,

deep edge down there.

I went into Starbucks out of mass.

And this like 18 year old girl was just screaming at me and demanding that I get out of her store

and trying to force a mask.

And, and one of my best friends down there is the owner of the oldest newspaper in New Mexico,

and New Mexican.

She got so angry at me for not being vaccinated, not having a mask.

She told me she didn't want to be my friend anymore and told me that I didn't have a soul.

I kicked me out of her.

You want to kill Benny?

Yeah, my, my father refused.

I got a new wife, beautiful Japanese wife, and my father refused to see us

because we weren't wearing masks.

So, so the personal toll has been, you know, dealing with friends and family has been traveling pretty much everyone

and my family has disowned me at this point.

Over this whole COVID thing.

But for, it's just part of the story for me.

You have been able to witness my own family going completely nuts over this.

I think your story is not unique though.

I think there is some comfort, there's some comfort in that.

Yeah.

Yeah, it's lots and lots of people in the island saying,

and even here in Wyoming, I've seen a tremendous amount of insanity.

For a while, the governor did have a mask mandate, which I never paid attention to,

which I could do in Wyoming and get away with it.

In Colorado, I probably would have gotten arrested and I'd done that.

But I was able to get away with it here.

But yeah, I've seen quite a bit of insanity up here as well.

So, Republican states haven't been immune to it.

Can you give me a second?

I want to grab something.

I want to show you something quickly.

Okay.

One second.

Yeah.

Good idea.

I don't have a dog in your fight, so I can get away with this.

Yeah.

I was one of Trump's original fans.

I heard him speak in April of 2015 and immediately realized he was going to win the election.

He was the only Republican who was actually telling the truth.

So, I became a huge Trump fan.

But he lost me in May of 2020.

I was hiking in Sedona, Arizona on that on that trip.

I saw someone put a post of a video of him on Twitter.

He's saying that we're going to have a vaccine by the end of the year.

It's going to be distributed by the Armed Forces.

What?

And at that point, I was like, I'm done with this guy.

The Armed Forces are, we're talking military.

We're talking force.

I don't have anything to do with your stupid vaccine.

And at that point, I lost.

You know, he lost me and I've not been a fan ever since then.

Which was really disappointing.

Yeah.

No, I agree.

I agree.

But Tony, we can people follow your work.

Yeah.

So, the best place is just go to my blog, www.relclimatescience.com.

I post everything on there.

My YouTube videos.

I put on there.

So, that's really the best place to go.

I got kicked off of Twitter.

I had a huge following on Twitter.

I got kicked off it because I posted a Pfizer document,

which was not a dispute that it was from Pfizer,

but they said it was medical business.

So, the truth became missing.

The truth right from the source became misinformation.

Oh, yeah.

But fact, fact checkers.

They're the new telemarkers, marketers of the internet, aren't they?

Right.

Tony Heller.

Thank you so much for joining me in the trenches.

Yeah, it's good talking with you, Jerome.

My name is Jerome.

This is Jerome Woffe, Battle of I.

Dears.

If you're enjoying this podcast,

please visit supportjam.com.